Mantisdreamz wrote:Hmm, thanks Rilx. What do you mean by metaphysical?

"Memes" lack a good description, let alone a definition. At best they are described as "cultural entities", which doesn't tell much. The gene analogy doesn't help further. This far we have only implicit definitions, which means, IMO, that "meme" can still appear as a metaphysical construct with no real (in the empirical sense) content. IOW, we may not find "memes", only understand that there's something behind them.

I know that ideas can be transmitted due to mimicry of a more ingenious idea or notion... but, am I right to suppose that it's the accelerated transmission of an idea that is what seems curious and why the term meme came into play? --> We are trying to understand why some ideas (some which may not even be that good - but, just a trend), are spread because even when they may not be worth spreading? So, we call it a meme? (For example - the popularity of the iPhone).

Hmm.. as far as I can tell... yes, I agree with you. As a rule people buy things or go with trends because they mimic friends and neighbors, instead of getting to know and liking the ideas.

There's an interesting article, Fashion by Georg Simmel, which discusses the matter in 1904!

http://www.modetheorie.de/fileadmin/Tex ... n_1904.pdf

Georg Simmel wrote:Thus we see that imitation in all the instances where it is a productive factor represents one of the fundamental tendencies of our character, namely, that which contents itself with similarity, with uniformity, with the adaptation of the special to the general, and accentuates the constant element in change.

Rilx wrote:

Mantisdreamz wrote:Hmm, thanks Rilx. What do you mean by metaphysical?

"Memes" lack a good description, let alone a definition. At best they are described as "cultural entities", which doesn't tell much. The gene analogy doesn't help further. This far we have only implicit definitions, which means, IMO, that "meme" can still appear as a metaphysical construct with no real (in the empirical sense) content. IOW, we may not find "memes", only understand that there's something behind them.

Do you think it could be said that the something behind memes could be that of just sheer mimicry, because, that's what our species is accustomed to and evolved to do? And that memes could be the 'thing' that we are trying to mimic?

Maybe we have lost focus on what is important to imitate and what isn't.. but just do it anyway since it is part of our nature?

Like, a new scientific discovery versus the iPhone trend... Since we have evolved to mimc - maybe we do so without realising the difference between useful mimicry or vacuous mimicry.

Memes may be cultural entities, and we may want to get to the bottom of why some cultural notions are caught on to a greater extent than other notions or ideas... but, maybe that is just the luck of the draw.... Or maybe some cultural identities or memes are of greater popularity than others, because they are simply just a smarter or more efficient idea...

Rilx wrote:

Mantisdreamz wrote:I know that ideas can be transmitted due to mimicry of a more ingenious idea or notion... but, am I right to suppose that it's the accelerated transmission of an idea that is what seems curious and why the term meme came into play? --> We are trying to understand why some ideas (some which may not even be that good - but, just a trend), are spread because even when they may not be worth spreading? So, we call it a meme? (For example - the popularity of the iPhone).

Hmm.. as far as I can tell... yes, I agree with you. As a rule people buy things or go with trends because they mimic friends and neighbors, instead of getting to know and liking the ideas.

There's an interesting article, Fashion by Georg Simmel, which discusses the matter in 1904!

http://www.modetheorie.de/fileadmin/Tex ... n_1904.pdf

Georg Simmel wrote:Thus we see that imitation in all the instances where it is a productive factor represents one of the fundamental tendencies of our character, namely, that which contents itself with similarity, with uniformity, with the adaptation of the special to the general, and accentuates the constant element in change.

Thanks for the link! It's long But - I'll take a look at it. I may as well try to understand what I can on the subject, since it seems to have peaked my interest.

Lazar wrote:

katja z wrote:

Lazar wrote:As for memes the major problem as I perceive it is ideas would have to propagate for their own interests irrespective of the interests of the host. I am not convinced this happens. I see evidence of ideas propagating BECAUSE they are beneficial to a community of goal directed individuals (ie. ideas propagate because they provide a real or perceived benefit to the goals of the individual/group) but not much evidence of irrespective of the real or perceived benefits of the host/s.

Umm, religious fundamentalism? Although yes, it works if you add "perceived benefit".

I think the bit about ideas or behaviours propagating "irrespective of the interests of the host" was one of the most interesting points Dawkins raised, but of course it had been addressed before; Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony is a good example.

Well religiosity provides a clear real benefit as is evident in higher levels of well-being

Oh come on, I am sure that you got katja's point. Replace the religiosity super-meme by the more specific meme of suicide bombing. Or the meme of bungee jumping. Or of buying tech gadgets at precursor price. It is not hard to come with loads of examples. Actually I challenge you to name one example of a counterproductive behavior that can't nowadays be propagated by imitation. (I don't think it is an impossible challenge, just harder that the one you set.)

I agree with katja z, the above point is possibly the most interesting one made by memetics. In trying to understand the age-old "puzzle of akrasia" (why we sometimes act against our own interest), there are a lot of tools available, but my feeling is that memetics should be one of them, if one could only make it work.