Are Memes Taking Over?

[Nick227]

I read an interview with Susan Blackmore on the subject of memetics, which took place during this year's TED Conference, and wondered what forum members thought of it.

Nick

Wired: You refer to memes as an organism and talk about them as things we have no control over. Are we completely powerless against them?

Blackmore: Some of them we can control. But as more and more stuff comes our way, our control becomes less and less. You can in the early stages of a new meme drag it back and stop it. If you know that only two or three other people know something you can stop them from spreading it. Or if a book has been written, you can burn the paper that it's written on. But once a meme has been let loose in the population, you can't take it back.

What culture is doing, what the memesphere is doing, is taking a human being and infecting it with masses of new information and exploiting its tendencies. We are being turned from ordinary old-fashioned meme machines into what I call "teme" machines -- machines for copying technological information, spreading photos and printed words and digital files.

We can choose to turn our computer off if we want to (stop from absorbing and spreading some memes). But we as a species are not in control of the internet. We are not in control of the growth of new media. And we are getting less and less able to control what goes on out there.

What I believe is happening now is that true teme machines are arriving -- that is, machines that copy and produce variations and then select. That's what you need for an evolutionary process; that's natural selection.

Up until very recently in the world of memes, humans did all the varying and selecting. We had machines that copied -- photocopiers, printing presses -- but only very recently do we have artificial machines that also produce the variations, for example (software that) mixes up ideas and produces an essay or neural networks that produce new music and do the selecting. There are machines that will choose which music you listen to. It's all shifting that way because evolution by natural selection is inevitable. There's a shift to the machines doing all of that.

We're not there yet. But once we're there, there's going to be evolution of memes out there that is totally out of our control.

Wired: What will that look like?

Blackmore: Well, it will look like humans are just a minor thing on this planet with masses (of) silicon-based machinery using us to drag stuff out of the ground to build more machines.

We are so ego-centric. We think of ourselves as the center of the universe. We need to do a flip and see us as a player in a vast evolutionary process, which we're not in control of.

Wired: Why is the area of meme study controversial?

Blackmore: I can think of three reasons. One, people misunderstand it. They think memes are the same as ideas.

Two, they are frightened of it. Memetics appears to have a lot of implications that we humans are machines, which people have never liked. Of course we're machines, we're biological machines. But people don't like that. Free will and consciousness is an illusion, and the self is a complex of memes. People don't like that. My view is that if these things are true it doesn't matter if we like them or not.

The third possible reason is maybe it's a load of garbage. But we'll find that out if we do the science and make testable predictions and compare memetics with other theories about culture; we'll find out whether it's true.

Wired: Why is it important to study memes? What can we learn from the phenomenon?

Blackmore: We understand human evolution in a completely different way. We need to see what's going on in the world. The world is being taken over by the technological memes, and if we don't understand what's happening we are not going to be able to cope with it.

The stress on a human brain, the way our kids' brains are torn in 10 bits at once doing multitasking, the pressures to take drugs to stay awake so you can process more memes all day ... The stresses on the human brain are huge and we need to understand why and how.

 

[paximperium]

Uh...memes are ideas. They've been with human kind since we started communicating with each other.

 

[volatile]

Your questioning title is exactly the type of misunderstanding Blackmore talks about. "Memes" cannot take over, as Pax hints at, because they are simply extant packets of cultural information. The question as you pose it nonsensical and meaningless.

Particular memes may (will) become more dominant and widespread over time, however.

 

[Nick227]

Your questioning title is exactly the type of misunderstanding Blackmore talks about. "Memes" cannot take over, as Pax hints at, because they are simply extant packets of cultural information. The question as you pose it nonsensical and meaningless.

Particular memes may (will) become more dominant and widespread over time, however.

Well, Blackmore asserts that the self (self-image or narrative self) is memetic in nature. Thus, given that the organism also has a biological self, a body with needs, one can state that memes could take over the body or the brain. They would need to pay lip service to biological needs, but that's it, as I see it.

In considering the planet, one might say that memes are driving humans to dig up more and more of its resources and use more and more of its power to create and drive more and more electronic devices with which they can replicate. This is not to ascribe intention to memes, just to point out that this is how the algorithm could run.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

Well, Blackmore asserts that the self (self-image or narrative self) is memetic in nature. Thus, given that the organism also has a biological self, a body with needs, one can state that memes could take over the body or the brain. They would need to pay lip service to biological needs, but that's it, as I see it.

Despite our arguments in other threads, I do agree with you.

Such a thing is particularly noticeable in todays environment of religious extremism. The thinking of a suicide bomber is the archetype of a meme that has completely taken over the body and the brain.

In considering the planet, one might say that memes are driving humans to dig up more and more of its resources and use more and more of its power to create and drive more and more electronic devices with which they can replicate. This is not to ascribe intention to memes, just to point out that this is how the algorithm could run.

Yep.

I was actually going to write a book about the dominance-seeking meme in social mammals -- particularly humans -- and call it "The Order." I did alot of thinking about that meme when I was in the military where it flourishes, and was startled at the similarities I saw in religion, sports, and most other social hierarchies. I was even more startled when I realized that a good chunk of the consumer market is driven by that meme!

It is pretty scary to think that we are unwittingly the substrate for another level of natural selection.

But then, even if we opposed it, that would be a meme as well! There is another level of self-reference for you to ponder, Nick -- the substrate of an evolutionary process realizing it is the substrate of an evolutionary process, the realization of which is also an evolutionary process, etc.

 

[Nick227]

Uh...memes are ideas. They've been with human kind since we started communicating with each other.

Sure, maybe it's ideas that have driven the evolutionary development of the human brain. Once we could imitate so ideas could behave as replicators same as genes. The capacity to imitate would have been greatly genetically favoured, so humans have developed to become excellent devices for acquiring, storing and transmitting ideas. Selfhood itself is very largely just an idea.

At some point I think one does have to consider where it's all going.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Despite our arguments in other threads, I do agree with you.

Thanks.

It is pretty scary to think that we are unwittingly the substrate for another level of natural selection.

But then, even if we opposed it, that would be a meme as well! There is another level of self-reference for you to ponder, Nick -- the substrate of an evolutionary process realizing it is the substrate of an evolutionary process, the realization of which is also an evolutionary process, etc.

Is the realisation of this also part of an evolutionary process, though? That sounds a bit towards teleology, though I could be wrong.

Anyway, Blackmore (in The Meme Machine), essentially considers that developing more awareness in the moment is the only way out. (Note I hesitate to use the word "meditation" on this forum!)

Nick

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nick, you don't seem to understand what a meme is. The term was coined to describe the means of passing on social and culture basics in a population. Genes pass on biological aspects of a person, but memes pass on sociocultural aspects. We are a product of both.

 

[Nick227]

Nick, you don't seem to understand what a meme is. The term was coined to describe the means of passing on social and culture basics in a population. Genes pass on biological aspects of a person, but memes pass on sociocultural aspects. We are a product of both.

Memes can also drive biological evolution. Meme theory provides one of the most prominent means to explain the development of the brain over the last million years or two.

A meme can be considered a replicator in its own right, driving evolution through co-adaptive strategies with genes. Memetic and genetic evolution are not necessarily in harmony.

Thus, your strapline is not necessarily correct...prayer rituals do have the potential to change the universe if their replication can drive biological development. The ability to create opinions likewise.

Nick

 

[Wowbagger]

Well, I for one welcome our new memetic overlords!


But, seriously, memes are just another form of replication with Darwin-like selection that has been recognized.

I started my own thread about them, almost two years ago: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70215

Here is an excerpt from one of my posts you may find interesting:

For scientific purposes, Replicators can be called such, if they exhibit the following properties very well:

Longevity: The longevity of a single copy is not as important as the longevity of any copy of that "information". A single instance of a gene may die, but it has the ability to live on, as new copies in offspring. A single instance of a meme may "die" (if a specific person dies, or merely forgets the idea), but the idea it conveys has some ability to live on, as new copies in other people.

Fecundity: The ability to reproduce. Some specific items may reproduce more effectively than others, because they are subject to selection pressures. Genes that are more successful in passing themselves on, have higher fecundity. This usually means they are beneficial to the overall survival of the host, but not always.
Memes have the ability to reproduce, by getting "absorbed" into people's minds. (Humans are particularly susceptible to these replicators, because of our pliable brain structure.) Some are more successful than others, and, like genes, this success is not always to the overall benefit of the host. They copy well, because they copy well.

Copy-Fidelity: The ability to be copied with minimal, if any, errors. Genes clearly have an advantage, here, because they are reliant on a physical structure. Memes are more prone to errors, because they have no physical presence. Memes "sacrifice" physical presence for more efficient fecundity. But, even so, it is possible that the evolution of social ideas can be tracked, and broken down into individual memes.


When someone says memes are analogous to genes, they mean both can be demonstrated to exhibit these properties. Clearly, though, there are differences in their environment and how they replicate.​

 

[Nick227]

Well, I for one welcome our new memetic overlords!

I see they've got to you already! But it's not too late, meditate now!

Thanks for the link and info.

eta: with regard to fidelity, I would have thought that language, whilst not perfect, represents a pretty good digitised means for storage and replication of memes.

Nick

 

[NewtonTrino]

Language itself is obviously a meme. I can easily see it being possible that our large brains were driving by memes selecting our genetics for us. I think Susan Blackmore is 100% right on with her thinking.

 

[shadron]

Do this, people. Stretch your minds about memes a little and go listen to Blackmore's talk about mems and temes at the TED conference: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes.html. She discusses how memes, which are only ideas, caused a crisis in human evolution by just being, and how temes (technological memes) are going to cause a crisis in the near future through self-evolution of AI. There are many thinking people (Bill Joy, Chief Scientist at Sun, for example) who do believe that that will happen; I've been in two threads about it here. So give her a listen; it's worth it, then argue about whether there is a problem or not.

Be aware that she writes and investigates parapsychology mainly for CSICOP (or whatever it is now). She got a degree in parapsychology and spent 20 years do parapsychological investigations before deciding it was a crock. Besides, anyone with five different hair colors (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/) can't be all bad.

 

[Nick227]

I was actually going to write a book about the dominance-seeking meme in social mammals -- particularly humans -- and call it "The Order." I did alot of thinking about that meme when I was in the military where it flourishes, and was startled at the similarities I saw in religion, sports, and most other social hierarchies. I was even more startled when I realized that a good chunk of the consumer market is driven by that meme!

I share your concerns but it seems to me that patterns of dominant and submissive behaviour are more naturally genetic in nature. For sure there are plenty of memes associated with them but it seems to me an inevitable consequence of evolution that dominant traits emerge.

Nick

 

[Agular]

"meme" is the most annoying new catchphrase since "paradigm" was in vogue, and overused.

 

[bokonon]

Wired: Why is the area of meme study controversial?

Blackmore: I can think of three reasons. One, people misunderstand it. They think memes are the same as ideas.

Two, they are frightened of it. Memetics appears to have a lot of implications that we humans are machines, which people have never liked. Of course we're machines, we're biological machines. But people don't like that. Free will and consciousness is an illusion, and the self is a complex of memes. People don't like that. My view is that if these things are true it doesn't matter if we like them or not.

The third possible reason is maybe it's a load of garbage. But we'll find that out if we do the science and make testable predictions and compare memetics with other theories about culture; we'll find out whether it's true.

It's a load of garbage. Memes are ideas, "memesphere" (GMAFB) is "culture" and giving them a new buzzword doesn't change that.

Are ideas taking over? No. Some ideas help people live more satisfied or more fulfilling lives, and such ideas become more popular.

Some ideas find pockets of culture in which they thrive. Some don't.

The idea that human bodies are being "infected" with masses of new information is nonsense. I wish I could infect myself with new information. In fact, long-term acquisition of new information requires focused study, and even then, most of the ideas I'm exposed to are ephemeral.

 

[Wowbagger]

with regard to fidelity, I would have thought that language, whilst not perfect, represents a pretty good digitised means for storage and replication of memes.

Yeah, but it's not quite as quality-controlling as an actual physical structure.

And, not all memes involve language. Paper folding (origami), for example, can also be a meme.

"meme" is the most annoying new catchphrase since "paradigm" was in vogue, and overused.

Yeah, I agree the word is overused. (Damn that Dawkins for making the "meme" meme so darn catchy!) But, that doesn't mean there can't be a serious discussion within its proper usage. There are still implications about replicating cultural units we could continue talking about.

 

[shadron]

"meme" is the most annoying new catchphrase since "paradigm" was in vogue, and overused.

Personally I don't like "catchphrase" and vogue. Overused!

 

[cyborg]

It's a load of garbage. Memes are ideas, "memesphere" (GMAFB) is "culture" and giving them a new buzzword doesn't change that.

Watch the talk: it very specifically says that memes are not about ideas - they are about mimicry.

Are ideas taking over? No. Some ideas help people live more satisfied or more fulfilling lives, and such ideas become more popular.

Some ideas find pockets of culture in which they thrive. Some don't.

Right - can't take over if you're already "in control".

 

[cyborg]

"meme" is the most annoying new catchphrase since "paradigm" was in vogue, and overused.

Just as well you're not involved in its use then.