Memetics

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Almost a month ago I created a post related with happiness and evolution.

I started the post because of the belief that modern society is absent of creativity. Therefore, every ‘new’ experience caused by an achievement, would induce an evolution in the life of that individual (from his own perspective).

At that time I didn’t had any knowledge about Memetics, until a IPL member suggested Richard Dawkins - Selfish Gene. Which introduces the concepts of memes.

It was interesting, the idea that stronger memes had a better chance to evolve. Whereas weaker memes (like being ‘shy’) where confined to extinction because in their essence they lack communication (apparently the method used by memes to propagate)

After wandering in some forums, and other translated works about memetics, I have to say that I total disagree with the concept.
Manly because, the idea it self lacks an essence, instead we are reading about a concept that tries to begin from a framework we do not understand/know.
It sets aside questions like creativity, and makes dangerous comparisons to other phenomena like computer virus.

Computer virus exist because of imperfection in code. They only exist because they can exploit. This is however true when compared to human virus. In fact this comparison is valid because of its source.
We were able to mimic the biological virus behavior from nature into a framework we’ve created (software).
But comparing the propagation of a virus, with the propagation of memes, its dangerous because it starts from the point that we are all exploitable/vulnerable.

If we are all exploitable, then we are absent of judging the validity of the meme. We just accept it because its better. Or maybe because it creates the illusion of a better change.

It seems to me that the meme defines the very acceptance to what I said in the beginning of this post; a society absent of creativity.
Memes are not a biological (a reflex from a neocortex) they are synthetic, the result of a society with values based in objects, not in in-depth understanding of ethereal feelings like love and friendship (this that dont use any of the 5 sensors - used by memes).

Memes try to explain Religion and Racism. I feel like a meme represent the annihilation of the source. Its the new definition for everything mankind is unable to explain.

In conclusion, and to finally link this post to my initial one (evolution-happiness), the definition of meme fits in a way what I was trying to target. A new trend will induce evolution, creating the illusion of happiness, source of modern society.
But this trend isn’t the result of memes, its the result of materialization, thru marketing/mass media, based in the economic needs.

Thanks.
Acqua

2

You’re disagreeing for all the wrong reasons. Just because it might be compared to a computer virus, doesn’t mean it automatically inherits the same ‘evilness’ of a computer virus.

We say that laughter is infectious, but we don’t mean in a bad way.

I think you’ve misunderstood them then, as that’s the equivalent of saying:

Gene is the new definition for everything we don’t understand in biology.

The meme is a concept, a useful unit of measure, not an explanation for the gaps in psychology theory.

3

Yeah, my general understanding of memes is that they are simply the means whereby social information is transmitted. What they are, specifically, is unknown at present, but we had genes (and even a good handle on recombination!) well before we knew where or what genes actually were made of.

I think we can all agree that ideas have a certain life of their own – look at ILP, I mean, if the Nietzsche-meme isn’t growing out of control like some invasive species, I don’t know what is! As Plato said, “There is nothing new under the Sun” so instead of looking at ideas in a radically fashion where they pop-up ex nihilo, we can view them as changing concepts whose origins can be traced. I think that there is a certain robustness to the theory, especially for neurodeterminist.

Also, your description of how natural selection works needs to get the Spencer out. “Survival of the Fittest” is a terrible model for natural selection.