Skip to main content

Behavior - why we do what we do



Reasoned by analogy, we present the theory of memes.  The modern theory of memetics (memes) is all about explaining why we behave as we do.  Based on a cultural analog of the biological gene, it has quite a large following among professional researchers – mostly in the social sciences. Let’s look at it more closely.  Warning: Be skeptical, knowing this is currently a big time theory. Yet no evidence and no observations!  For reason by analogy see http://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2012/07/rasoning-by-analogy.html
______________

The theory of memetics, or theory of memes, dating from the recent 1989 book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins, proposes the rapid increase of social structure is a consequence of a culture or system (memes) of behaviors that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another.  They have been likened to biological genes.  In his 1998 book Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, which elaborates upon the fundamental role of memes in unifying the natural and social sciences, E. O. Wilson notes Dawkins poses three conditions for evolution to occur.
  1. Variation, or the introduction of new change to existing elements;
  2. Heredity or replication, or the capacity to create copies of elements;
  3. Differential "fitness", or the opportunity for one element to be more or less suited to the environment than another.
The upshot is that mankind exhibits a cultural evolution modeled on genetic evolution, with the passing of cultural traits onto or into others, though a process of replication. The meme is a way of discussing “a piece of thought conveyed from one person to another.”  Various authors have attributed to memes religion, architecture, hunting, idealism, and more.  In some cases, such as pack-hunting, the presence of memes is similar to what otherwise might be called programs, algorithms, or more precisely feedback-correcting algorithms.  Even though memes are passed between individuals, they are contained by or aspects of the culture itself.  Quantification of the meme themselves has long been the basic open problem of their existence.

Blackmore, Susan J. (1999), The meme machine, Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press (published 1999-04-08), p. 288, ISBN 0-19-850365-2 [trade paperback ISBN 0-9658817-8-4 (1999), ISBN 0-19-286212-X (2000)] on religion.

Just a portion of the many criticisms of memetics is that it ignores established advances in other fields of cultural study, such as sociology, cultural anthropology, cognitive psychology, and social psychology.  That aside, memes are fundamentally unprovable as no experiment or observations can be made to establish them, existentially or operationally.  However, note relativity was long understood and accepted before any observations proving it was established (orbit of Mercury). All the while it is used to explain what has no clear explanation.  However, it is an important and modern container to explain our current cultural state

See Benitez Bribiesca, Luis (January 2001), "Memetics: A dangerous idea" (PDF), Interciencia: Revista de Ciencia y Technologia de América, Venezuela: Asociación Interciencia, 26 (1): 29–31, ISSN 0378-1844, retrieved 2010-02-11. 

The critique is based on scientific principles but is somewhat polemic.  It is widely accepted because it is man-centered; we originate it and we promote it. Moreover, it distinguishes man from other animals – mostly. As well, it fits within our scope of understanding. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogs to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures. This theory has a remarkable following among practitioners in biology, anthropology, psychology, and philosophy. At best, it is a theory utilizing the logic of analogy.  It applies the familiar to the unknown and possibly unknowable. It conveys a model for understanding.   For a while memes may work, until they are discovered to be a consequence of sheer system complexity.  It happens because the society of man is a virtually undefinable, unquantifiable complex system. Yet, not within the close confines of mathematics, complexity is incredibly difficult to verify or identify as causation within any system.  Simpler explanations are always preferred.  Hence the meme. Practitioners of memes prefer belief over evidence, while claiming memes cause people to select religion as supporting belief over evidence.  

For a general review, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accepting Fake Information

Every day, we are all bombarded with information, especially on news channels.  One group claims it's false; another calls it the truth. How can we know when to accept it or alternatively how can we know it's false? There are several factors which influence acceptance of fake or false information. Here are the big four.  Some just don’t have the knowledge to discern fact/truth from fiction/fact/false*. Some fake information is cleverly disguised and simply appears to be correct. Some fake information is accepted because the person wants to believe it. Some fake information is accepted because there is no other information to the contrary. However, the acceptance of  information  of any kind become a kind of  truth , and this is a well studied topic. In the link below is an essay on “The Truth About Truth.” This shows simply that what is your point of view, different types of information are generally accepted, fake or not.   https://www.linkedin.com/posts/g-donald-allen-420b03

Your Brain Within Your Brain

  Your Bicameral Brain by Don Allen Have you ever gone to another room to get something, but when you got there you forgot what you were after? Have you ever experienced a flash of insight, but when you went to look it up online, you couldn’t even remember the keyword? You think you forgot it completely. How can it happen so fast? You worry your memory is failing. Are you merely absent-minded? You try to be amused. But maybe you didn’t forget.   Just maybe that flash of insight, clear and present for an instant, was never given in the verbal form, but another type of intelligence you possess, that you use, and that communicates only to you. We are trained to live in a verbal world, where words matter most. Aside from emotions, we are unable to conjure up other, nonverbal, forms of intelligence we primitively, pre-verbally, possess but don’t know how to use. Alas, we live in a world of words, stewing in the alphabet, sleeping under pages of paragraphs, almost ignoring one of

Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious?

  Is Artificial Intelligence Conscious? I truly like the study of consciousness, though it is safe to say no one really knows what it is. Some philosophers has avoided the problem by claiming consciousness simply doesn’t exist. It's the ultimate escape clause. However, the "therefore, it does not exist" argument also applies to "truth", "God", and even "reality" all quite beyond a consensus description for at least three millennia. For each issue or problem defying description or understanding, simply escape the problem by claiming it doesn’t exist. Problem solved or problem avoided? Alternately, as Daniel Dennett explains consciousness as an account of the various calculations occurring in the brain at close to the same time. However, he goes on to say that consciousness is so insignificant, especially compared to our exalted notions of it, that it might as well not exist [1] . Oh, well. Getting back to consciousness, most of us have view