Dawkins was lucky (I guess) with the term 'meme' which he threw in his 'The Selfish Gene' yet he is distancing himself from the term memetics, mainly because memes doesn't have a strict codification, their language is pretty... 'fuzzy' & different from the gene.
Blackmore tries to push the term 'teme' (third 'techno' replicator) as a separate species of the memes... A meme (memo-type) that infects machines (computers in particular), etc.
Now, plans for machines have existed & evolved since the beginning of Human civilization so this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. But do they (the 'temes') have enough of a distinct teme-sphere to be called replicators ? Are they self-sufficient of a replicators for us to invent a new word?
For temes: If we take the HTTP protocol & the HTML format, it's clear that it wasn't designed for humans (it's understandable by some of them, yet unaccessible to the rest without a browser). Those specs have quite an evolutionary history, spawning XML in the process (data markup, data identification) and soon it would be coupled with the semantic web of the future (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework)... Now ordinary Human languages/speach could be 'tagged', building a gigantic web of knowledge (a graph) which might justify this new term: 'teme'
Against temes: Well, if the computers are 'teme' machines (in their own right), that makes us a meta-teme machines (machines that use 'teme'-machines), and since a 'teme' is a 'meme'... more confusion??
Re:Is the 'teme' term really necessary?
« Reply #1 on: 2010-08-23 05:18:01 »
Should I ... christen the fourth replicator?
Gemes, anyone? ... or 'remes'?
G-emes: (God's memes), R-emes (Religion memes)
We all read the FAQ here and we know (or we suspect) about the 'god module'... So Gemes/Remes are memes that specializes into hijacking, exploiting, modifying that machinery: the God module... It has a distinct groups of hosts & vectors, it's own memetic pool, it's own infection strategy (a language from God).
Replicator's history:
1. Genes (origin unknown)
2. Regular memes (mind infection agents, ideas, language): Genes -> (brain machinery) -> Memes
3. Temes (technology memes, plans, schematics): Memes -> (basic technology + language recording) -> Temes! Truly old... those have a beginning from the first picture of an Axe in some distant cave...
4. Gemes (religion memes, god module infection agents) -> Memes -> (religion + language recording, god module building & infection) -> Gemes ( )
So... next replicator, anyone? Imes? (Ignoramus memes??)
The Problem of the Third replicator
« Reply #2 on: 2010-08-23 07:01:25 »
A major problem in 'temes' is the simple fact that the 'copy', 'modify' & 'execute' semantics of temes is... well memetically controlled (by us, humans)
So, if I don't click that 'ok' / 'submit' / 'double-click' button on my keyboard, the teme is not replicated, not modified, not executed...
Even computer viruses rely on Human mistakes to propagate and are not self-sufficient: a simple "rip 'em all out" action stops the virus from all of the above
... And replication & modification usually requires memetic incentive for a Human operator ... (if that web-page stinks, it wouldn't flow through my cable at all)... so all temes need memetic hooks for the humans to command their machinery to copy that stuff...
Would you consider the ghetto computer virus a teme (or a meme)? Subject: "Do it yourself computer virus" Data/Payload: 1. Send this whole message to all of your friends (spread the word!, replicate & modify teh humour) 2. Press 'Window button' + 'R' (limit infection to windows machines, those pesky linux users are troublesome) 3. Enter "format C:\ /y" (do something to that machine, exec)
For that matter, would you consider the browser & server software, the HTTP & HTML temes? They don't spread by themselves, they are controlled by machines other than computers (humans)...
Re:Is the 'teme' term really necessary?
« Reply #3 on: 2010-08-25 20:05:38 »
Bohandez,
I don't think "teme" is necessary in the sense of adding more replicators to the picture. Genes and memes are enough so far. I think Blackmore is pointing to a relevant aspect of memes, and I talked about it on the "Third Replicator" thread, but I don't think its a valid replicator in and of itself.
I don't think "teme" is necessary in the sense of adding more replicators to the picture. Genes and memes are enough so far. I think Blackmore is pointing to a relevant aspect of memes, and I talked about it on the "Third Replicator" thread, but I don't think its a valid replicator in and of itself.
I don't think "teme" is necessary in the sense of adding more replicators to the picture. Genes and memes are enough so far. I think Blackmore is pointing to a relevant aspect of memes, and I talked about it on the "Third Replicator" thread, but I don't think its a valid replicator in and of itself.
Of course I'm right . However Blackmore is published and more visible, so I'd not be quick to discard her coined word. I'd just want to use it differently. I think she is pointing to something distinct - specifically cultural artifacts. The inert things which are replicated distinct from the things which do the replicating. I've called these the "memotypes", much like the genotypes (actual genetic code). Another interesting way to consider them are as the more potentially immortal part of the meme. The inventions, the books, the compositions, the things besides ourselves which fill our cities, museums, encyclopedias, cyberspace, etc. Our genetic material is like this too. We die, but we may leave offspring who carry some portion of that genetic material. In either metaphor, however, individual humans remain the agents doing the replicating, either in a biological sense by reproducing, or in a cultural sense, through creation, commerce, and repeating. Human individuals are the central focus for both phenotypes (genetic expression) and phemotypes (cultural expression). We do the replicating, while temes and genes are replicated. Pre-singularity neither of these things replicate without us. Blackmore just seems to think the singularity has already happened, which is where I disagree with her.
it has been a while since I posted anything, but my life changed somewhat and now I got the time to get involved again....
the next ' theme ', I coined a few years back the term " future memes ", so with a flick of the wrist, the ' f- meme ' ....femes !?
Regards,
Kenneth
_ can god create a rock he can 't roll !?
sure why not? It does seem that most spiritual/religious movements talk about "prophesies", escatology, etc. Even transhumanists talk about the singularity. I'm not so sure it really deserves a coined word yet, but it could eventually. Certainly the tendency for some prophesies to self-fulfill bears some memetic analysis. All those end-of-times Christians allied with Jewish Zionists working in Israel to make biblical prophesies come "true" - at least according to their interpretations - are certainly a demonstration of the power of memes over their human hosts.
Yes, your remark seems to go nicely tight with the idea that " what we are, are just the parts we throw away "_ see John Scanlan On Garbage. Garbage is just what doesn 't fit within the social, political, cultural, economical frameworks we set out. It is in a sense a contradiction in terminis_ our garbage ( the mess, the rest, what and who is left behind, dirt,...) is our greater value ! Without the idea " what the Palestians stand for ", there will be no Zionist struggle, no working to make biblical prophecies come ' true ' !
But on the other hand, can we really understand without the hard and deep thinking about those things !? It seems to me anyway that at least in the context of the above set remark the Jewish community never thought the things really tru' !? No !?
Understanding things has to do with the mind, with thinking, with memes ! But if you see your opponent like garbage and trash_ a whole set of people that easily can be thrown away_ that says a lot more about yourself than over your ennemy ! No!?
And if the Zionists work in such ways that the biblical prophecies has to come ' true '_ than there is in my mind no doubt about the kind of word such an idea deserves __ " GROUPTHINK ", the tendency to come to a concensus is so powerful that a critical analysis of the facts is set aside.
Author
Logged
)
. However Blackmore is published and more visible, so I'd not be quick to discard her coined word. I'd just want to use it differently. I think she is pointing to something distinct - specifically cultural artifacts. The inert things which are replicated distinct from the things which do the replicating. I've called these the "memotypes", much like the genotypes (actual genetic code). Another interesting way to consider them are as the more potentially immortal part of the meme. The inventions, the books, the compositions, the things besides ourselves which fill our cities, museums, encyclopedias, cyberspace, etc. Our genetic material is like this too. We die, but we may leave offspring who carry some portion of that genetic material. In either metaphor, however, individual humans remain the agents doing the replicating, either in a biological sense by reproducing, or in a cultural sense, through creation, commerce, and repeating. Human individuals are the central focus for both phenotypes (genetic expression) and phemotypes (cultural expression). We do the replicating, while temes and genes are replicated. Pre-singularity neither of these things replicate without us. Blackmore just seems to think the singularity has already happened, which is where I disagree with her.
