Meme Replicator Theory

[da1999]

Does anyone consider memes replicators?

 

What is the physical substances of a meme?

[Glider]

I would say that memes are replicators, but in the sense that viruses are replicators. That is, they can't self-replicate, rather, they need to infect a host and then alter the behaviour of the host in such a way that the host begins to replicate the meme (or virus).

 

Unlike viruses, memes have no physical form or substance (beyond, aguably, the physical form of knowledge or memory). It has been argued that all knowledge is memetic, so in their purest form, memes exist only as patterns of thought.

[da1999]

ok, would it be logical to say that there is a memetic drive to become self-replicating ideas, possably existing on an Internet of some sort?

 

"memes exist only as patterns of thought" do you know where i could research this further?

Dennett makes the anaolgy that they are like software in the mind, what do you think of this?

[Glider]

Originally posted by da1999

ok, would it be logical to say that there is a memetic drive to become self-replicating ideas, possably existing on an Internet of some sort?

 

I don't think the drive to replicate is a function of the meme per se, rather it is a function of the individual exposed to it. To continue the virus analogy, a person would first need to be susceptible to infection (i.e. consider the meme significant on some level). Once infected, they could pass it on ('infect' others with it), in which case the meme could be considered successful and would proliferate. But (as with non-airborne viruses), the drive to do so and mechanism of transmission would be a function of the psychology and behaviour of those 'infected' with it, rather than the meme itself. For example, not all ideas are considered good by everybody exposed to them (varying susceptibility). Those who considered an idea 'good' would do so due to their particular psychological make-up. As a result of considering the idea 'good' they may then wish to share it with others of a like mind (behavioural drive).

 

"memes exist only as patterns of thought" do you know where i could research this further?

 

Richard Dawkins discusses memes in his book "The Selfish Gene". Here is a section you may find interesting:

 

"Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leading from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students. He mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the idea catches on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain.

 

Memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically. When you plant a fertile meme in my mind, you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme's propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn't just a way of talking -- the meme for, say, 'belief in life after death' is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous systems of people all over the world."

 

Alternatively, you could do a literature search on the net.

 

Dennett makes the anaolgy that they are like software in the mind, what do you think of this?

I think that's a very good analogy.

[da1999]

Originally posted by Glider

I don't think the drive to replicate is a function of the meme per se, rather it is a function of the individual exposed to it.

 

Oh yes, I am aware of Dawkins.

Susan Blackmore theorizes that there has been a “memetic drive” to create the big brain in humans, therefore the memes now drive the genes.

 

I am torn between the two main theories and looking for a possible way to make them both right.

1- Dawkins 1978 & Blackmore meme as gene, replicator analogy

2- Dawkins 1993, lynch 1996, meme as germ, pathogen analogy

 

Blackmore makes a good case that we should restrict the definition to a strict replicator analogy so an evolutionary process could be applied. What do you think of that?

 

On the other hand I also agree with Robert Aunger memes are like viruses and parasites he says “we are hosts to parasites feeding on our brains that cause us to behave in ways beneficial to them, not us.”

 

I have been working on a theory that unites both:

 

There are 2 types of memes, technology (replicator) and non-technology (viral and parasitic) memes. The first memes were the tech replicator memes they co-evolved with the genes and produced big brains. Non-tech memes began to exist and they are parasitic to the tech memes and the genes. Take religion for instance, in order to replicate in minds it must “use” the tech memes (technology of language, symbols, and books) and also push innate “buttons” like fear. How does this sound?

[Glider]

Originally posted by da1999

Oh yes, I am aware of Dawkins.

Susan Blackmore theorizes that there has been a ?memetic drive? to create the big brain in humans, therefore the memes now drive the genes.

 

Arguably yes, in the same way as the environment can be said to drive evolution. For example, no mutation is of direct benefit to the organism. However, through serendipity some turn out to be of indirect benefit due to the peculiarities of the environment. Take sickle cell anaemia, this is detrimental to the organism and significantly reduces life expectancy, but in West Africa it serves as a defence against malaria allowing (only) those with sickle cell anaemia to live long enough to procreate. Thus, SCA is now prevalent among that population.

 

Memes must have provided some advantage to the organism originally (the memes for the process of creating fire, cooperative hunting, tool making methods and so-on). It could therefore be said that the genesis of memes provided an advantage but required a larger brain, so those with larger brains had the advantage. However, the argument could become cyclic. I think it is debatable whether memes drove the development of a bigger brain, or whether the random mutations leading to a bigger brain resulted in memes.

 

I am torn between the two main theories and looking for a possible way to make them both right.

1- Dawkins 1978 & Blackmore meme as gene, replicator analogy

2- Dawkins 1993, lynch 1996, meme as germ, pathogen analogy

 

Blackmore makes a good case that we should restrict the definition to a strict replicator analogy so an evolutionary process could be applied. What do you think of that?

 

What does he mean by "a strict replicator analogy"? (I should point out that you are much more up on this subject than I am. This is out of my area). If we take 'meme' to mean 'idea' or 'concept', then intuitively we can see that evolutionary forces apply. Ideas come and go; some are extinguished, those providing an advantage tend to prevail. Ideas change (mutate) if the change provides an advantage, the idea continues, if not the idea will extinguish.

 

On the other hand I also agree with Robert Aunger memes are like viruses and parasites he says ?we are hosts to parasites feeding on our brains that cause us to behave in ways beneficial to them, not us.?

 

Are these two perspectives mutually exclusive? Take bacteria for example. We carry with us a wide range of bacteria as naturally occurring bodily fauna. Our gut is packed with them (particularly escherichia-coli). Without these we would suffer terribly. This can be seen in people who are given high bolus-dose antibiotics orally to control one kind of bacterial infection, but it also kills off their natural gut bacteria as a side effect and subsequently they suffer digestive problems (in some cases severe) and need to treated separately for that. So there are beneficial bacteria with which we exist in a symbiotic balance (E-coli), and there are bad, pathogenic bacteria which parasitize us. Even beneficial bacteria can be bad in the wrong place (e.g. E-coli in a wound), but good or bad, detrimental or beneficial, they are all bacteria.

 

Could the same thing be said of memes? There are good memes, with which we exist in a kind of symbiotic balance; memes which provide us with an advantage and so we continue to propagate them, and there are bad memes; parasitic memes which provide us with no advantage and rely on fear or paranoia or generally the more negative aspects of our psyche in order to propagate?

 

I have been working on a theory that unites both:

 

There are 2 types of memes, technology (replicator) and non-technology (viral and parasitic) memes. The first memes were the tech replicator memes they co-evolved with the genes and produced big brains. Non-tech memes began to exist and they are parasitic to the tech memes and the genes. Take religion for instance, in order to replicate in minds it must ?use? the tech memes (technology of language, symbols, and books) and also push innate ?buttons? like fear. How does this sound?

 

Again, I should point out that you are more qualified in this area than I am, but it seems reasonable to me. In the same vein as the baceria analogy; whilst all being bacteria, different forms can act as either a symbiote or a pathogen. I see no reason why the same could not be said of memes. Whilst all being memes, some may act in a symbiotic fashion, whilst others may parasitize us.

 

Religion is a good example. Like E-coli it may originally have served a useful purpose. For example, the development of Christianity. In it's original form, it served to provide hope to an oppressed people (the Judeans, Judea having been annexed by Rome), and to unite them against a common enemy. It served as a kind of social glue and gave the people a unified identity. It has even been proposed that Jesus (aka Joshua. Jesus is Greek for Joshua) and his cohort manipuated certain events so he could be seen to fulfill older prophesies, and thus to provide the evidence that would establish his lineage from the royal house of David, and his identity as the rightful Priest-King of Judea and so unite the people behind him.

 

In any event, it served a socio-political function and so was beneficial at the time. However, take it out of place and context (like E-coli in a wound), and it can become (in many cases) a source of contention and strife; an 'infection' relying (as you suggest) on certain psychological reinforcers (the promise of reward and the threat of damnation) which play on innate cognitive structures (e.g fear) and beneficial memes (language, the written word and so-on) for its continued survival.

[Glider]

Having said all that, from what little I know about memes, I can't see that there is anything concerning their transmission and perpetuation that can't be explained in terms of social learning. What is it about memes that cannot be explained in terms of existing learning theory (e.g. operant/classical conditioning)?

 

When discussing memes, I think there is a danger of beginning to see them as independent and objective entities (like bacteria and viruses), but I don't see how this can be the case. Memes must be a result of thought originally, and only after they come into being (perhaps as a flash of inspiration; a 'eureka' moment in a single progenitor) and begin to spread can it be said that thought is a result of a meme.

 

Could it be that 'meme' is simply a generic term for 'idea, concept, belief, methodology' etc.? If so, then there are already theories to explain their propagation.

[da1999]

The supporters of the meme as replicator theory believe that the way to make a science of memetics is to be able to apply an evolutionary processes and the “only” way to do it is to define “strictly” a meme as a replicator that passes from mind to mind through imitation. They would argue any other way couldn’t be tested scientifically. I am not completely sure about this yet. I don’t think all memes are viral or parasitic. I think there is a clear evolution and progression towards complexity.

 

Yes I believe there are “good” that have co-evolved with the genes in a “symbiotic balance” and bad memes that are parasitic and viral to the good memes and genes.

 

Explaining memes through existing learning theories is exactly what Blackmore does. Individual learning which is imprinting, classical and operant conditioning and Social learning, both stimulus and local enhancement is NOT memetic. Blackmore says that these forms of learning do not contain imitation and therefore are not replicators and cannot undergo an evolutionary process.

 

In Blackmores book “The Meme Machine” she says “in classical conditioning some aspect of the environment has been copied into a brain, but it stops with that brain and cannot be passed on by imitation” (44). So to it is with operant conditioning, there is no “true imitation” in fact she says “Much of what we learn, we learn only for ourselves and cannot pass on. Much of human learning is Skinnerian and not memetic” (45).

 

The same is true with social learning “In social learning, one animal may invent a new behavior during individual learning and then somehow lead a second animal into such a situation that it is likely to learn the same new behavior – or perhaps the first can behave in such a way as to change the contingencies of learning for the second animal so that it learns the same (or a similar) new behavior” (50). Looks like copying but isn’t. “details of the first behavior are not transmitted and therefore cannot be built upon and refined by further selective copying” (50). NO true Hereditary, or new replicators so no true Evolution.

 

She admits that one day we might find that social learning will show research that does contain imitation especially in primates, whales, dolphins or some birds. I think we are there to an extent with the Japanese monkeys learned to wash potatoes or Chimpanzees learned to fish for termites with sticks. She would say this is not imitation and I would disagree for now.

 

You said “It has even been proposed that Jesus (aka Joshua. Jesus is Greek for Joshua) and his cohort manipulated certain events so he could be seen to fulfill older prophesies” this is interesting information that I have never heard of can you direct me to where I could find further information on this subject.

[Glider]

That's interesting. So only information passed through mimicry can be "strictly" classified as memetic?

 

It's true that classically conditioned responses exist only in the conditioned brain and can't be passed on. It's also true that most human learning is operant (Skinnerian) as opposed to classical (Pavlovian). However, I'll have to think a bit about the differences between operant and memetic learning.

 

She admits that one day we might find that social learning will show research that does contain imitation especially in primates, whales, dolphins or some birds. I think we are there to an extent with the Japanese monkeys learned to wash potatoes or Chimpanzees learned to fish for termites with sticks. She would say this is not imitation and I would disagree for now.

 

This is a point. As you probably know, there are troops of chimps that use tools to break nuts. There are some interesting observations here. There have been found two costal populations of chimps, each of which has developed a disparate method of nutcracking. One population uses pieces of wood as hammers, but do not use rocks. The other uses rocks as hammers, but not pieces of wood. Within each group, the nutcrackng method most likely originated through operant learning (the organism operating on its environment until a desirable outcome resulted, thus reinforcing the action and increasing the probability of its being repeated).

 

However, I have to disagree with Blackmore here. Imitation must have played a role in the spread of this behaviour within each group. There are several pieces of evidence in support of this. Firstly, there is the 'perception-behaviour link' (see e.g. Dijksterhuis, 2000). In short, this provides evidence for a direct (preconscious and automatic) link between perceiving a behaviour, and performing that behaviour. This has also been shown to exist in humans and has been termed "The Chamelion Effect" (Chartrand & Bargh. 1999). Secondly, it is extremely unlikely that all members of each group developed the techinique simultaneously. This is supported by the observation that each individual shows a different degree of success when cracking nuts. Indeed, some individuals fail completely, but nonetheless keep trying. This cannot be a result of any kind of operant reinforcement (there is none if the nut remains whole), but must be a result of imitating the behaviour of those around them. Thirdly, the fact that each group uses a different tool, the group that uses rocks, don't use logs, and the group that uses logs, don't use rocks, suggests a direct imitation of observed behaviour rather than the application of a learned general principle (which would result in the animals using any sufficiently hard and heavy tool that would crack the nut).

 

Nonetheless, I think that evolutionary processes can be seen at work here. For example, the group that uses rocks are generally more successful (more individuals achieving success, faster and with less effort) than those using wood. Thus, the rock using idea has an advantage. The group that uses wood on the other hand has slightly fewer successes (more individuals failing), and the successes often take longer and require more effort. Thus, should food become a serious issue through some environmental change, it is likely that the rock using idea would survive and the wood using idea wouldn't. However, the reasons for this can also be explained in terms of reinforcement (operant conditioning). The rock using idea is more reliably reinforced than the wood using idea and so is less likely to extinguish in the long term than the wood using idea.

 

References

Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (6), 893-910.

 

Dijksterhuis, A., Bargh, J. A., & Miedema, J. (2000). Of men and mackerels: Attention, subjective experience, and automatic social behavior. In H. Bless & J. P. Forgas (Eds.), The message within: The role of subjective experience in social cognition and behavior (pp. 37-51). Philadelphia: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

 

You said ?It has even been proposed that Jesus (aka Joshua. Jesus is Greek for Joshua) and his cohort manipulated certain events so he could be seen to fulfill older prophesies? this is interesting information that I have never heard of can you direct me to where I could find further information on this subject.

Sure. A few books of interest (and a good starting point) are: Holy Blood, Holy Grail and Messianic Legacy. (both by Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln and Richard Leigh), also The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception (Baigent & Leigh). The authors are researchers, and as such they make sure they present evidence in support of what they say. Should they choose to indulge in interesting conjecture, they make certain the reader knows it is only conjecture. They also make it clear that they are principally dealing with supportable historical events and interpretation of such based upon research based evidence and are not dealing with questions of faith. These books contain reference sections which can provide you with further relevant reading if you want it. They are definitely worth a read and are very 'readable' but (of course) it is up to you to evaluate them for yourself.

[Skye]

What is the basis of information transfer in memes?

 

I think this is why it's hard to accept memes as a replicator, at least in a Darwinian context. Genes are transfered via DNA, you can create other replicators on, say binary code. These are precise and and unambiguous codes. Without errors in replication they will be passed on indefinately in their exact form. The method of storing the information is the same as that used in transfer, only expression of them does. The germ line cells in living organisms continue indefinitely, branching off into mortal somatic cells, which never themselves are replicated.

 

Memes can represent concepts, ideas, technologies, etc. I can learn how to light a fire, be told or shown or copy someone. I take that information into my brain in one manner and store in an entirely different manner. Then if someone else gets that information from me they obtain it in a different manner to the manner they store it as well. So there isn't anything that is passed down from generation to generation, there are no 'meme germ particles.' Without these precise and unambiguous information storers, that are both the method of storage and transmission, and that are maintained in the host between replications, memes become subject to modification during the lifetime of the host. These modifications aren't simply random mutations, but learning, improving on the meme. These beneficial, learned modification are passed onto the next generation. So you have descent with modification.

 

Just a little ironic that a theory of Richard Dawkins is Lamarkian.

 

Another thing, we can't learn things we don't have the capacity to learn. You can't argure with that:D I bend my brain trying to think in 4D but it ain't happening. Thinking of things we don't know is tricky, so it's easier to use animals to illustrate this, which don't know some things we do. Octopuses are unable to determine patterns by touch. The classic study on this used perspex cylinders with grooves cut into them either along the length or around it. Using food rewards and electric shock punishments, the researchers were unable to improve the octopuses success rate at distinguishing between the two. A change in the neurology of octopuses is needed in order for them to learn this meme. So I would say that memes are quite limited by neuroanatomy, and by our genes. Being limited in this way would have coupled memes to genes more effectively, those unable to learn language wouldn't be able to derive any benefit from the meme. In this way memes could more accurately drive the evolution of intelligence.

[Glider]

Exactly. This is why (not knowing an awful lot about meme theory) I wonder if the idea of 'meme' is more an analogous model for the 'evolution' of knowledge. People tend to use models appropriate to their time. For example, in describing the forces of 'sexual energy' and the principle that it will find a way to manifest even if suppressed, Freud used the steam engine as a model. Cognitive scientists in the 1930s used telephone switchboards as models for information processing and more recently they used the modern computer to model the concepts of short-term (RAM) and long-term (HD) memory. Whilst these act as useful analogies, everybody using them recognised that they shouldn't be taken literally and were only a useful 'short-hand' for the principles being studied.

 

Whilst I can understand the use of the term 'meme' as a useful model to describe the nature of knowledge, and the progression of knowledge and it's effects upon individuals and generations, I still can't see what it is about memes and memetic transfer that can't be explained using existing learning theory.

[da1999]

“I have to disagree with Blackmore here. Imitation must have played a role in the spread of this behaviour within each group. There are several pieces of evidence in support of this."

 

As I said in my previous post I tend to agree with you that imitation must play a role with some animals but here are my problems with imitation in the animals we both mentioned.

 

1) If there is imitation in the chimps which implies replicators at work and this further implies an evolutionary process than why have the technologies of “nut cracking” or “fishing with sticks” not evolve?

Knowing that in general, memetic evolution happens faster than genetic evolution, the “fishing with sticks” technologies has not moved or mutated or adapted or selected over other mutations. It has stayed the same for a while. Ok this might be a recent thing for these animals because I have found no archeological evidence of any non-humanoid tools, but still since Jane Goodall first discovered the tool use of primates in the 1960’s the technologies have stayed the same.

 

Skye

“I take that information into my brain in one manner and store in an entirely different manner. Then if someone else gets that information from me they obtain it in a different manner to the manner they store it as well.”

 

Do you mean when info comes into our brain it is encoded and than decoded for the transfer of another brain. This is interesting can you direct me to any studies of this.

 

As far as Memetics being Lamarkian it is to a certain extent. Yes there is descent with modification but through out the descent of most memes their still remains “a common theme.” The meme for God has changed many times, but the meme for eternal life that has been part of the various God memes, has not changed.

 

Although the meme is a good analogy for the evolution of knowledge. I Think it should go further, because it doesn’t just explain knowledge. It explains our brains, origin and structure of consciousness, language, art, human social interactions and a number of other things. Memetics is in its infant stages to become a science like Genetics was before the discovery of DNA. The existence of the Gene was speculated but no hard evidence was their of its existence. So to is now the meme. We see and understand the process, but we cannot zero in on it yet. Memetics is a bit more than a theory of knowledge it is a theory of our existence.

[Skye]

Well I'm not up on neurology so I can't help you on the actual physical means of memory, I think it's still an area that needs (and is getting) alot of research. My point is that when you transfer memes, you aren't transfering that physical means of storage. You don't give someone a replication of your neurons. When you transfer genes, you do, the recipient gets a copy of your DNA. In this way memes aren't replicators in the same manner as genes, there's no analogy to the genotype.