In Richard Dawkins’ book, The Selfish Gene, there is a fascinating yet controversial chapter about memes. A meme, or i.e. a cultural unit of information, has the same interesting property a gene has – the ability to replicate. It might seem peculiar to consider a meme as a thing, much like how a gene is a thing you can observe. A meme is a thing, or specifically, a certain mental state. For example, if you think about the idea of God, a certain mental state is assembled in your mind. This state may not be a localized sector of your brain, but it is nevertheless a specific neural structure that corresponds to your God idea.
These memes replicate in a much different manner than genes do. A meme replicates by any sort of human communication, like any verbal or written language. Clearly not all memes replicate themselves throughout the meme pool. Similarly, all genes do not get passed on to future generations because they are outcompeted by genes that are more fit. But what constitutes a meme that is fit? Fit memes are ones that have a special property about them that leads them to their frequent replication and therefore proliferation in the meme pool. For example, the internet phenomenon of “Rick Rolling” has been a successful meme for its inherent nature of wanting to be replicated. If rick rolling didn’t include another participant, I would question whether it could have the same success.
Dawkins’ meme of memes has had me reflect back at all the cultural ideas lurking in my head. My meme portfolio is a product of a long meme evolution. I would assume that my memes greatly differ from the memes present in a random given individual 500 years ago. However, I don’t think it’s a sufficient answer to simply say that they differ greatly; after all, my memes have the additional 500 years of evolution with different selection pressure. The evolution of memes, as well as genes, is not random – there is a direction in where these replicators evolve to be. So are my memes merely more ‘catchy’ than their 500 year old predecessors? In my opinion, arriving at this false conclusion is the consequence of confusing between the meme and gene selection pressure.
Memes, unlike genes, are not a product of their environment. In the gene world, the environment ultimately decides which genes are selected for; this is not the case for memes. Compare the genes of organisms today versus ones 500 years ago. You would find that the genes code for organisms that are better fit in their respective environments. Do the same comparison between memes and you will not come to the same conclusion. I am sure that our memes of technological ideas and scientific thinking would outcompete the memes in 1508. Their relative usefulness would be no match for existing memes that explain the world. Maybe even today’s interpretations of certain religions would outcompete older interpretations. Could be that intelligent design theory would be much more convincing in 1508.
This is because our memes are selected by intelligent goal-seeking agents. Our intelligence allows us to select memes that work in accord with our goals, namely survival, entertainment, etc. This intelligent selection, as opposed to natural selection, means that our present memes are ‘better’ than the earlier ones. Better in the sense that they are more useful in doing what we want them to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting post, the idea of meme evolution is fairly interesting, however I take issue with some of the logical steps made in the argumentation.
"The evolution of memes, as well as genes, is not random – there is a direction in where these replicators evolve to be."
Genetic evolution is random - nature does not pick which genes will be transmitted successfully; nature presents conditions, and over time allele pairs which are more effective at self-replication become more prevalent in a population.
By the same token, there does not need to be a purpose to memetic evolution. Memes may be supremely adapted to certain cultural conditions in the same way genes would be adapted to certain environmental conditions - our genes would fail to replicate on the oxygen-free earth that supported early life in the same way Rick Rolling as a meme would fail to replicate in a pre-"global network" communication culture.
Additionally, if the test of our memes is ability to replicate, our technological, scientific meme would fail to replicate in a world where anyone holding that meme would be seen as a threat to another, more powerful meme group -for example the dominant memeplex of pre-Enlightenment Europe, which might be called the Christo-Medieval meme complex, would probably have no trouble wiping out such a threatening set of memes. If you are dead, your meme dies with you, and if the inquisition kills everyone with your meme, it will have trouble taking root. That's why there are very few "heretical" sects from the early days of Christianity.
In the long run, a meme complex may win out as it did in our world, but given history I would be hesitant to underestimate the ability of another dark age to crush an inquisitive worldview, and by extension, to assert that today's memes are inherently better than past memes. Today's memes do a better job in today's conditions, but may not be as effective at propagating their own survival given different conditions.
Slaux,
I suppose my word choice of 'direction' is a little confusing. What I mean is that Darwnian evolution and natural selection give rise to complex structures. There is selection pressure that sort of 'directs' a given assortment of molecules to become more complex. Emergence (as opposed to evolution) is completely random and with emergence it is highly improbable that complex life can emerge. But you are right, in evolution there is no purpose.
On the other hand, in meme evolution there is a purpose because the selection pressure is different. Our brains can intelligently choose which memes fit our purpose. Take for example a honda accord. The probability of natural selection evolving a honda accord is infinitesimal. However, through our 'intelligent' selection, we can create a honda accord in a relatively shorter time.
One thing in my post I did not explain thoroughly is this. I think that present memes could only be substituted for memes in 1508 that satisfy the same desire. Take a scientific meme in 2008 for curing the bubonic plague. This meme can only be substituted for the meme in 1508 that offers a cure for the plague. I also considered that maybe intelligent design theory could substitute 1508's meme of rationalizing the same creation story.
Memes are like man-made cultural inventions, some are more useful than others. Today, our memes are more useful than the ones in 1508.
Post a Comment