As much as I love Dawkins.......

[Brian37]

Getting some things right does not mean you get everything right. Just like Newton got physics right but also for a while postulated Alchemy.

Dawkins back in the 70s postulated "meme theory", and the word today has become part of society. But he is dead wrong about "memes" being anything more than mere marketing. Yes communication is physical, but thoughts are abstractions, not physical things even though they spread through communication. Much like you can measure speed but cannot equate the word "speed" to being the physical car itself.

There certainly is a science to physical communication, but I would not call "memes" anything more than marketing. Yes marketing works and both facts and fiction, good ideas and bad ideas can and do become popular. But we cannot treat ideas like atoms or DNA. If something becomes popular, fact or fiction, sure, it goes from host to host in a real physical sense, but the idea itself is still an abstraction.

If we are going to say that memes are physical things instead of abstractions, then we might as well also claim that particles and waves as some si fi wooers claim, can act like a fully in tact brain itself, and justify the universe as a cognition itself.

So the word "meme" really is nothing more than a word describing marketing, like a peacock trying to attract a female.

[Alex K]

I'm tempted to say *that's the problem you have with Dawkins?*, but anyhew,

Your definition seems a bit very restrictive to me not capturing most aspects. The point of memes is also that they are passed on with modification, for example

[Brian37]

I'm tempted to say *that's the problem you have with Dawkins?*, but anyhew,

Your definition seems a bit very restrictive to me not capturing most aspects. The point of memes is also that they are passed on with modification, for example

The number "1" is not a physical thing, it is an abstraction. It certainly is a result of evolution that lead to physical communication. But it is meaningless by itself until applied to something. "1 unicorn" vs "1 apple".

Dawkins merely tried to re invent mundane marketeing. I only agree that ideas spread through physical communication, but the idea itself is still not a physical thing. Marketing works for both bullshit claims and facts. But the fact that language is a result of physical evolution, does not make the claim itself an atom. Again Dawkins flaw is the same as treating an atom as the entire body. Ideas are really nothing more than a description of our brains in motion, just like we say "that car is going 55 miles per hour". "55mph" is not a physical thing, but a description of an outcome of a physical process.

Memes do work sure. But they are not physical things, they are outcomes we describe with language. Ideas spreading from host to host I can accept as needing a material process, but why some work and others die is a matter of social sciences, psychology, psychiatry, and neurology. But I am not willing to treat the number "1" as a physical thing itself. It is our evolution that allows us to assign meaning to language. But communication needing physical material to happen, does not make the idea

I treat abstractions as outcomes in terms of descriptions. I think this was Dawkins attempt to put the super natural and god claims to rest by making everything physical. He's not wrong about trying to kill the idea of bad claims as just being mere concoctions humans like believing. God claims for example are not real, outside our real ability to gap fill because of our flawed perceptions. So he might as well say gods are real if he is going to go beyond ideas being abstractions and treat them like DNA.

Our abstractions we call human communications are real in the context of our ability to communicate, that is physical. But again, treating words like individual atoms, rather than a description of motion, which can describe a fact or absurdity is like treating an atom as functioning like the entire universe collectively. Thoughts are not material things, they are descriptions of our observations. It is a collective manifestation that cannot be treated like an individual part. Just like we cannot say speed is the car itself. Speed is merely the language we use to describe the car in motion. Speed is not separate from the car, but still only functions as a description.

[Mudhammam]

When did Dawkins ever suggest that his meme idea was anything but a potentially helpful metaphor for understanding cultural evolution?

[Brian37]

I don't think he sells meme theory like he did in the 70s. But the way this wiki article reads, his detractors didn't seem to like it much.

Metaphor sure, if he is calling that now, but reading the history of it doesn't sound like it was sold as such at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme Read his detractor's part of the article.

[Mudhammam]

I don't think he sells meme theory like he did in the 70s. But the way this wiki article reads, his detractors didn't seem to like it much.

Metaphor sure, if he is calling that now, but reading the history of it doesn't sound like it was sold as such at the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme Read his detractor's part of the article.

In The Selfish Gene he repeatedly stresses its analogous purpose and explicitly denies any attempt at a grand theory of human culture. Now, it's debatable whether it's a helpful analogy or not, and I'm sure others have overemphasized its utility---Dawkins perhaps encouraging them as it is the thing he's largely known for---but I don't think he ever advocated it as something other than a suggestion for how one can imagine Darwinian principles as having greater scope than the work they perform on genes.

[CapnAwesome]

Dawkins isn't infallible. Duh.

[Alex K]

I would also like to stress that a Gene is an object which is 1.) entirely abstract 2.) meaningless out of context. Maybe I haven't quite understood what you mean by ideas being an abstraction.

[Brian37]

I would also like to stress that a Gene is an object which is 1.) entirely abstract 2.) meaningless out of context. Maybe I haven't quite understood what you mean by ideas being an abstraction.

1 is an abstraction, 1 apple is the abstract language to to denote the observation of the volume of of numbers of the object, the apple. You cant say "1 apple" if there is no apple to count. Just like you cannot describe the speed of the car if it is not in motion. The car and speed cannot be separated because the speed is the description of object in motion.

Our using language is used to communicate, but the words themselves are descriptions of ideas, and objects, because of our brains being in motion. No motion, no thoughts. Language is an outcome of a process, it is not a thing by itself.

[Alex K]

Our using language is used to communicate, but the words themselves are descriptions of ideas, and objects, because of our brains being in motion. No motion, no thoughts. Language is an outcome of a process, it is not a thing by itself.

What is the difference between a Gene and an English sentence in this respect, though?

Without a machine implementing the code for the transcription mechanism, and without the rest of the chromosome, a gene means nothing, as much as some letters in an unknown language on a piece of paper. In fact, it is equivalent to letters on a piece of paper.