There is nothing wrong with speculating when there is an absence of hard evidence as long as you make it clear that's what you're up to. So I wouldn't criticize Dawkins' approach in this chapter, since he is clearly telling us about something that excites his scientific imagination; the theory is something still on the drawing board, though.

I see the theory of memes as similar to theories in social science, psychology, and even literary criticism--that is, as a lens through which to view an aspect of the world. Evidence of the kind expected in physical science will not be available. This doesn't mean that theories like this can't be researched for empirical support. People may have tried to do that with memes, though I have no idea how they might have gone about it.

At any rate, if an individual finds this theory to be useful in explaining the world, he or she will adopt it. But since, as far as I can tell or know, evidence for memes is lacking, the theory can also be rejected without misgiving if the individual doesn't find it useful. This would describe my position currently.

The Selfish Gene was written decades ago. There are current books on memetics if it interests you, which I think reignited the field in recent years.

Interbane wrote: Now, the structure or content type of the idea itself (the memetic structure) must also be analyzed.

You stated the case for memetics (Dawkins seems to call it 'memics') nicely in that post. If there is a single point that gives me the most trouble, it is that the structure itself exists somehow independently from a brain. It has been traditional to talk about the content of 'great' ideas and how they have varied and changed, but this is done on a general, abstract level, not in terms of these ideas invading individual brains in a particular pre-existing form. Memetics seems to go a step farther in taking this idea-content down to a 'molecular' level. This is the controversial part of its claim.

I did pick up a book on memetics in a coffee shop while on vacation. It was called Virus of the Mind and was trumpeted on the cover as an Amazon 'hot' book. Reading the first couple of chapters, my thought was that there have to be far better books on the subject. The author's critical thinking process was not the best. Is there a book that you would recommend?

DWill wrote:If there is a single point that gives me the most trouble, it is that the structure itself exists somehow independently from a brain. It has been traditional to talk about the content of 'great' ideas and how they have varied and changed, but this is done on a general, abstract level, not in terms of these ideas invading individual brains in a particular pre-existing form. Memetics seems to go a step farther in taking this idea-content down to a 'molecular' level. This is the controversial part of its claim.

Bill, I think you misunderstand the concept of memetics. It is not about a ‘molecular level’ but rather that the mechanism of evolution which we observe in genetics also occurs in culture. For example, looking at cars or computers, exactly the same type of ‘selection pressures’ operate on the evolution of these technologies as operate on genes and organisms. Different makes are in competition, successful innovations spread through the market, unsuccessful mutations die out and progress is cumulative. The selection pressures include popularity, cost and effectiveness.

This comparability between culture and nature is why Dawkins’ use of cost-benefit analysis is so powerful in The Selfish Gene; the mechanisms of market economics have a pervasive presence in dynamic complex systems. If we think of a brand of a product as the example of a meme we can see the wider application of evolutionary thinking.

The right direction to probe might be toward something like Popper's "Objective Knowledge", which is a bit old with the pros and cons of logical positivism, but gives you a good idea of how the knowledge humanity generates can be considered as independent of us. I had an interesting thought a while back about how the information in our brains is also in this sense objective, but that we don't yet have an advanced enough "reader" to access the information. What we currently have would make the process similar to putting a floppy disk in a Blu-Ray player. The interface humanity has with "The Matrix" puts a face on this idea.

Robert Tulip wrote:

DWill wrote:If there is a single point that gives me the most trouble, it is that the structure itself exists somehow independently from a brain. It has been traditional to talk about the content of 'great' ideas and how they have varied and changed, but this is done on a general, abstract level, not in terms of these ideas invading individual brains in a particular pre-existing form. Memetics seems to go a step farther in taking this idea-content down to a 'molecular' level. This is the controversial part of its claim.

Bill, I think you misunderstand the concept of memetics. It is not about a ‘molecular level’ but rather that the mechanism of evolution which we observe in genetics also occurs in culture.

Robert, okay, point out to me the scientific research that validates memes as a scientific idea, using "the same mechanisms" as genetics, and I will gladly learn to speak memetics. Until then, I have to continue to see memetics in terms of our enthusiastic analogizing tendency. This analogizing occurred also after Darwin published his theory, with the infamous example of social Darwinism, and 'evolution' is still used imprecisely today to satisfy our need to believe that history is moving toward some higher goal.

You yourself say that memetics is a 'concept.' Exactly. Genetics, by contrast, consists of scientifically validated theories.

I think we should look into a book on memetics as a future non-fiction suggestion. I think it's a valid field of scientific study, but due to how new the idea is, it's underdeveloped. Your mistrust of the concept is valid, and I think it would make the discussions rewarding. Otherwise, as we've both noted, we're relying too much on speculation.

The Wiki on memes is quite instructive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme also links to other relevant pages such as

* Dawkins' speech on the 30th anniversary of the publication of The Selfish Gene, Dawkins 2006
* "Evolution and Memes: The human brain as a selective imitation device": article by Susan Blackmore.
* A short piece by Mike Godwin on memes in Wired Magazine.
* Journal of Memetics peer refereed journal of memetics published from 1997 until 2005
* Susan Blackmore: Memes and "temes", TED Talks February 2008


The detailed analogy with genes as units of evolution breaks down, as DWill has argued, as memes do not seem to have the same discrete identity as genes. However, to some extent this misses the point. Dawkins introduced memes to show that in many ways culture evolves in the same way as nature but in a much speeded up way. Many of the laws of evolution which are clearly evident in genetics do also apply to culture. The point is that culture has traditionally been analysed as completely separate from nature, as a gift from God, and Dawkins is showing that this religious tradition is a highly flawed assumption. Even if the detail of the meme theory loses something in the genetic analogy, the overall idea is very helpful as a way to see how ideas enter culture and then mutate and evolve. It is the mixing of ideas which seems to be quite different from and more complex than the sexual mixing of genes.


Further wiki pages linked from the meme page are
* Cultural evolution
* Dual inheritance theory
* Evolution of an idea
* Evolutionary linguistics
* History of ideas
* Imitation
* Memetics
* Memetic engineering
* Self-replication
* Sociocultural evolution
* Spiral Dynamics
* Viral marketing
* Viral video
* Werther effect

Robert Tulip wrote:The detailed analogy with genes as units of evolution breaks down, as DWill has argued, as memes do not seem to have the same discrete identity as genes. However, to some extent this misses the point. Dawkins introduced memes to show that in many ways culture evolves in the same way as nature but in a much speeded up way. Many of the laws of evolution which are clearly evident in genetics do also apply to culture. The point is that culture has traditionally been analysed as completely separate from nature, as a gift from God, and Dawkins is showing that this religious tradition is a highly flawed assumption. Even if the detail of the meme theory loses something in the genetic analogy, the overall idea is very helpful as a way to see how ideas enter culture and then mutate and evolve. It is the mixing of ideas which seems to be quite different from and more complex than the sexual mixing of genes.

You've presented a good case for going farther with investigating this new field, as Interbane recommends. The main question to be answered seems to be whether historyand culture are actually something more analyzable, in the reductive way of science, than we've realized up to now. This would be a useful thing if it's true.

PS: To my memory, Dawkins doesn't even mention memes in his book on religion. Am I right about this? If I am, why would he hold back with such a useful tool?

DWill wrote: PS: To my memory, Dawkins doesn't even mention memes in his book on religion. Am I right about this? If I am, why would he hold back with such a useful tool?

You mean The God Delusion? Yes, there's a fair bit about memes and memeplexes in that book. See this link for a brief defense of the meme theory. Start with the paragraph that begins: "Some people have objected to memetic explanations, on various grounds that usually stem from the fact that memes are not entirely like genes."

http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1xDp ... q=&f=false.

You know, I would be interested in reading Susan Blackmore's book at some point.