[From Howard Pattee] Why is natural selection inevitable, in spite of brains, language, and technology? Before discussing this topic, listen to Susan Blackmore’s TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/269
She believes human language and technology is a Pandora’s box.
I have called them a Promethean trade-off.
She points out that we should not look at memes from our human cultural perspective, but from evolution’s perspective. From our human perspective, human language looks like the greatest evolutionary discovery since the origin of life itself.
On the other hand, from an evolutionary perspective, genes that allow human language are only a very late evolutionary discovery with an untested survival value. Some language memes are adaptive; others are not. Language allows groups to communicate crucial survival information as well as telling lies. Persuasive memes can intensify competitive genetic traits beyond their natural adaptive value. Patriotic and religious memes are a prime example.
Natural language memes have been largely responsible for our cultures for well over 5000 years. However, artificial languages like mathematics and computer languages required for science and technology have given humans Promethean power over natural forces that can unselectively increase lifespan, counter local effects of genetic deficiencies, and unleash weapons of mass destruction. Biotechnology will eventually give us power to edit genetic instructions that have been tested by billions of years of natural selection and replace them with artificial instructions based on current human desires. None of these powers has any clear advantage from an evolutionary perspective.
Blackmore calls this new artificial level “temes” (technological memes). Imagine what greater powers another 5000 years of technology will give human culture (if it lasts that long). We should not forget that 5000 years is only a moment in evolutionary time, and that natural selection operates over indefinitely longer time scales. Natural selection will ultimately decide survival or extinction. We are still entirely dependent on the “selfish genes” to construct the neural architecture that allows natural and artificial memes and temes.
Howard Pattee
She believes human language and technology is a Pandora’s box.
I have called them a Promethean trade-off.
She points out that we should not look at memes from our human cultural perspective, but from evolution’s perspective. From our human perspective, human language looks like the greatest evolutionary discovery since the origin of life itself.
On the other hand, from an evolutionary perspective, genes that allow human language are only a very late evolutionary discovery with an untested survival value. Some language memes are adaptive; others are not. Language allows groups to communicate crucial survival information as well as telling lies. Persuasive memes can intensify competitive genetic traits beyond their natural adaptive value. Patriotic and religious memes are a prime example.
Natural language memes have been largely responsible for our cultures for well over 5000 years. However, artificial languages like mathematics and computer languages required for science and technology have given humans Promethean power over natural forces that can unselectively increase lifespan, counter local effects of genetic deficiencies, and unleash weapons of mass destruction. Biotechnology will eventually give us power to edit genetic instructions that have been tested by billions of years of natural selection and replace them with artificial instructions based on current human desires. None of these powers has any clear advantage from an evolutionary perspective.
Blackmore calls this new artificial level “temes” (technological memes). Imagine what greater powers another 5000 years of technology will give human culture (if it lasts that long). We should not forget that 5000 years is only a moment in evolutionary time, and that natural selection operates over indefinitely longer time scales. Natural selection will ultimately decide survival or extinction. We are still entirely dependent on the “selfish genes” to construct the neural architecture that allows natural and artificial memes and temes.
Howard Pattee
Thanks Howard for alerting us to Blackmore's TED talk which I found very interesting. Thanks also to Stu for first alerting us to the TED talks last November. They are a wonderful resource where Blog members spend twenty minutes watching a very well-prepared speaker present an important topic to a general audience. I would like to see more TED talks used as Topics for this Blog!
ReplyDeleteBlackmore makes a few points that I think are important:
1) Genes have had billions of years to mature and perfect themselves while human-level memes such as metaphoric language are only several thousand years old. As Howard indicates, from evolution's (genetic) perspective, memes are unproven and may not be survivable. Might we "talk" ourselves into a patriotic or religious fury and use our modern weapons to wipe out human life and civilization?
2) Technological memes ("temes" she calls them) are even less mature. Two critical advances have been achieved in my lifetime!
(2a) All previous tools depended upon human brainpower to operate. Now, we have software that directs computers to operate tools autonomously. (I am personally responsible for some of this "artificial intelligence".) Are we creating our successors? Will they be made of silicon and copper rather than protoplasm???
(2b) All previous human domestication of plants and animals by what Darwin called "artificial selection" has stayed within species boundaries. Now, genetic engineering has empowered us to mix genes across species boundaries. For example, cold-water fish genes are now in tomatoes to make them frost-proof. We can design new species of plants and animals, possibly including super-humans. (I favor all this stuff, including stem cell research.) Are we creating our successors? Will they be a super race of humans who will look upon us as we look upon the other great apes?
I take the position that genetic evolution "created" big-brained humans and our memes because genes evolve too slowly. Primitive, non-human memes have been around for at least a hundred million years. Human memes are only a hundred thousand years old. Advanced memes like metaphoric language are only about six thousand years old, but they are what we mean when we say "civilization".
Our advanced memes "created" temes because human brains are too limited and within-species artificial selection was too slow.
In short, genetic evolution created big brained humans and their tools to do things unaided evolution could not do.
All this may be burning our candles at both ends and it may not last the night." As Edna St. Vincent Milay wrote "But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends - it gives a lovely light."
I hope this new Topic will spark some serious cross-discussion!
Ira Glickstein
Hi Howard,
ReplyDeleteThank you Howard for showing Blackmore's TED talk, it has given me a lot to think about, as well as, causing me to ask a lot of questions.
I am inclined to agree with you that the human language and technology is more of a Prometheus trade-off rather than a haphazard Pandora’s box.
Your comment on the persuasive memes shows where the persuasive memes can go beyond genetic traits. You stated that patriotic and religious memes are a prime example. I am interested in understanding from a memes perspective why some religions have spread and other have not.
I would like to have someone respond and give their understanding of why religion has had a survival advantage, from a memes viewpoint!!! How does science omit Faith in discussing memes? If it can be explained in terms of faith based religious memes, what are its replicators?
I enjoyed your article very much! Looking forward to your response to my ever so humble questions.
With respect as always, Deardra
Deardra wants to know why some religions have spread and other have not. That is a question that bothers evolutionary biologists about the spread of genes. The old-fashioned answer was that genes spread if they were adaptive, that is, if they increased chances of survival. Today the feeling is that most mutations are neutral, that is, they are just random variations with no immediate adaptive value.
ReplyDeleteFor example, look at the millions of variations in plants and animal species. It is difficult to see why and orchid or a praying mantis is more adapted than a pansy or a dragonfly. The same neutrality holds for memes. There are 6000 natural languages, and it is also difficult to see why one is better than another, or why one story or book is better than another.
Of course, both genes and memes must satisfy some minimum fitness conditions, but most of the variations are just frozen accidents. The only requirement is that they replicate or propagate, not that they are competitively naturally selected.
We know how genes replicate, but meme propagation is more varied and complex. For example, children’s books propagate largely because they are “imprinted” in the child’s mind so that as parents they are chosen for the next generation. Why children like certain books is still a mystery. “Goodnight Moon” has been popular for 60 years. It has sold millions of copies in several languages. It is not clear why? To a large degree I think this is the case for all literature.
I think the basic fear of the unknown and the need for a faith is understandable, but the established memes of organized religions, their dogmas and traditions, are largely frozen accidents propagated from parents to children like other stories.
My feeling is that when a meme is propagated long enough it automatically becomes overrated. It is like becoming a celebrity just because you’re famous.
Deardra has asked some great questions and Howard has done a great job in answering!
ReplyDeleteI accept Howard's "frozen accident" explanation up to a point.
GENETIC CODES are an example of a frozen accident: Virtually all life on Earth now uses a code based on three codons, each of which may be U, C, A, or G.
Why THIS scheme and not some other? There are 64 codes for only about 20 amino acids. The current coding scheme seems wasteful.
OF course, you and I were not there when this code was "adopted" and became universal. The best guess is that there were many different coding schemes that arose some 3.5+ billion years ago, some undoubtedly more "efficient". However, the "chosen" scheme was "good enough" (what Howard calls "minimum fitness conditions") and, by chance, it got established and widely distributed before the others. A mature scheme that is in wide use can beat out an immature code that has better potential.
That is the definition of a frozen accident. Something that is "good enough" and becomes a widely accepted standard and beats out competitors that are "better". (In our own lifetimes, the Sony Beta videotape standard was technically better than the VHS standard. But, it wasn't that much better and VHS gained acceptance through smart marketing and Beta died out.)
DEARDRA'S QUESTION #1:
"[Howard] stated that patriotic and religious memes are a prime example. I am interested in understanding from a memes perspective why some religions have spread and other have not."
There is evidence all (or nearly all) humans are genetically "wired" to believe in something larger than themselves. It usually takes the form of religious faith in some supernatural gods or God, but it may also take the form of racial or national patriotism, dedication to a political/economic system, or various combinations of the above.
A meme is successful if it is accepted by lots of people and if they go out of their way to spread it to lots of others.
Just like genes, if a meme is "good enough" and gets a jump on others it may beat out alternatives that may be "better" in some way, unless a later alternative is so much "better" that is displaces it's predecessor.
For example, Christianity has spread more successfully than the Judiasm it came out of, due, IMHO, to missionary zeal and extravagant promises of "salvation" in Heaven. Within Christianity, different denominations have been more or less successful than others, due to economic and political success of societies that adopted these variants, investment in missionary efforts, and many other factors.
Islam, less mature but far more millitant, may beat Christianity out due to the "reason" meme weakening traditional religious faith memes in westernized societies and the practical joke "Allah" played on us all by sequestering most of the world's petroleum under Moslem lands.
DEARDRA'S QUESTION #2:
"I would like to have someone respond and give their understanding of why religion has had a survival advantage, from a memes viewpoint!!! ... what are [Faith's] replicators?"
In any competition, from an armed battle to a commercial marketing contest, the side that thinks they are bound to win has an advantage, all else being equal. When people have traditional religious faith, they are led to believe that the gods or God are on their side and they will win. "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!"
As the Spanish Conquistadores proved, conversion of native South Americans tamed the population and aided their conquest. Oftentimes, the most recent converts to some Faith meme are the most active replicators!
A more important question is how the advance of science and "reason" will affect traditional religion. I believe traditional religious faith will largely die out and believers will have to keep their Faith to themselves or it will limit their careers in the future corporate-dominated society (see my novel).
Perhaps westernized societies will survive and reproduce by some sort of missionary democracy as is being tried (sadly, not too successfully) by the current Administration in Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps we will succeed via the "tender trap" of selling the younger generation in Islamic countries on pop music, action movies, blatant sex, alcohol, and all other western "sins" to make them as soft as our youth? Let us pray for that miracle!
Ira Glickstein
Thank you Howard for your very clear and helpful explanation of my question on religious memes.
ReplyDeleteIt was especially helpful for me to understand that most mutations are neutral, and they are merely random variations with no immediate adaptive value. I now understand the question I had on replicators. As I look at the most successful world religions they demonstrate memetic modification or replicators over time. If one looks at the 21st century world religions they differ to a greater or lesser extent from the theologies of previous centuries. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and there decedents all developed through variation, modification, replicator and memetic recombination from a shared monotheistic meme.
Now I understand what Ira meant in his sermon “The Seed,” when he said the three Abrahamic religions together constitute more than half the world’s population. The billions of people who have inherited the “seed” of Abraham, which can be called the meme of a Universal God, is an example! Even though the number of Jews is a minute percentage of the world’s population, their replicators account for more than half of the religions today.
You had also used the word “basic fear” of the unknown as one of the main reasons for the faith/religious memes. I feel the word “fear” is not a strong enough feeling/emotion to have been responsible for the religious meme. It would appear to me that only “after” a person has faith/religion that fear of the unknown begins, and that modifies behavior. To get a equal view of the opposite of the religious memes could you comment on the nonreligious memes. Their population accounts for approximately 16 percent of the major religions of the world today. What has been written about the nonreligious memes and their comfort level with the unknown? Thank you.
With respect as always, Deardra
Ira,
ReplyDeleteYour comments are excellent and has given me a greater understanding of the world I live in and how to view it. This topic of memes and temes has really brought to light the events of your novel, “2052 Hawking Plan.” As a devout Believer of traditional Christian beliefs, I am drawn to look at the world with knowledge, understanding, acumen, and insight. The question you raised on how the advances of science and “reason” will affect traditional religion is extremely important. That is one of the reasons why I have encouraged my friends to join TVPClub blog. As you stated, “ a religious meme is successful if it is accepted by lots of people and if they go out of their way to spread it to lots of others. Well, as I read the top magazines, watch top TV shows, and what movie won the Oscar, I ask myself, what is being successfully accepted and spread to others.
Your novel, “2052 Hawking Plan” is a must read because it gives us a sneak peek at
our great grandchildren living and coping with all of societies highly sophisticated new artificial level “temes (technological memes) accomplishments.
With respect as always, Deardra
I have mentioned before that I don't care for the term "meme." I like even less the term "teme." I suppose that Dawkins has a special right to coin "memes" because of his seminal work on the "selfish gene." However, I can't give Blackmore the same courtesy, since this is a kind of bandwagonning which dilutes the original concept. Dawkins contribution was his shift of point of view from the full organism as an agent to a set of genes bent on propagating themselves and his use of game theory. Although the genes are incapable of planning, they give the appearance of a tiny creature in control of a sort of monster robot that acts in ways which are more or less protective of the genes. The use of the meme concept dangerously obscures thinking about human culture. One of the great truths that Plato (in The republic) conveys to us is that those who discover important ideas tend to try to use that same notion on everything in sight, to the detriment of the original discovery.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in an over-simplified memetic view of a battle between Islam and other cultures, it isn't true that Islamic fighters believe that God promises them victory thereby increasing their morale and ferocity. The Koran is clear that God makes no such promise. Winning or losing is in the hands of Allah and his will is unknown. However, the Koran promises Paradise in death when one is on Jihad. Obviously, that belief may be a useful trait in a soldier depending on the mission and the desires of the leader. A soldier who doesn't care if he dies may not try as hard to succeed as one who wants to live to fight another day. Genes are for life, but memes can be for death.
I would emphasize that the recent (past 200 years) success of our form of civilization has been, because it coincided with a natural flow of decadence. As pointed out by Ira, we have to hope that we can corrupt others with our addiction to sex, drugs, television and rock 'n roll. That's why I don't care for the meme or teme concepts. There are broad trends (maybe even laws) that one misses. Civilization seems to be a cyclic "battle" between order and disorder, between moral and immoral, between honesty and dishonesty, between honor and dishonor, etc. So-called memes are really practices that fit or don't fit those grand trends. Unlike genes, the survival of such practices in the medium run is related to whether or not they flow with the major trends of that particular civilization at that point in time. That's why we have lousy television, music and art. They are marvelously adapted to the decadence trend that holds us in its grasp. Unlike genes, they produce the environment. They don't adapt to it.
With respect -Joel
Joel, I agree with your last paragraph, but I don’t understand why you object to the words “meme” and “teme.” Just like the word “gene” these are only arbitrary labels for different types of propagated information. How else would you label these evolving hierarchic levels of information? We are just naming them. We are not judging the quality of this information or how it is selected.
ReplyDeleteAs I said in an earlier post, we cannot imagine what greater technological powers another 5000 years will produce, if humans last that long. It is important to distinguish these three types of information because they have such different powers. For example, we are still entirely dependent on the genes to construct the neural architecture that allows memes. The artificial temes, in turn, are still dependent on memes. (Some sci-fi types think temes could evolve into autonomous self-replicators.) Genes operate over indefinitely longer time scales than memes and temes, and I’ll bet genes will ultimately decide survival or extinction.
Deardra, I agree that fear alone is not an adequate basis for religion. I was suggesting that it was one primitive source of religion. Something like curiosity also exists in all animals. This evolved into the desire to predict and explain events, especially awesome or scary events. When language was invented, story telling often satisfied this desire. Along with a good memory and imagination, this unique ability of humans produced the first historical religions. At least, this is an explanation Pascal Boyer used in his book, “Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought.”
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you mean by "the opposite of religious memes."
Howard said:
ReplyDeleteJoel, I agree with your last paragraph, but I don’t understand why you object to the words “meme” and “teme.” Just like the word “gene” these are only arbitrary labels for different types of propagated information. How else would you label these evolving hierarchic levels of information? We are just naming them. We are not judging the quality of this information or how it is selected.
Joel responds: Coining new words or modifying the meaning of old words is a heavy responsibility and can have unforeseen consequences. An example is the evolution of the word crusade. President used this word when describing the War on Terror in its non-religious sense, but the Islamic world chose to interpret it in its old sense of a Christian holy war. Genes are very specific physical and chemical objects that produce amino acids. Their chemical function is clear and the specific effects of those amino acids is yielding to research. There is no other word for genes. Meme on the other hand is a redundant word for culture practice or transmission or whatever else in that domain one wants. In Wikipedia one finds, "Dawkins defined the meme as "a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation", but memeticists in general promote varying definitions of the concept of the meme. The lack of a consistent, rigorous and precise understanding of what typically makes up one unit of cultural transmission remains a problem in debates about memetics." I think it's bad philosophical practice to go out of one's way to use words that experts are fuzzy about. There are sufficient other traditional words to make one's meaning strictly clear that don't carry all the unnecessary baggage that "meme" has. With respect -Joel
Joel, I agree, as you say, that “the lack of a consistent, rigorous and precise understanding of what typically makes up one unit of cultural transmission remains a problem in debates about memetics." But if you don’t use words unless they have precise meanings, you will have difficulty saying anything.
ReplyDeleteThe same lack of precise understanding exists for the functions of genes. That is why the new words “genomics” and “proteomics” were recently coined simply to label the many varieties of studies of gene functions. These words are not precisely defined either, but they have become part of the language.
I think a new word in any language is “naturally selected” in the sense that if it is useful to a large enough population it will persist whether any individual likes it or not. The evolution of languages has many similarities with biological evolution. That is why the new word “biosemiotics” arose. Like memes, it is still in the process of being defined.
I've been reading Joel and Howard's comments with great interest. Although I generally agree with Howard on the usefulness of somewhat fuzzy concepts like "memes" and "temes", I also appreciate Joel's demand that words should have "consistent, rigorous, and precise" meanings. C-minds chide L-minds over their tendency to confuse the plain language meaning of established law, such as activist judges who interpret equal opportunity ... without regard to race to mean give preferential treatment to certain races until the outcomes are equal".
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, metaphoric language, invented only about 6000 years ago, has proven to be useful - even essential - to human civilization. The ancient genius who invented metaphor by saying something like "the Earth sleeps under a blanket of snow" knew very well that was not literally true. Yet, however different from a person resting and recharging and keeping warm under a bear skin during the cold, dark night, there is some deep truth in the metaphor.
Joel says "Genes are very specific physical and chemical objects that produce amino acids. Their chemical function is clear and the specific effects of those amino acids is yielding to research."
Well, yes and no! We may speak of "the gene for tallness" but there are actually multiple genes that, in complex combination, are inherited from mother and father and code for that trait. We think of DNA as a "blueprint", but that is misleading. A blueprint for a manufactured object, such as a house, has a specific place where the height is specified. DNA, on the other hand, is more like a "parts list" that specifies sequences of amino acids that, when strung together become proteins. In the complex decoding of the DNA, most of it is "junk" that never gets expressed, and other parts are "switches" that turn other parts "on" or "off" and so on. Yet, despite this lack of precise meaning, it is convenient to speak of "the gene for tallness" and other traits and whether they are dominant or recessive and so on and on. The abstraction of "gene" as proven extremely useful in our understanding of biological inheritance.
Dawkins recognized that many animals, and especially humans, obtain characteristics by means other than genetic inheritance. As Joel mentioned, Dawkins coined the term "meme" (from the Grek "mimeme". "something imitated") to describe non-genetic inheritance. (Another distinguished biologist, E. O. Wilson, later coined the term "culturgen" for the same idea of "cultural gene".) The fact that two leading biologists saw a need for a word to stand for non-genetic inheritance, and that memetics have been widely accepted in the scientific community, indicates the value of the term.
"Temes", for "technology memes", is of more recent origin and it may or may not survive. I think there is a need for a word to describe information that is inherited beyond natural genetics and human memetics. Genetic engineering, where genes may be transfered between species, is far different from evolution by natural selection or even the artificial selection practiced to domesticate farm animals and pets. Self-replicating machines are also far different from machines built by humans. Both of these advances are due to technology, but they differ from each other so much that we may need two new terms.
Any suggestions?
Ira Glickstein
Ira said:
ReplyDeleteGenetic engineering, where genes may be transfered between species, is far different from evolution by natural selection or even the artificial selection practiced to domesticate farm animals and pets. Self-replicating machines are also far different from machines built by humans. Both of these advances are due to technology, but they differ from each other so much that we may need two new terms. Any suggestions?
Joel responds: Yes, I have suggestions. We could call genetic engineering "genetic engineering." We could call self-replicating robots "self-replicating robots." Inventing new words unnecessarily is cute, but locks out conversation with people who are not in the in-group. It makes what is quite simple, obscure to non-technologists. Science did not do this sort of thing 50 years ago and as a consequence the public was better informed.
The book entitled "Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy" illustrates how jargon and insider references can be used to create untruth. Here's a synopsis from Barnes and Noble that gives some insight into the problem. This is why I think that one should not invent a buzzword when a simple adjective or adverbial modifier of an existing word will do nicely.
Synopsis: Sokal Hoax: The Sham That Shook the Academy by Lingua Franca Magazine (Editor), Lingua Franca (Editor)
In May 1996 physicist Alan Sokal published an essay in the fashionable academic journal Social Text. The essay quoted hip theorists like Jacques Lacan, Donna Haraway, and Gilles Deleuze. The prose was thick with the jargon of poststructuralism. And the point the essay tried to make was counterintuitive: gravity, Sokal argued, was a fiction that society had agreed upon, and science needed to be liberated from its ideological blinders.
When Sokal revealed in the pages of Lingua Franca that he had written the article as a parody, the story hit the front page of the New York Times. It set off a national debate still raging today: Are scholars in the humanities trapped in a jargon-ridden Wonderland? Are scientists deluded in thinking their work is objective? Are literature professors suffering from science envy? Was Sokal's joke funny? Was the Enlightenment such a bad thing after all? And isn't it a little bit true that the meaning of gravity is contingent upon your cultural perspective?
With respect -Joel
Joel, I am quite familiar with the Sokal hoax and am in complete agreement with Sokal! For those interested, here is a website that generates a different "scholarly paper" in the postmodern style each time you visit. The papers look genuine, with title, author, institution, academic text with citations of postmodern scholars, and so on. However, all is nonsence and buzzwords strung together. click here for a sample. Each time you refresh the page you will get another original scholarly nonsence paper.
ReplyDeleteThat said, let me respectfully disagree with Joel on the issue of "memes" and "temes". The reason Dawkins (and Wilson) made the analogy between inherited cultural knowledge and inherited genetic information was so they and others could extend the well-developed methods of genetics to the new field of memetics. Of course there are differences between memes and genes and all the mathematical formalism developed for genes does not apply exactly, but, enough of it does apply to make the analogy valuable.
As a retired electrical engineering professor, Joel knows we use the same forms of equations for resonant circuits consisting of capacitors, inductors, and resistors as were developed by early physicists for mechanical structures consisting of hinges, weights and springs. One of Einstein's greatest contributions was his "man in the falling elevator" thought experiment that showed the effects of gravity were identical to accelleration of a moving body.
There is reason to believe that trans-species genetic engineering will be subject to the concepts and analysis methods developed for both genetics and memetics. Similarly for self-reproducing machines.
Sure we should call them "genetic engineering" and "self-reproducing machines", but we should also generalize these advances by analogy to more mature and well-developed scientific concepts.
Ira Glickstein
Hi Ira and others,
ReplyDeleteIt's of no consequence, but I wasn't an electrical engineer, rather a mechanical engineer and professor. I'm certainly in favor of analogies as a teaching tool, a means of stimulating creative thinking and as a way of clarifying thoughts in communication.
It's interesting that you point out the similarities capacitors, inductors and resistors have with masses, springs and dampers in terms of their dynamic behavior when voltage and current are considered analogous with speed and force. All I'm saying is that we don't call resistors "dampistors." We don't call capacitors "springitors" or inductors "massitors." It would have been highly confusing (especially since analog computers which use electrical components to approximate mechanical components don't use inductors). I only point out that reasoning by analogy and jargon is dangerous and hardly worth the risk in the social "sciences" or among the lay public.
An example is "The Theory of Relativity." Einstein's invention of the term "relativity" was unfortunate for social scientists. Most of them never learned the theory, but did not hesitate to use the word to bolster their notions concerning situational ethics and moral relativity. Einstein would have been more accurate if he had entitled his work "Some consequences of the speed of light being absolute for all observers." A theory that proclaimed the existence of an Absolute would have been unattractive to the same social scientists.
I've stated my interest in fallibility many times. I dislike memes and temes, because these terms may be convenient to some few, but contribute to an overall increase in bad reasoning, in-group fraud perpetuated on the public. Our fruitless discussion about whether I should or should not like the terms memes and temes is subset of the fruitless arguments among etiologists and others about whether or not there ought to be a science of memetics. When I go through the clutter in my garage, I use the rule: "If in doubt, throw it out."
With respect -Joel
P.S. It occurs to me that I once read an extremely interesting book in French about editing. The French language used to be the language for all diplomatic treaties simply because of its precision. The book showed how to find exactly the right word for each situation. There are no synonyms (in our sense of the word) in French. Each similar word has a nuance that justifies its existence. I think buzz words like meme and teme have no such nuance.
Thanks Joel for your comments. Sorry I mis-remembered your field of engineering. My Bachelors is in Electrical Engineering but on the Professional Engineering exam I skipped the EE questions and did the Mechanical and Civil Engineering questions because I found them easier :^).
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "Einstein's invention of the term 'relativity' was unfortunate for social scientists. Most of them never learned the theory, but did not hesitate to use the word to bolster their notions concerning situational ethics and moral relativity."
I've just completed reading the 2007 biography of Einstein by Isaacson and he makes your point. Einstein later said he wished he had used the term "invariance" to capture the idea that the speed of light, as measured by all observers, is the same regardless of their relative speeds.
Isaacson writes: "Einstein's insight ... was that we must discard concepts that 'have no link with experience,' such as 'absolute simultaneity' and 'absolute speed'. It is important to note, however, that the theory of relativity does not mean that 'everything is relative.' It does not mean that everything is subjective. ... But ... spacetime ... remains invariant in all inertial frames. Likewise, there are things such as the speed of light that remain invariant. In fact, Einstein briefly considered calling his creation Invariance Theory, but the name never took hold." {p131-132, emphasis added]
I now have a better understanding of the reasons for your low opinion of the terms "memes" and "temes". The test of time will determine if these names take hold - or not.
Ira Glickstein
New concepts are often derived from established analogous concepts or experiences. For example, Einstein first conceived of gravity as analogous to acceleration before he saw that it was not an analogy but precisely equivalent to gravity. Maxwell used Aristotle’s word aether as analogous to a deformable medium, but this turned out to be a nonexistent analogy. In physics, terms like force, field, and heat, began as vague analogs of known behaviors, but their meanings have continued to evolve. None of these words began with precise meanings.
ReplyDeleteThe word “gene” was coined by Johannsen in 1909 as an abbreviation of the word “pangen” that was coined by deVries. He defined it as the smallest particle representing one hereditary characteristic, but nobody had a clue about what it was. The word “meme” was coined as an analog of the abbreviation “gene” that is not itself a simple concept, as Joel suggests.
The word “gene” is an abbreviation standing (at a minimum) for the evolutionary concepts of heritable propagation, blind variation, and informational control of individuals in a naturally selected statistical population distribution that interbreeds. We also now know genes are embodied in DNA, but that is not the essential meaning of genes.
Analogously, the abbreviation “meme” is intended to carry with it all these essential properties of genes. That is why it is simply impractical to use Joel’s idea of using a simple adjective to convey all these genetic properties every time we want to talk about it.
I would expect that in some cases Joel’s opinion of the word “meme” is justified: “bad reasoning, in-group fraud perpetuated on the public” because all words are often misused. But the ultimate test is whether it gains precision and persists in the language.
Howard,
ReplyDeleteThank you for responding to each of my questions, and for asking me to explain what I meant by “the opposite of religious memes.” Let me try to explain what I meant to say. I am trying to understand the nonreligious.
Ira stated that there is evidence that all (or nearly all) humans are “wired” to believe in something larger than themselves. It usually takes the form of religious faith in a belief in a supernatural God, etc. Note the phrase (or nearly all). That phrase (or nearly all) is what I am trying to understand. For lack of a better word let me call (or nearly all) agnostics, atheists, secular humanist, theist or those who do not believe in the unknown (God).
As I understand religious memes, it takes a large group of people who have a shared belief, and if that belief is good enough it can spread and win out over a better alternative. I understand that the “reason” memes can be a very strong factor in spreading ones belief. The difficulty I have in trying to understand the spread of the nonreligious memes is that I do not see “them” as forming clusters or groups. I do not see agnostics, atheist, etc., as a cohesive group of people who can go around proselytizing their cause. I read a comment someone wrote about atheists, the comment went something like this, “atheists are like cats because they are totally impossible to herd or corral. I mean that in a kind and respectful way because I have never been able to find two atheists who think alike. They are so independent and so proud of there “uniqueness”; they seem to be so distinctive with their own thoughts. Atheists tell me that their thoughts come from within, through tremendous research, investigation, and observation and not from copying a large group of people. Hmmm
My question is how does atheist rank 16% of World Religions? What is the “reason” meme that holds the atheists mind-set together? Every atheist that I have met is unique and prefers to stand-alone. Would you explain how the replicators would fit in with this group? I am reluctant to use the word group, when by the very definition, to my understanding; the atheist does not want to be grouped? (corralled)
I used the ranking of Major Religions of the World on www.adherents.com
Note: Total adds up to more than 100% due to rounding and upper estimates were used for each group
33% Christianity
21% Islam
16% Nonreligious
14% Hinduism
6% Primal-indigenous (incl. African Traditional/Diasponic)
6% Chinese tradition
6% Buddhism
0.36% Sikhism
0.22% Jewish
I am also reading this article, sent to me by Zoren, to try to understand the nonreligious,and the skeptics of the unknown or unproven...
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Kurtz.htm
With respect as always, Deardra
Deardra,
ReplyDeleteYou ask, “My question is how does atheist rank 16% of World Religions? What is the “reason” meme that holds the atheists mind-set together? Every atheist that I have met is unique and prefers to stand-alone. Would you explain how the replicators would fit in with this group?
In my opinion, rejection of the memes of organized religion, usually imprinted in childhood, has a genetic basis. It is a fundamental trait that occurs in all animals. It is called curiosity (it includes exploration, random search, doubt and skepticism). Since it is propagated genetically, it does not need group support. It is expressed as an individual trait. Then you might ask: If it’s genetic, why don’t more than 16% show more curiosity and doubt about cultural memes?
My explanation is that all conservative organizations, especially religions and governments, create memes that strongly suppress this genetic trait, because liberal doubters are a threat. For example, organized religions teach the meme of exclusivity and the dangers of heresy and apostasy. These memes threaten doubters by Divine judgment, shunning, excommunication, and even death. Similarly, government memes threaten doubters by calling them unpatriotic or even traitors.
I am going to expand on this conflict between genes and memes in my discussion of language. What makes a good myth (a type of meme)? Briefly, there is some consensus among evolutionary psychologists (and much older sources) that myths are constructed on the exposed tip of the complex genetic iceberg. There is great arbitrariness and variety of myths, but their success depends on their conforming to the deep genetic instincts (something like Jung’s archetypes).
I haven’t read the Kurtz article yet, but I think he has a rather limited view of how scientists think.
Howard
Deardra notes that I (Ira) said "... there is evidence that all (or nearly all) humans are 'wired' to believe in something larger than themselves. ..."
ReplyDeleteAlthough this usually takes the form of belief in a supernatural God, it can also take naturalistic forms that are agnostic or atheistic.
For example:
o Communists believed "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" would lead to a paradise on Earth. Unselfish "Communist man" is their ideal.
o Some scientists believe pure reason and the scientific method will yield answers to all questions worth asking. Knowledge is their "religion" and the laboratory is their "church".
o Some global warming activists think extreme measures are necessary to save the Planet Earth. The whole Earth is their "church".
o Adam Smith believed in the "invisible hand" of competitive market forces. He taught that if everyone strives for his or her own interests in a market the "invisible hand" leads to a greater benefit to society as a whole than the well-intentioned works of "those who affected to trade for the public good."
o Richard Dawkins believes that "on Earth we are dealing with a generalized process for optimizing biological species, a process that works all over the planet, on all continents and islands, and at all times."
o I believe that competitive selection, as exemplified by Dawkins (biological evolution) and Smith (free market capitalism) and the history of human civilization, has created a Consciousness superior to any individual human being. That Consciousness is guiding civilization in a generally positive direction.
Deardra's ranking of major religions indicates only 16% that are "non-religious". How to interpret that number?
Well, I am affilliated with a Jewish congregation so I am included as "religious" yet I do not believe in a personal God. I would guess that a substantial portion of religiously-affilliated do not accept their religions in a literal sense. On the other hand, many in the 16% non-affilliated hold naturalistic beliefs in "something larger than themselves."
Deardra observes: "I do not see agnostics, atheist, etc., as a cohesive group of people who can go around proselytizing their cause." She wonders how the non-religious memes spread.
True observation, the non-religious do not generally proselytize as atheists. What they do is make fun of the more extreme traditional believers and contrast their "medieval" faith with the reasoned beliefs of scientists. Most of the popular media and much of the academic establishment are openly hostile to established religions.
I generally favor (most) organized religions as necessary to the functioning of civilization even though I do not share their faith in a personal God and angels and all that religious hocus-pocus.
Although some extreme religious groups do awful things, on the whole, most successful religions help tame the anger of the lower classes and improve the behavior of the middle and upper classes. On the whole, organized religion lubricates and benefits human societies.
Ira Glickstein