Richard Dawkins Faith In Memes Is As Blind As A Christian's to God

[LastPoet]

There is a species on earth that developed the idea that it was created by something that has ideas, yet this idea evolved, some idealized that was alot of gods, some evolved the idea that only one god created them, then evolved to be omnipotent, firstly a real mad mean guy, then, after sacrificing himself to himself turns to trying to be a nice guy, but everyone question him should be burned at the stake, but then having the need to evolve and accept others ideas, namely science, to still be able to survive added apologetics to it. Even now its adapting, naturally selecting ideas because some high representatives of this idea were caught abusing children.

There you have it, an evolved idea, it has a name, its called Catholicism.

[Cecco]

Philosopher John Gray:

...on Richard Dawkins's theory of memes - units of information whose competition somehow explains the development of thought. One problem with memes is that, unlike genes, they are not identifiable physical structures. Ideas are elusive things - think of the ways in which artistic styles emerge and develop. It shows a sorry lack of cultural understanding to imagine that the baroque, say, can be reduced to a few simple structures.

In a postscript, Dennett defends memes against the criticism that they lack the clear identity of genes, but the real objection is that it is not a theory at all, as it fails to identify anything like a mechanism of cultural evolution. This is hardly surprising, given that there is nothing in the history of ideas that resembles natural selection in biology. Some ideas seem to be more contagious than others, but those which prevail are often the ones that have power on their side. Pagan religion did not disappear from the ancient world because it lost out in competition with non-pagan memes but because, following the conversion of Constantine, it was repressed. Like other evolutionist ideologies, the theory of memes passes over the role of power in history.

The appeal of the theory is that it reduces the fertile chaos of human thought to objects that can be manipulated, and seems to open up the prospect of memetic engineering - consciously directing the intellectual evolution of the species by disseminating some memes and discouraging others. In previous books Dennett has hinted that human evolution could be directed in this way, with his own ideas helping to guide the process, but happily the possibilities of memetic engineering are rather limited. Ideas can be suppressed, but they cannot be controlled. They have too many unexpected consequences, and always slip out of the hands of their authors. Like history as a whole, the history of ideas will always be partly a matter of chance. An attempt to defeat this contingency, the theory of memes is at bottom an expression of magical thinking and as remote from genuine science as "intelligent design".

[downbeatplumb]

Philosopher John Gray:

...on Richard Dawkins's theory of memes - units of information whose competition somehow explains the development of thought. One problem with memes is that, unlike genes, they are not identifiable physical structures. Ideas are elusive things - think of the ways in which artistic styles emerge and develop. It shows a sorry lack of cultural understanding to imagine that the baroque, say, can be reduced to a few simple structures.

You keep saying that the lack of a physical structure for a meme is a weakness, it is not.
It is unnecessary, it is a distraction from the theory or meme about memes.

The idea that ideas can be transfered, changed over time and replaced is so self evidently true that I cant believe we've spent his long trying to convince you.

[Scented Nectar]

Philosopher John Gray:

...on Richard Dawkins's theory of memes - units of information whose competition somehow explains the development of thought. One problem with memes is that, unlike genes, they are not identifiable physical structures. Ideas are elusive things - think of the ways in which artistic styles emerge and develop. It shows a sorry lack of cultural understanding to imagine that the baroque, say, can be reduced to a few simple structures.

Who says they have to be physical? And who says they are too simple to represent complex artistic ideas/categories? Someone is not understanding the basics.

In a postscript, Dennett defends memes against the criticism that they lack the clear identity of genes, but the real objection is that it is not a theory at all, as it fails to identify anything like a mechanism of cultural evolution. This is hardly surprising, given that there is nothing in the history of ideas that resembles natural selection in biology.

The mechanism is popularity. All the ways ideas catch on are the mechanisms. If he doesn't see the structural, analogous resemblence, he does not understand anything about the topic.

Some ideas seem to be more contagious than others, but those which prevail are often the ones that have power on their side. Pagan religion did not disappear from the ancient world because it lost out in competition with non-pagan memes but because, following the conversion of Constantine, it was repressed. Like other evolutionist ideologies, the theory of memes passes over the role of power in history.

That conversion WAS that competition win. Does he think it has to happen by sexual combining of physical genes or something? What a moron!

The appeal of the theory is that it reduces the fertile chaos of human thought to objects that can be manipulated, and seems to open up the prospect of memetic engineering - consciously directing the intellectual evolution of the species by disseminating some memes and discouraging others. In previous books Dennett has hinted that human evolution could be directed in this way, with his own ideas helping to guide the process, but happily the possibilities of memetic engineering are rather limited. Ideas can be suppressed, but they cannot be controlled. They have too many unexpected consequences, and always slip out of the hands of their authors. Like history as a whole, the history of ideas will always be partly a matter of chance. An attempt to defeat this contingency, the theory of memes is at bottom an expression of magical thinking and as remote from genuine science as "intelligent design".

Of course memes can be controlled. Anyone who understands basic marketing knows that. No one is claiming that the control is perfect or absolute in some way either. Where is this guy getting all the extra stuff he's reading into it?

Hey.... wait a minute, you ARE John, aren't you Cecco?

[Cecco]

that's not me saying that. that is one of britains greatest modern thinkers. hailed by j.g ballard, james lovelock, will self and isiah berlin among many others.

---

and i'm genuinely touched that you thought it might be me.

[Scented Nectar]

that's not me saying that. that is one of britains greatest modern thinkers. hailed by j.g ballard, james lovelock, will self and isiah berlin among many others.

---

and i'm genuinely touched that you thought it might be me.

I had never heard of him before wiki'ing him just a minutes ago, to be honest. Sounds like his thing is politics, so I suppose his interest would be in political ideologies as memes. It looks though, like he doesn't know which selection mechanisms are analogous to each other, and which ones don't matter in causing the resulting changes to evolve.

[Cecco]

you suppose wrongly. i recommend you take the time to find out more about the man rather than just skimming his wiki page and filling in the blanks to fit your preconceived notions.

fill me in: which selection mechanisms don't matter in causing the resulting changes to evolve? and which ones do?

[Scented Nectar]

you suppose wrongly. i recommend you take the time to find out more about the man rather than just skimming his wiki page and filling in the blanks to fit your preconceived notions.

Why? He didn't bother learning about memes and evolution. Why would I be interested in his non-meme stuff when I'm not even very impressed with what he wrote on memes?

fill me in: which selection mechanisms don't matter in causing the resulting changes to evolve? and which ones do?

Don't matter: The need for it to be physical, like genes etc. You know, all the stuff everyone has been telling you about for 2 threads now, and many pages.
Do matter: The similarity in how selection determines what predominates.

The above is very summed up, and not complete. It will probably not be understood anyways, so not much energy is wasted.

[Cecco]

you said he doesn't know which selection mechanisms do not matter. i asked you for an example of a selection mechanism that doesn't matter. you said 'the need for it to be physical'. how is 'the need for it to be physical' a selection mechanism? i can see how 'natural selection' or 'genetic drift' can be seen as selection mechanisms, but how does 'the need for it to be physical' play a part in selection?

also, 'the similarity in how selection determines what predominates' is not a selection mechanism in itself.

and if you were to muster the courage to delve further into his work you would find that he is very well versed in evolution. until you know more about him, do not decide for yourself what he knows and what he doesn't. a glance at wikipedia does not bring all the answers.

and i think 'Why would I be interested in his non-meme stuff when I'm not even very impressed with what he wrote on memes' sums up your attitude entirely: if a man isn't agreeable on everything, then he is not agreeable at all.

[Scented Nectar]

The physical genes are what DOESN'T MATTER in the similarity. The mechanism used doesn't matter in this comparison.

In what DOES MATTER, it's what I said (HINT: the selection, not the mechanism used in that selection).