The role of science seems to be that of stripping complex phenomena of most of
their essence and turning them into something simpler with the hope of finding
laws to govern that simplicity. As far as I can see, the concept of "meme" fits
that description beautifully. It is a totally reductionist construct fitting
what Arthur Peacocke calls "epistemological reductionism" (the use of a theory
on
one level to try to explain phenomenon on another level.)
Joseph Cambell discusses these very same topics with out ever resorting to
reduction or concepts like the "meme". I find his approach far more in tune
with
what the goal of all this seems to be....its understanding.
respectfully,
Don Mikulecky
John J. Kineman wrote:
> At 12:11 PM 11/15/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >Norman Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> I believe that with a different starting point, there is more similarity
> >> than has been argued.
> >> >
> >> There is much in the dynamics of each to argue for similarity: the role of
> >> diversity, the chaotic nature of the systems (sensitivity of details to
> >> noise), self-regulation and stability of the system globally (insensitivity
> >> of global trends to noise), the self-organizing processes that result in
> >> system-wide functionality greater than the subsystems, etc. Maybe there is
> >> much to be learned from looking at the similarities of the two systems for
> >> the increased understanding of each. (This viewpoint is one argument in a
> >> forthcoming paper of mine, soon to be available at our website.)
> >
> >
> >I agree that there are many similarities. In fact I described both
> >processes as semiotic selected self-organization. Clearly both depend on
> >some level of self-organization, selection, and semiotics, however, the
> >selection process (implicit/passive versus explicit/active) and
> >mechanism of inheritance (genetic crossover versus cultural
> >crossover/amalgamation) are very different between the two. This is
> >where I think the notion of meme is damaging, as it implies a similarity
> >with genes where there is none.
> >
> >Luis
> >
>
> Yes, I think this is a problem.
>
> First, I agree with the dicotomy (in spite of my strong statements about
> there being combined in one evolution process) as long as we're clearly
> talking about the varioius mechanisms of evolution, rather than different
> kinds of evolution as a singular result.
>
> Second, I tend to agree that "meme" is not as clearly structural as "gene."
> But that is because we are used to thinking in terms of physical structure
> and "meme" is non-physical. We don't know how or where it exists as a meme.
> The best I can do is think that there are two things going on with memes.
> One is the purely non-physical component which, as I stated before,
> transcends our physical universe and "classical" space-time reality. This
> is perhaps better thought of as a "happening" than a "state." "State" is a
> classical concept. A "happening" is a metaphysical concept that is presumed
> in all classical events. Something "happens" yet we don't have a way of
> encoding the "happening" part, only the result. Quantum phenomena are so
> interesting in this regard because they allow us to examine the
> "happening," or at least be aware of it as a very real component of
> existence. Things don't simply pre-exist, as was once thought. In that
> former view it was much simpler. All we had to do was figure out how all
> the pre-existing things combine and build. But now we know they don't
> pre-exist, except relatively with respect to a set of prior interactions
> and "happenings."
>
> So, I'd say the idea of a meme really combines two things. The "happening"
> part of though or information, which is innovative and not derivable from
> what we are used to calling physical events; and then the immediate
> registration of that happening in the form of physically stored information
> or data. An idea occurs to me, say. It first "happens" - a purely
> non-physical event which is evidenced by a physical event of memory in my
> brain. The constant interplay in the brain between stored results of prior
> "happenings," or thoughts, and new thoughts may reinforce the pattern
> produced by the thought or it may become discarded. Social interaction may
> reinforce it's pattern in other brains. The pattern will, along with all
> other non-physical "functional" concepts, affect behavior. Behavior will
> affect both external associations (where, when, etc.) and may alter the
> external environment. Both of these alterations subject one to
> physical/biological selection. Thus succeeding generations are altered by
> the results of a thought. Does this process stop after one generation, and
> thus can be ignored? I don't think so. Just as we can "read" the
> electro-chemical information related to our thoughts from our brains, we
> can also "read" the patterns created in the environment by previous
> generations, and even other species. This is what is being said when native
> people claim to "listen" to nature. They really do listen (so do we, but
> we're less aware of it). The character of the inner city affects everyone's
> functional concept. The ideas stored in physical structures affect
> evolution. Hence, I think the idea of a "meme" is useful to capture all of
> this, even though it can easily be stated in other terms.
>
> >______________________________________________________
> >
> >Luis Mateus Rocha (Postdoctoral Associate)
> >Los Alamos National Laboratory
> >Computer Research and Applications Group (CIC-3)
> >Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA
> >e-mail: rocha@lanl.gov or rocha@santafe.edu
> >www: http://www.c3.lanl.gov/~rocha
> >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------
> John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
> National Geophysical Data Center
> 325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
> Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
> (303) 497-6900 (phone)
> (303) 497-6513 (fax)
> jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)