Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA09851 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 2 Jun 2000 03:47:53 +0100 From: "Richard Brodie" <richard@brodietech.com> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Cui bono, Chuck? Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 19:45:42 -0700 Message-ID: <NBBBIIDKHCMGAIPMFFPJAEHAEOAA.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) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3933A590.71C8928@mediaone.net> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Chuck wrote:
> <<Sociobiology itself is far more useful in developing ideas on why
culture
> might
> work "against biological reproduction.">>
>
> Now I think you not only don't understand memetics, but you also don't
> understand sociobiology. A sociobiologist would always hold that culture
> ultimately supports biological reproduction.
<<Wrong again. No evolutionist, including myself, ever said that species
don't
make mistakes that can sometimes lead to extinction. As usual, you don't
read my
postings very carefully. I have made it quite clear that people fashion
solutions with culture that **appear** to them to be viable solutions.>>
Great! Glad to be wrong. So you acknowledge that:
1. People do not always choose memes that are useful, but instead choose
memes that appear to them to have some utility. (Do you agree that this
might be something as simple as "not rocking the boat", believing a
simplistic but wrong solution, or sticking with a belief because it would be
painful to admit being wrong?)
2. Sometimes culture evolves in a way that decreases biological fitness of
the hosts.
Now we still have to see if you believe that it is possible for ideas to
spread among people or if you think everyone must come up with each new idea
in isolation. If you believe it is possible for ideas to spread, then the
only question remaining is how tightly that spread is reined in to the
benefit of the genes. Dennett says not at all. E.O. Wilson says it is. My
hunch is with Dennett but I'm willing to be wrong on that point---it would
not affect the validity of memetics.
<<The concepts I bring to this listserv have to do with
lots of careful reading of others' ideas and research and not being bound to
a
particular academic environment that censors ideas.>>
I believe you and admire your talent for synthesis.
[CP]
> << Since memics is based on a silly
> metaphor, it simply has no potential to do what it says it can do. >>
>
[RB]
> I'm not sure what "memics" is. Memetics is based on Darwinian evolution.
For
> someone to call Darwinism a silly metaphor is, in my mind, quite damaging
to
> your credibility.
<<Both Dawkins and Blackmore go to great pains to say it is "just" a
metaphor -
and then seem to ignore their warnings.>>
As others have posted, all of science is "just" a metaphor. The "just" is
for people who think there is such a thing as absolute truth and have
trouble fitting evolution into their world view. I actually think I did a
pretty good job of explaining this in Virus of the Mind.
[CP]
> <<For example,
> no one yet has explained to me what advantage resides in using the notion
> that
> memes - whatever they are - are independent entities that are in many ways
> like genes.>>
>
[RB]
> Alas, half a dozen people have explained it to you. I just don't think you
> get it.
<<Come now, Richard. I took advantage of your invitation to go to your site
to
read your FAQs on the subject, and when I pointed out that the question had
not
yet been answered in them, you told me at that point that memics>>
memetics?
<< was just a
device to get people's attention and not to worry about the question of
their
independent existence.>>
I said the syringe on the cover of my book was a device to attract
attention, not the science of memetics itself. I suggested you not get hung
up on memes having a "life of their own" because you don't seem to
distinguish between concrete objects and abstractions and I thought it was
getting in your way.
[RB]
> I'm guessing that you are having difficulty with what Dennett calls
> the "intentional stance." You use the word "entity" and "life" like they
> have fixed metaphysical meanings. In science everything is a model, a
> metaphor. If the model produces reproducible, useful results it deserves
to
> be a part of science.
>
<<I haven't read Dennet yet. Probably will soon.>>
He'll be delighted.
[CP]
>
> <<I'm not sure there aren't a lot of people out there claiming that memic
> theory
> is a complete theory of culture. After all, Dawkins himself says in effect
> that
> it alone can account for variability in culture.>>
>
[RB]
> I don't know anyone but you who talks about "memic theory." Are you
> inventing a new word for some reason, deliberately using "memic" and
> "memeist" to ridicule, or are you just careless?
<<I only know what I read, and Dawkins himself is treating it as a theory
when he
suggests it can by itself explain cultural variability.>>
You only know what you read??? This from the man who was telling us moments
ago that individuals independently come up with all ideas in response to
cultural needs???
If Dawkins said that I do not think most memeticists would agree.
[RB]
> A lot of times it seems to me that you miss the point of memetics, which
is
> that the future is created in large part by successful replication of
> existing things, and that genes, the replicator that evolutionary
scientists
> have focused on in the past, are not sufficient to explain culture.
<<This is an assumption on your part - and a lot of people on this site --
supported by proofs that are either outright frauds or manufactured by
imaginative minds ignorant of the facts.>>
It's not an assumption... it's the whole damn theory! And since you haven't
read Brodie or Dennett I don't think you're qualified to judge "proofs" you
haven't read.
[RB]
> When you
> attempt to counter that claim, which I really don't believe you even
> understand, you tend to expound on narrative explanations that demonstrate
> the progress of various cultural developments. But you don't have an
> explanation for the mechanism, just a story about the progress.
<<You have never answered why my tests of falsifiability are wrong, and I
have
never used the word progress or any word that could be construed in that
way. On
the other hand, you have never offered any such tests.>>
Paul Marsden has offered you several tests so I assume you're happy with
that. I have falsified your theory with the counterexample of Ebay.
[RB]
> Saying that
> developments are necessary progressions may even be true,
<<The very fact that you could even suggest this makes me wonder how well
you
understand Darwinian evolution.>>
Not surprising, I've seen no evidence that YOU understand it.
[RB]
> but is there a
> magic fairy causing these progressions? I asked earlier if you thought one
> or more persons were designing and implementing these changes and you said
> of course not. What then is the mechanism, if not differential selection
of
> cultural replicators?
<<Selection by whom if not by active human brains evolved for certain kinds
of
problem solving? That is the nature of my question about the advantage of
assuming that memes have an independent existence. Again - when I pushed the
question, you admitted that it was just a rhetorical device -- which I
agreed
with. So what is the nature of your turnround, if there is in fact a
turnaround?>>
No turnaround. I think the problem is that you have a vague or flawed
understanding of both the scientific method and Darwinian evolution. Science
proceeds by developing models that prove themselves effective in explaining
and predicting phenomena. One such model involves the "gene"---an
abstraction that does not correspond 100% to physical entities although most
dabblers think genes are precise stretches of DNA. Memes are even less
precisely matched to the physical (although some believe we will eventually
make a better correspondence). The utility of the theory does not depend on
such a physical definition, but rather on a functional definition: how good
is the theory at predicting the future?
In 1995, when I published Virus of the Mind, I predicted increasing sex and
violence on TV and proliferation of the "profit virus." The first has come
to pass and "viral marketing" is now a hot buzzword in corporate America.
More and more companies are implementing referral and loyalty programs, both
predicted by memetics. There are many more predictions that can be made and
experiments that can easily be performed. Will people pay more attention to
a message with danger, sex, and celebrities in it? Will that message more
successfully be re-transmitted by word-of-mouth? This is the type of very
simple result predicted by memetics.
The more exciting and threatening thing, though, is memetic engineering. I
predicted in 1995 that memetically engineered cults will become more and
more powerful. I've been following one in particular whose name I don't
mention because I don't want to get on their hit list. Evangelistic
religions are more popular than ever, as predicted. This is all memetics.
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 : Fri Jun 02 2000 - 03:48:46 BST