Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA11188 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 15 May 2000 15:55:50 +0100 From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Central questions of memetics Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 07:53:37 -0700 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJGEAOENAA.richard@brodietech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3918097B.21AECAFC@mediaone.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Chuck keeps stressing that he doesn't understand the value of looking at
memes as central players in cultural evolution. Frankly I'm in partial
agreement... I think memeplexes or viruses of the mind are more interesting
to examine and devoted most of my book to examples of their creation and
evolution rather than that of individual memes. I'm going to respond to
snips form many of his messages of the last week in bulk:
<<As someone else said at this site, popularity doesn't determine scientific
accuracy. It is true that many social scientists have very little idea of
how
belief structures are related to practical reality. But you give me a belief
structure, and I'll show you its use.>>
So you draw a distinction between "useful" and "scientifically accurate." I
think you are equivocating on the idea of usefulness. You claim that people
choose beliefs because they are useful, but then you don't have a definition
of "useful" adequate to predict which beliefs will win out over others.
Memetics predicts that beliefs will spread for a variety of reasons all
related to the ease with which people accept and spread them rather than
their usefulness to the individual or society.
<<Let's do this: You obviously don't believe it. You believe that memes can
exist
without a useful function. How about I will give you $1.00 for each such
meme
you can find up to, say $100. If you can't find even one that doesn't have a
useful function, you owe me $100. If you are right, it's certainly an easy
way
to make some quick money, no?>>
I'd be happy to bet you if someone other than yourself---Wade, for
instance---were the judge of what is useful. You seem to use the word
"useful" when you mean "having any effect at all" without regard for how
that effect aids or hinders individuals in what
they say is most important to them. Our beliefs do have effects. That is
quite different from saying that at any time we are choosing the beliefs
most useful to us automatically. (I've covered this more in a post
yesterday.)
[CP]
> << As I keep saying, religions only change as a way to adapt behavior
> (really, the body of law that governs behavior) to the new conditions
> introduced
> by the technology or economic arrangements. I know next to nothing about
> Buddhism, so I can't comment on that, but I know that Christianity has
> changed
> through the years (See" The History of God" by Karen Armstrong).>>
>
[RB]
> And this change benefits who? The religion, right?
>
[CP]
<<In what sense do you mean that? The functionaries of the religious
structure?
Yes, I suppose they benefit in the same way that the salesman for a
revolutionary new invention benefits. But he can only sell the product if
people
perceive benefit. The short of it is this: the most important part of
religion
is its law giving function, whether that law be formal or informal, implicit
or
explicit. Religious laws express the idea that these laws are quote
literally
above any one individual, and religion introduces all kinds of rituals that
induce the sense that law is 'above' us in every sense of that term. From a
broader perspective, these laws are what make cooperative behavior
possible --
which happens to be the essence of human ability to survive. Today we have
formal governments that do much of the work, but religion for many people is
still a necessary supplement. If you want to get a more detailed sense of
how
Christianity does this, read Max Weber's works on it - they are quite
detailed.
His only error was that he got it wrong - the religion doesn't come before
capitalism, it comes as a way to adapt to emerging capitalist structures.>>
The problem is that we are looking for a mechanism to explain cultural
evolution. You say religions adapt. How do they adapt? By magic? You've
already said you don't think there are individuals or committees consciously
amending religions in response to environmental change. How, other than
memetics, do you explain the change?
[CP]
> <<Give me ANY belief system and I will
> show you how it has material consequences. I'm quite serious. Give me
> anything,
> and I'll demonstrate it.>>
>
[RB]
> You'll get no argument on this one. But "material consequences" is not the
> same as "useful," is it?
[CP]
<<OK - useful material consequences.>>
If you could say with a straight face that the Nazi mind virus in WWII had
useful material consequences overall, then you have stretched the definition
of "useful" beyond all recognition.
[RB]
> Then how do you explain the fact that seniors are the slowest group to
adopt
> computers?
>
[CP]
<<You haven't kept up with the stats. It has changed very rapidly.>>
"I haven't kept up with the stats." A brash statement. In 1995 over-55 Web
users made up only 5% of total users versus 21% of the overall North
American population. Now they make up 12%. As I said, they are the slowest
group to adopt. Every other age group was already well represented on the
Internet in 1995.
http://www.otn.com/otn/aboutinternet/Demographics-Nielsen.html
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/story/story_4246.html
<<I get the contradictory messages from
Blackmore that on the one hand she takes the analogy to genes quite
seriously
sometimes, and on the other that it is "just" an analogy.>>
The tight part of the analogy is evolution of replicators by differential
selection. The part of the analogy that doesn't work has to do with the
genotype/phenotype distinction and the immutability of the nucleic material.
Memes are more malleable. Also, viruses of the mind are replicators in their
own right whereas biological organisms are "survival machines" for their
genes.
<< It seems to me that
saying it is useful to the meme is taking it pretty seriously. If you mean
that literally, I have no idea what you mean - I can't even imagine that a
word in and of itself competes with other words for memory space.>>
Robin suggested that if you are earnest about wanting to understand
Darwinism you read Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea. I'd hate for you
to give up just because you don't understand it right now. I'd also be happy
to send you a copy of Virus of the Mind.
<< As far as I
know, brain scans show that the decision to use a word comes from an area
outside of memory and corresponds to a particular idea that has to be
communicated. In other words, it's the human being that makes the decision
that benefits.>>
I see no connection at all between what areas of the brain are involved and
who benefits. What areas of the brain are involved when someone gets mugged?
Who benefits?
<< I still don't understand how the adoption of the metaphor of an
independent meme gets us anywhere.>>
But you're working on it...
<<Religion is used to establish and respect laws
for the purpose of cooperating to survive.>>
I don't know what you mean by "is used." There are almost as many atheists
in the world as Christians so survival doesn't seem to be a factor. Animals
don't have religion and they survive. You seem to be claiming that religion
is beneficial to survival, but why would you think that?
[RB]
> Religion is not about what is true. Religion is about what beliefs are
> likely to yield a desirable life.
>
<<"True?" -- in what sense. I would say that religious beliefs are very true
in
the sense that they result in the formation of groups that successfully
exploit
the environment and therefore survive.>>
I'm unaware of any meaning of "true" that fits your description. If the
beliefs help their adherents survive better, that more fits what I said
about leading to (presumably) a more desirable life. But certainly there are
examples of religions, such as Koresh and Heaven's Gate, that do not enhance
survival but just the reverse.
<< If you mean by true the hackneyed notion
that God does not exist, I don't think you have noticed what religion
actually
does.>>
On the contrary, what religion actually does is what I'm talking about!
<<"Desirable"?? What a word. Sufficiently vague to include a lot. So
according to
my definition of desirable, I will agree with you.>>
Good!
<< Something is really desirable
that leads to survival.>>
You must be joking. Is your life about survival? Where do you live? Here in
Southern California people have little problem with survival. Most of us are
working on advanced goals like financial abundance, enjoying life, and so
on.
<< Religions have come and gone, and you find that those
that don't answer to the very real need to encode and encourage the kinds of
laws that make cooperation possible disappear pretty fast.>>
Actually I find that those that don't answer the very real need to maintain
their traditions and spread to others (either descendants or peers)
disappear pretty fast.
<< See Karen Armstrong's
"The History of God" that shows how Christianity morphed into different
religions as the times demanded. You may not agree with the kind of
cooperation
the Catholic church codified, but you can't argue with a 2000 year success
story.>>
You're making my point. It's the religion that survived, not the individuals
involved. Christianity is a virus of the mind and a very successful one.
It's ability to morph while maintaining core elements and evangelism made it
successful.
<< Nor can you argue with the fact that the story may be coming to an end
because it finds it very difficult to codify new laws that are more
appropriate
to modern conditions.>>
Here you seem perfectly willing to threat the religion as if it had a life
of its own. Have we won you over?
<<I hope you don't think I am talking about perfection here. I would never
use
that word. I am only saying that people have to adapt to new environments.
If
they don't, they die. Perfection as it is currently defined has nothing to
do
with this concept.>>
Utter nonsense. America is full of maladapted, unhappy, dysfunctional people
who don't die any sooner than anyone else.
[CP]
<<My
assumption that beliefs (in morality or anything else) are adaptations to
environments is pretty solid given that beliefs ALWAYS change when the
environment changes. The latter always precedes the former.>>
[RB]
> So the picture on my TV screen is an adaptation to my remote control?
[CP]
<<I am confused here. Neither is a belief -- although you have to believe
the remote works after a while because -- it does. So your beliefs about a
remote are accurate because you test them out over time. >>
I was testing your analogy. You were adamant that because changing
environment always precedes changing belief that the latter is an adaptation
to the former. I made the point that when I change my remote control, my TV
picture changes, but it is not an adaptation. Likewise, changing the
environment may product a change in beliefs, but that change may not be an
adaptation. Are you familiar with the cargo cults?
<<Obviously I use adaptation in a non-phenotypic way. As for fitness of the
virus by which you mean the meme,>>
No! A mind virus is not the same as a meme.
<< I still don't see how this enhances our understanding. It seems to me
that real biological fitness is the issue here - why make it into a
metaphor? The "meme," if you will, can enhance the fitness of the brain. >>
Meme evolution takes place so much faster than gene evolution that
biological fitness is only a foundation, not a goal. In the long run, as
Blackmore speculates, there may be some feedback. But look how much culture
has evolved just in our lifetimes! There hasn't been enough time for
biological fitness to adapt.
<<However, I am also saying that so far I have been able to demonstrate in
every case I have found across time and space that those humans who have
survived have made choices that enhance fitness. >>
That is tautological by the definition of "fitness." That's not what you
said before either... you said by and large people choose beliefs that are
useful. I think that's a crock of bull.
<<brain scans and other technology shows that we almost never make decisions
based on the neat decision trees that tell us how to make decisions. That's
only the case in very formal situations. The limbic system makes the
decision, and our conscious brain then rationalizes it and makes us think we
did it all consciously. >>
You're in agreement here with the mainstream of memetics.
<<So in conclusion, there are lots of reasons why you might not be able to
teach a perfectly rational way to make a set of decisions. >>
Consciously choosing beliefs is what I said I taught, not perfectly rational
ways to make decisions. I think of my mind as a computer whose program is
the set of beliefs, attitudes, opinions, myths, and so on that I've
accumulated. These memes I'm programmed with play a large part in my
decision-making process, which in turn causes the results I get in life.
When I see results I don't like, I look for ways to reprogram myself to get
better results.
Richard Brodie richard@brodietech.com
http://www.memecentral.com/rbrodie.htm
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 15 2000 - 15:56:19 BST