Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id AAA12633 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 16 May 2000 00:02:51 +0100 Message-ID: <39203C76.A6296F1B@mediaone.net> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 19:05:42 +0100 From: Chuck Palson <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Central questions of memetics References: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJGEAOENAA.richard@brodietech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Richard Brodie wrote:
> <<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.
I think I answered this in another form yesterday - but it goes like this. Yes,
people do hold beliefs on the basis of their _apparent_ usefulness, and most
beliefs in an ongoing society _are_ accurate or the society would collapse
pretty fast. It is up to the scientist to figure out how these beliefs are
useful because people can't always make that conscious -- because it often does
them no good to be able to verbalize it.
> 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.
As far as I can figure, it is the usefulness itself that makes it easy to spread
ideas or behaviors. Convince someone that a new invention will be useful to them
and it spreads.
>
> <<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?>>
It's too late to take that bet. Whats-her-name found one - the little musical
ditties that circulate around inside our heads like the annoying fly that won't
leave us alone and we can't swat! As they say, Richard, the early bird gets the
worm, ah, I mean buck.
>
>
> The problem is that we are looking for a mechanism to explain cultural
> evolution. You say religions adapt. How do they adapt?
I don't know how to take this question. They adapt the way we adapt at
everything. We find that ways of thinking and behaving just to make sense
anymore- they aren't getting us anywhere. So we start poking around, looking to
people who might have a better idea. I don't recall saying that people don't
consciously do this. As I think I wrote yesterday, the change involves some
conscious decisions, but most of it is probably done by other parts of the
brain.[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.
>
I am not using the term useful in some gradiose sense of being universally
useful, but only useful from the immediate point of view of the individual.
People adopted Hitler's ideas as useful from a number of perspectives: if you
wanted to get a position in the government, if you were distraught about the
collapse of German power, if you nursed a grudge with some of the Jewish
merchants of the area, if you wanted to get a position in government, if you
wanted to loot the Jewish homes of their art works, etc. etc. Hitler's
solutions seemed useful to people for many different reasons. Dawkins makes the
same mistake you are making by judging that religions aren't useful because God
doesn't exist. To say Hitler's solutions were morally wrong misses the point -
people went for his suggestions because they had immediate use value -- however
morally repugnant they were to us.
>
> [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.
>
But I am talking about only very recently. Their use has indeed soared. I can't
remember the source on that, though.
>
> 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.
I think before I understand this differences, I am going to concentrate on the
connundrum of the protochicken because it's moist breast meat would be far more
useful to me. -:)
>
>
> << 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?
>
> <<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?
I didn't say there weren't currently other ways. But they have only come into
use within the last few hundred years, and they aren't by any means in general
use. Presently the existing official alternatives in religion are having a hard
time precisely because the laws of society are hard to agree on because we are
in a transitional period.
>
>
> [RB]
> 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.
Yes - and they don't last. They were the failed experiments.
>
>
> << 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!
I think we agree on this.
> << 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.
There are several levels to my answer on this one.
level 1. I wish I lived in Southern California right now!
level 2. I want to respond in a separate e-mail because it's a very important
subject. -- California, some other places and some other examples in
historical time are exceptions that prove the rule.
>
>
> << 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.
"It's"?? Religion is made up of actual people with brains that discriminate and
compute. Religion is made into an abstract entitity by those who study it. They
can do this because people make stable arrangements with each other that persist
through time. If you asked a Catholic up until - say 1960 - if they want to
confession, they would say yes. That arrangement lasted for perhaps centuries
and an outside observer would use "it" to characterize it in shorthand, meaning
that it was a stable institution that probably all Catholics participated in.
Today that institution has become far less important (the ones that go often
travel to another parish where the priest doesn't know them). So it was the
individuals of the flock that found the ritual of confession no longer answered
a need.
>
>
> << 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?
No - it's individuals and groups of them that codify new laws. I don't
understand how you arrived at your guess. Oh well.
>
>
> <<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.
Mystified by what this is responding to.
>
>
> [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?
>
Yes I am, and it's a good example of how people tried to adapt to the new
technology and failed. You are correct when you say that mere correlation
doesn't prove anything. But if you look at the changes people make in their
religion, it turns out that it tracks the changes in laws -- and thinking --
that are necessary to adapt to the new environment.
> << 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."
I think you are sort of right on this one. Indeed, there have been failures, and
the Cargo Cults are a glaring example.
> That's not what you
> said before either... you said by and large
"by and large" are the operative words here. OF COURSE there are failures. Is
the current situation of perhaps unprecedented rates of change a failure? Could
be. The point is, however, what are the critieria of success. I want to talk
about this in my separate response.
> people choose beliefs that are
> useful. I think that's a crock of bull.
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.
I don't think so. Just because it's non conscious doesn't mean that it is a meme
the way memists talk about memes.1
>
>
> <<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,
I don't think anyone has yet even figured out how to program in attitudes
(which are what define the goals from moment to moment). Just a minor detail I
thought might be useful to bring up for the future.
> 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.
Sounds like a reasonable approach. But I can't comment because the devil is
always in the details when people teach. I was just suggesting some of the
things in general that get in the way of teaching certain well defined subjects.
I'll be back to you on the question of Southern California prosperity in the
next few days. I'm not sure of its implications in terms of memes, but I think
it is a special situation that _might_ favor something that looks a bit more
like the notion of useless memes.
>
> 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 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 : Tue May 16 2000 - 00:03:15 BST