Actually we are not that far off from understanding it from hippocampus damage cases.
We understand little. The hippocampus does a lot, and a loss of personality in these cases could be attributed to almost any function of the hippocampus that could be impaired.
Quote:
You can elaborate on Dawkins without violating his original discussion in Selfish Gene. Any time someone uses the word, you should be able to replace it with "replicating information pattern," "element of culture," "learned element of culture," "culturegen" (a earlier term for the same thing) or other similar terms.
The concept of self is replicable in that if I act or react to something that you do, you are reinforced with a sense that you are a separate entity. No, it cannot be taught or passed on like langauage or religion, in that you are right. But it is still something that is learned, not ingrained into the brain's "hardware." If it is learned, it is transmitted. If it is transmitted, it is replicated. If it is information that replicates, it is a meme. Sorry I didn't spell it out for you.
[keith] >You can elaborate on Dawkins without violating his original discussion in >Selfish Gene. Any time someone uses the word, you should be able to >replace it with "replicating information pattern," "element of culture," >"learned element of culture," "culturegen" (a earlier term for the same >thing) or other similar terms.
[epidemic]
>The concept of self is replicable in that if I act or react to something >that you do, you are reinforced with a sense that you are a separate >entity. No, it cannot be taught or passed on like langauage or religion, >in that you are right. But it is still something that is learned, not >ingrained into the brain's "hardware." If it is learned, it is transmitted.
That is not true. You can learn things that are never transmitted from a previous knowledge source. One example, you can set and learn the combination of a safe that you never tell anyone. Second example, you learn (from the environment by trial and error) as a baby that unsupported objects fall. The knowledge that unsupported objects fall is part of our common knowledge, but not a meme. It is not passed on the way we learn how to make coffee or the short cut to multiplying by nine. These are memes, elements of our culture.
Ideas about "self" such as "immortal soul" or "thetans" are learned and are memes. "Identity" itself however is not learned and *is* a function of mammalian brain hardware. Ask yourself if a dog or a cat has "identity"? Would it still have an identity in a world where it never met another animal of any kind? Of course it would!
>If it is transmitted, it is replicated.
Less significant, but also not true in all cases. The preacher screaming on a street corner is transmitting like crazy but if nobody is listening, it is not replicated.
>If it is information that replicates, it is a meme.
Even this is not universally true. Genes and computer viruses are replicating information but not memes. To qualify as a meme it has to be implied or stated that the active locus is a brain/mind. (A human brain/mind is not required since birds, primates and a few other animals can pass on elements of their "culture.")
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #17 on: 2003-11-11 09:34:00 »
Very accurate Keith. However you may want to read up on Wheeler's unified "information theoretical" model of physics. If it's true, then all of existence is a meme too...
Still, I agree. The original source of memetic information is our universe itself.
And, regarding the preacher. There are steps that you can take to ensure that your information is transmitted.
However, you must have Integrity first in order for them to be effective.
-----Original Message----- From: Keith Henson <hkhenson@rogers.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:56:15 To:virus@lucifer.com Subject: RE: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
[keith] >You can elaborate on Dawkins without violating his original discussion in >Selfish Gene. Any time someone uses the word, you should be able to >replace it with "replicating information pattern," "element of culture," >"learned element of culture," "culturegen" (a earlier term for the same >thing) or other similar terms.
[epidemic]
>The concept of self is replicable in that if I act or react to something >that you do, you are reinforced with a sense that you are a separate >entity. No, it cannot be taught or passed on like langauage or religion, >in that you are right. But it is still something that is learned, not >ingrained into the brain's "hardware." If it is learned, it is transmitted.
That is not true. You can learn things that are never transmitted from a previous knowledge source. One example, you can set and learn the combination of a safe that you never tell anyone. Second example, you learn (from the environment by trial and error) as a baby that unsupported objects fall. The knowledge that unsupported objects fall is part of our common knowledge, but not a meme. It is not passed on the way we learn how to make coffee or the short cut to multiplying by nine. These are memes, elements of our culture.
Ideas about "self" such as "immortal soul" or "thetans" are learned and are memes. "Identity" itself however is not learned and *is* a function of mammalian brain hardware. Ask yourself if a dog or a cat has "identity"? Would it still have an identity in a world where it never met another animal of any kind? Of course it would!
>If it is transmitted, it is replicated.
Less significant, but also not true in all cases. The preacher screaming on a street corner is transmitting like crazy but if nobody is listening, it is not replicated.
>If it is information that replicates, it is a meme.
Even this is not universally true. Genes and computer viruses are replicating information but not memes. To qualify as a meme it has to be implied or stated that the active locus is a brain/mind. (A human brain/mind is not required since birds, primates and a few other animals can pass on elements of their "culture.")
> >The concept of self is replicable in that if I act or react to something > >that you do, you are reinforced with a sense that you are a separate > >entity. No, it cannot be taught or passed on like langauage or religion, > >in that you are right. But it is still something that is learned, not > >ingrained into the brain's "hardware." If it is learned, it is transmitted. > > That is not true. You can learn things that are never transmitted from a > previous knowledge source. One example, you can set and learn the > combination of a safe that you never tell anyone. Second example, you
I would say that a meme is an idea that *can* be replicated through communication. If the idea has been replicated, then obviously it can be. If it hasn't (yet) been replicated, then we would have to have to examine it more closely to see if it is possible. In the example of the combination to the safe, I see no reason why it could not be.
By analogy, a gene that has not yet been replicated is still a gene.
> Ideas about "self" such as "immortal soul" or "thetans" are learned and are > memes. "Identity" itself however is not learned and *is* a function of > mammalian brain hardware. Ask yourself if a dog or a cat has > "identity"? Would it still have an identity in a world where it never met > another animal of any kind? Of course it would!
Why do you associate the "I" meme with identity rather than ideas about self? You seem to have decided in advance that the "I" meme is not a meme, and gone to great lengths to show why, rather than interpreting the "I" meme as a meme and asking what it could possibly refer to. Why?
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #19 on: 2003-11-11 20:52:58 »
At 12:42 PM 11/11/03 -0500, you wrote: >From: "Keith Henson" <hkhenson@rogers.com> > > > >The concept of self is replicable in that if I act or react to something > > >that you do, you are reinforced with a sense that you are a separate > > >entity. No, it cannot be taught or passed on like langauage or religion, > > >in that you are right. But it is still something that is learned, not > > >ingrained into the brain's "hardware." If it is learned, it is > transmitted. > > > > That is not true. You can learn things that are never transmitted from a > > previous knowledge source. One example, you can set and learn the > > combination of a safe that you never tell anyone. Second example, you > >I would say that a meme is an idea that *can* be replicated through >communication. If the idea has been replicated, then obviously it >can be. If it hasn't (yet) been replicated, then we would have to >have to examine it more closely to see if it is possible. In the >example of the combination to the safe, I see no reason why it >could not be.
If we *require* an idea to replicate to be a meme or refer to memes as replicating information, then an idea that has not been replicated is at best a *potential* meme, but not a meme by definition. Minor point as long as you understand what is going on. (It is more restrictive to become an "element of culture." That requires enough replication for the pattern to become common.)
>By analogy, a gene that has not yet been replicated is still a gene.
I really don't understand how this could come about. How do you get a gene, even on paper, that has not undergone some kind of replication? Even if you start with a listing of what you want to make in the way of an amino acid chain, there is a replication in the process of translating and writing it down and certainly a replication step in translating it into linked base pairs.
The meme/gene analogy breaks here because we have words such as "idea" for patterns of information that do not require replication where we don't have a similar distinction for "gene." Genes are *assumed* to be the product of replication.
> > Ideas about "self" such as "immortal soul" or "thetans" are learned and > are > > memes. "Identity" itself however is not learned and *is* a function of > > mammalian brain hardware. Ask yourself if a dog or a cat has > > "identity"? Would it still have an identity in a world where it never met > > another animal of any kind? Of course it would! > >Why do you associate the "I" meme with identity rather than ideas about self? >You seem to have decided in advance that the "I" meme is not a meme, and >gone to great lengths to show why, rather than interpreting the "I" meme >as a meme and asking what it could possibly refer to. Why?
I don't find words that have been stretched to encompass everything useful. If you have to ask what a meme "could possibly refer to" then I have a hard time with it pointing to anything at all. This is no doubt my engineering bias showing.
You can tell the difference in a person who has learned some meme like baseball. They can teach it to other people and independent observers can make judgments in good agreement if the kids are playing something recognizable as baseball. I don't see that there is an "I" meme that can be learned or that there is an observable difference in behavior before and after being taught an "I" meme.
But I am always willing to be shown differently. Can you think of examples where you could illustrate for the "I" meme?
Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #20 on: 2003-11-11 22:25:06 »
I'm surprised nobody mentioned that identity is involved in many more fields than philosophy such as brand identity, corporate identity, legal identity, etc. All identities are about personality and perception of personality. Your legal identity printed on a small card issued by the DMV (or your country's department of personal transportation) is composed of the basic details that makes finding and tracking you easier. If an agency, government or otherwise, needed to know the social aspect of your identity like your favorite foods, your favorite restaurant, etc. they would simply run a backwards trace on your legal identity (works esp. well with digital credit), but in most cases, you are recognized as the character on your driver's license.
Identity is simply about recognition. This is more easily understood if you are at least a bit knowledge about branding: the art of the perception of the thing or person. Let's take the most famous of all examples, Nike, and use the concept of recognition to understand individual identity. Long before Nike became a sports brand with a huge cult following, it was a failing company without a clue in the world. Later they struck gold with the sport of running during a period in American history where running was the "in" thing to do, but this trend faded as well as Nike. They would have bankrupted if it weren't for the association with Nike, the winged Greek goddess of victory, and successful celebrity atheletes. Basically, with a $35 logo and $35m+ athletes, Nike climbed once again to the top of the sports shoe market and later to the top of the sports clothing market while being recognized as the leader in sports merchandise: identity by association. People around the world recognize Nike as the very thing they branded themselves.
Philosophers like to ask the questions "what is identity" and "who am I really", but these are fruitless questions without an understanding of branding.
A brand is not what you say it is; it's what they say it is.
Humans are obsessed with identification via recognition:
What will she think if I say this? What will he think if I wear this? Why are they staring at me? Who am I? Who are you?
You want to be recognized, plain and simple. If you want to know who you are, ask the people around you. Ask close friends and family. Ask honestly otherwise you'll get an answer like, "I don't know. I never really thought about it." If that's the case even if you are sincere in your questioning, you (the brand which is you) are not visible.
Who are you? You are a brand. You are the result of positive and negative memes.
Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #21 on: 2003-11-11 22:27:46 »
[hkhenson] The meme/gene analogy breaks here because we have words such as "idea" for patterns of information that do not require replication where we don't have a similar distinction for "gene." Genes are *assumed* to be the product of replication.
[metahuman] This is yet another reason supporting my claim that language is a communication barrier.
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #22 on: 2003-11-12 09:20:16 »
At 08:27 PM 11/11/03 -0700, you wrote:
>[hkhenson] >The meme/gene analogy breaks here because we have words such as "idea" for >patterns of information that do not require replication where we don't have >a similar distinction for "gene." Genes are *assumed* to be the product of >replication. > >[metahuman] >This is yet another reason supporting my claim that language is a >communication barrier.
Have I been unclear? Can you give an example or go into more detail as to why you make this statement?
RE: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #23 on: 2003-11-12 11:28:25 »
[K Henson] I don't see that there is an "I" meme that can be learned or that there is an observable difference in behavior before and after being taught an "I" meme.
But I am always willing to be shown differently. Can you think of examples where you could illustrate for the "I" meme?
[michelle] Sorry to jump in, but this made me wonder: what is your take on things like body dysmorphic disorders, multiple personality disorders, and other lesser personality disorders that appear to be a breakdown in the concept of "I" and what "I" encompasses? (broadly speaking)
> If we *require* an idea to replicate to be a meme or refer to memes as > replicating information, then an idea that has not been replicated is at > best a *potential* meme, but not a meme by definition. Minor point as long > as you understand what is going on. (It is more restrictive to become an > "element of culture." That requires enough replication for the pattern to > become common.)
I agree that *if* we require an idea to replicate first to be called a meme, then what you say is true. I think it is more useful to use a definition like we have for the gene which does not have to replicate first.
> >By analogy, a gene that has not yet been replicated is still a gene. > > I really don't understand how this could come about. How do you get a > gene, even on paper, that has not undergone some kind of replication?
New genes are created through recombination and mutation. If genes can only be inherited, then all existing genes must have existed since the beginning of time. Obviously this is not true. This must have come from somewhere other than replication.
The analogy with genetics will be more intuitive and useful if we keep the models as similar as possible. Genes don't become genes only when they are replicated. Memes are also created through recombination and mutation. Isn't that simpler and more powerful?
> I don't find words that have been stretched to encompass everything > useful. If you have to ask what a meme "could possibly refer to" then I > have a hard time with it pointing to anything at all. This is no doubt my > engineering bias showing.
Perhaps you misunderstood. If I mention a "revenge" meme, do you dismiss it out of hand, or do you try to find a possible meme that would fit that description?
> You can tell the difference in a person who has learned some meme like > baseball. They can teach it to other people and independent observers can > make judgments in good agreement if the kids are playing something > recognizable as baseball. I don't see that there is an "I" meme that can > be learned or that there is an observable difference in behavior before and > after being taught an "I" meme. > > But I am always willing to be shown differently. Can you think of examples > where you could illustrate for the "I" meme?
The "I" meme is the meme associated with the word "I". Animals don't have it because they don't have any words for "I". People with the "I" meme reveal themselves by using the word "I" correctly in context. Independent observers can make judgments in good agreement that the usage of the word is correct and the users understand the meaning of the word. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #25 on: 2003-11-12 16:22:50 »
[hkhenson1] The meme/gene analogy breaks here because we have words such as "idea" for patterns of information that do not require replication where we don't have a similar distinction for "gene." Genes are *assumed* to be the product of replication.
[metahuman1] This is yet another reason supporting my claim that language is a communication barrier.
[hkhenson2] Have I been unclear? Can you give an example or go into more detail as to why you make this statement?
[metahuman2] No, you're quite clear on most subjects, however, if you're trying to make the case that language is not a communication barrier then this is something I must correct. Language is a form of communication usu. expressed with words and by the term "language" most people mean verbal communication and literary communication. This is the context in which I use "language." In fact, by this very elaboration I have already made the case that what you say is not always what you mean because what you mean is typically distorted by what others perceive. Such is the case in the "Why gods cannot exist" thread in the philosophy forum where bricoleur and Lucifer have brought it upon themselves to further alienate me.
Lord Bertrand Russell wrote, "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." This is where my claim that language is a communication barrier rests: perception. My claim is also supported by the division of cultures by languages. A non-English speaking Russian cannot be understood by a non-Russian speaking Englishman and vice versa. I've told David that the one thing mankind should strive to do is to remove all language from communication. Since language is only representative of your thoughts, language is inaccurate. If the ability to communicate thoughts (incl. emotions) exactly as they are inhered in a being, that being would be infinitely more advanced than the primitive humans we have today. Of course, David fell into the trap of assuming that humans are a "special creation" by unlikening humans to what we refer to "animals." Yet there is no difference between humans and animals. Humans are animals. David said that animals cannot speak and asked if that is what I think humans should strive to be. Animals do speak. They have their own language and it is much more primitive than ours... or so we perceive it to be. While their language consists of caws, moos, and barks, and much usage of body language, we use symbols which are indifferent from signals. All of these are representative of something in our Mind, and until we are at the point where we communicate our Mind instead of translating our Mind into symbols, we will remain humans. The goal here is to become a metahuman--a human who has transcended the boundaries of what is defined as human.
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #26 on: 2003-11-12 21:00:45 »
At 03:06 PM 12/11/03 -0500, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Keith Henson" <hkhenson@rogers.com> > > > If we *require* an idea to replicate to be a meme or refer to memes as > > replicating information, then an idea that has not been replicated is at > > best a *potential* meme, but not a meme by definition. Minor point as > long > > as you understand what is going on. (It is more restrictive to become an > > "element of culture." That requires enough replication for the pattern to > > become common.) > >I agree that *if* we require an idea to replicate first to be called >a meme, then what you say is true. I think it is more useful to >use a definition like we have for the gene which does not have >to replicate first.
The reason for adding this qualification was to distinguish memes from ideas. If you can think of a better way to distinguish between these two words, please let me know. (Tight definitions aren't really needed if you have a deep understanding of the topic.)
> > >By analogy, a gene that has not yet been replicated is still a gene. > > > > I really don't understand how this could come about. How do you get a > > gene, even on paper, that has not undergone some kind of replication? > >New genes are created through recombination and mutation.
Recombination is part of the replication (and repair) process. Mutation is sometimes an error in replication or damage and failure to repair properly before the next replication. Typically there is one or a small number of base pair substitutions. You can call this a new gene if you like--sometimes a single base pair substitution makes a life or death difference--but it is just as legitimate to consider it the kind of variation one typo makes in a few paragraphs when it is copied.
>If genes can >only be inherited, then all existing genes must have existed since >the beginning of time. Obviously this is not true. This must have come >from somewhere other than replication.
We actually have a fair understanding of how genes got started, probably as RNA because RNA can act as both an information storage medium and as a active structure for replication. Random linkages are believe to have been the origin of proto genes, after that it was replication down to this day.
>The analogy with genetics will be more intuitive and useful if >we keep the models as similar as possible. Genes don't become >genes only when they are replicated.
No, but with the exception of a small amount of human made DNA, all strings of DNA base pairs come from a very long line of replication. That includes the well over 90% of our genome that is just junk and is never transcribed. Is this stuff that is getting a free ride (since we lack a methods to get rid of it) genes? If you require a gene to be transcribed, no. So what do you call it?
The three classes of replicators we know about so far are genes, memes and computer viruses. They are all information patterns, but the differ in their "normal active locus." To have effects on the real world a gene is normally transcribed into protean. (There are exceptions, a few viroids don't code for anything yet infect plants, and there are ribosome genes that are transcribed only as far as RNA.) To be transcribed, the gene needs to be in a locus, usually a cell, where the ancillary molecular machines that "read it out" can be found. But the information doesn't *have* to be in DNA or even in a cell. You can take a known gene sequence, decode it to an amino acid sequence and use the data to run a protean synthesizer. Injected insulin made this way works exactly the same as insulin made in your very own Islets of Langerhans.
To have real world effects a meme has to be in a human brain/mind, a computer virus in the right kind of computer. But I doubt this distinction is going to survived more than a few decades. When you get human minds mapped into computers, the computer minds (if they are accurate maps of the original humans) are going to be just as subject to being infected by memes as the humans were in biological minds.
>Memes are also created >through recombination and mutation. Isn't that simpler and more >powerful?
While these are the only way to get changes in genes, I am not sure "recombination and mutation" are that important in memes. I don't believe that any amount of recombination and mutation could have generated the world shaking technological memes that have so strongly shaped our world. You might differ in this assessment, but to think about some examples, consider Watt's "separate condenser" meme, Pasteur's germ theory meme and Darwin's evolution meme. Insight seems to me to have played a larger role.
> > I don't find words that have been stretched to encompass everything > > useful. If you have to ask what a meme "could possibly refer to" then I > > have a hard time with it pointing to anything at all. This is no doubt my > > engineering bias showing. > >Perhaps you misunderstood. If I mention a "revenge" meme, do you dismiss >it out of hand, or do you try to find a possible meme that would fit >that description?
Ok, I can buy that there would be a class of "revenge memes." "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" would be one well known meme in this class as well as "turn the other cheek."
> > You can tell the difference in a person who has learned some meme like > > baseball. They can teach it to other people and independent observers can > > make judgments in good agreement if the kids are playing something > > recognizable as baseball. I don't see that there is an "I" meme that can > > be learned or that there is an observable difference in behavior before > and > > after being taught an "I" meme. > > > > But I am always willing to be shown differently. Can you think of > examples > > where you could illustrate for the "I" meme? > >The "I" meme is the meme associated with the word "I". Animals don't have it >because they don't have any words for "I". People with the "I" meme reveal >themselves by using the word "I" correctly in context. Independent >observers can make judgments in good agreement that the usage of the >word is correct and the users understand the meaning of the word.
"The "the" meme is the meme associated with the word "the". Animals don't have it because they don't have any words for "the". People with the "the" meme reveal themselves by using the word "the" correctly in context. Independent observers can make judgments in good agreement that the usage of the word is correct and the users understand the meaning of the word."
Considering every word to be a meme might be true, but it is not a very interesting use of the term, especially when common words are learned very early and there is little variation over the population. There are exceptions where the use of a word or phrase spreads through the population and is observed to do so. ("Filler" or sync bit words like "you know" are in this class. The problem with using fillers to keep a channel from being turned around instead of speaking slower or learning to think faster is that adding filler words interferes with evolving what you are going to say next and you have to keep adding, like, you know, more fillers. :-) )
That is not true. You can learn things that are never transmitted from a previous knowledge source. One example, you can set and learn the combination of a safe that you never tell anyone. Second example, you learn (from the environment by trial and error) as a baby that unsupported objects fall. The knowledge that unsupported objects fall is part of our common knowledge, but not a meme. It is not passed on the way we learn how to make coffee or the short cut to multiplying by nine. These are memes, elements of our culture.
Ideas about "self" such as "immortal soul" or "thetans" are learned and are memes. "Identity" itself however is not learned and *is* a function of mammalian brain hardware. Ask yourself if a dog or a cat has "identity"? Would it still have an identity in a world where it never met another animal of any kind? Of course it would!
Every invention that humans have made are either improvements of old inventions (evolution in action), formed by accident (mutation) or based on observations of natural phenomenon (memetic inheritance). The notion of an identity, that my experience is different from your experience, is learned from observations. I can control my fist, but not yours. You behave in a manner that I do not necessarily desire you to. Therefore, from observable nature, I learn (inherit a replicated meme) that I am separate from you, that I have an identity. Based on the inherited (replicated memeplex) language of my culture, I label my independant identity 'I.' Thus, the "I" meme represents my belief that I am separate from you.
Going back, and I should put another warning sticker here, to my comment about Buddhism before, certain metaphysical concepts that abound (esp. in Zen) state that we are not separate, that all things are interrelated and interdependant. If that supposition is true, the "I" meme would be a fallacy, further proving that it is simply an inherited belief and not an objective truth, as you seem to be implying.
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #28 on: 2003-11-14 10:51:07 »
Keith Henson wrote:
> The reason for adding this qualification was to distinguish memes from > ideas. If you can think of a better way to distinguish between these > two words, please let me know. (Tight definitions aren't really > needed if you have a deep understanding of the topic.)
To answer that we will first have to clarify what is meant by idea. Can all ideas be communicated, at least theoretically? Any idea that can be translated into language can be, but can all ideas be translated? What about qualia? Are they a type of idea, or a separate class of mental phenomena?
If not all ideas can be communicated, then the word meme would refer to that subclass of ideas that can (or more obviously, have been) communicated. If all ideas can be communicated, then my proposed definition of meme would include all ideas, but add the connotation of replicator, which alters the meaning enough to warrant a new term perhaps.
>> New genes are created through recombination and mutation. > > Recombination is part of the replication (and repair) process. > Mutation is sometimes an error in replication or damage and failure > to repair properly before the next replication. Typically there is > one or a small number of base pair substitutions. You can call this > a new gene if you like--sometimes a single base pair substitution > makes a life or death difference--but it is just as legitimate to > consider it the kind of variation one typo makes in a few paragraphs > when it is copied.
I would call it a new gene when the change makes a sufficient difference. We have the same problem with memes. When a meme is replicated, it is unlikely to be a perfect copy because it is the phenotype of the meme that is copied, and has to be reverse engineered for each new system. In other words, it goes through a behavior-based channel, and the destination mind has to create a new internal pattern that will generate what (it perceives to be) the same behaviour. It would seem that this process would necessarily have less accuracy than the analagous genetic process.
>> The analogy with genetics will be more intuitive and useful if >> we keep the models as similar as possible. Genes don't become >> genes only when they are replicated. > > No, but with the exception of a small amount of human made DNA, all > strings of DNA base pairs come from a very long line of replication. > That includes the well over 90% of our genome that is just junk and > is never transcribed. Is this stuff that is getting a free ride > (since we lack a methods to get rid of it) genes? If you require a > gene to be transcribed, no. So what do you call it?
Good question. Maybe some Virians with more biology knowledge can comment?
> To have real world effects a meme has to be in a human brain/mind, a > computer virus in the right kind of computer. But I doubt this > distinction is going to survived more than a few decades. When you > get human minds mapped into computers, the computer minds (if they > are accurate maps of the original humans) are going to be just as > subject to being infected by memes as the humans were in biological > minds.
I suspect the same will be true for artificial minds. In fact I am hoping that AI will shed some much need light on memetics by providing a relative simple and accessible computational laboratory for studying meme trasmission. I think Liane Gabora has already done some exploratory work in this area. If a computational agent is able to learn a new behaviour by observing the behaviour of a similar agent, would you call that a meme?
> >> Memes are also created >> through recombination and mutation. Isn't that simpler and more >> powerful? > > While these are the only way to get changes in genes, I am not sure > "recombination and mutation" are that important in memes. I don't > believe that any amount of recombination and mutation could have > generated the world shaking technological memes that have so strongly > shaped our world. You might differ in this assessment, but to think > about some examples, consider Watt's "separate condenser" meme, > Pasteur's germ theory meme and Darwin's evolution meme. Insight > seems to me to have played a larger role.
Insight surely played a large role, but that would in now way show that recombination and mutation of memes didn't take place in the mind of the originator of the new meme. The theories you mention certainly were composed of memes that were already in existence put together in a new configuration (recombination) with some changes or additions (mutation).
>> The "I" meme is the meme associated with the word "I". Animals don't >> have it because they don't have any words for "I". People with the >> "I" meme reveal themselves by using the word "I" correctly in >> context. Independent observers can make judgments in good agreement >> that the usage of the word is correct and the users understand the >> meaning of the word. > > "The "the" meme is the meme associated with the word "the". Animals > don't have it > because they don't have any words for "the". People with the "the" > meme reveal themselves by using the word "the" correctly in context. > Independent observers can make judgments in good agreement that the > usage of the word is correct and the users understand the meaning of > the word." > > Considering every word to be a meme might be true, but it is not a > very interesting use of the term, especially when common words are > learned very early and there is little variation over the population.
I don't find the concept of words as memes nearly as uninteresting as you do, they may be the simplest of memes and the building blocks of more complex memes. Do you agree that some memes are composed of simpler memes?
Anyway I will concede your point in this case and try a different tack for the "I" meme. The interpretation I mentioned before was that the "I" meme refers to the stream of consciousness. Since it requires language by definition, it can not be innate (though the capacity to learn it is certainly innate, like the capacity to learn language). Is it possible that stream of consciousness is learned by mimicing the speech acts of others and internalizing it? Would that make it a meme, the "I" meme?
Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
« Reply #29 on: 2003-11-15 06:51:06 »
...your ideas regarding identity eliminate the aspect of "potential". as in; if someone sees you this way because they either cant understand something else or that you havent yet been in a proper situation to confirm or deny other characteristics or traits, how does that define anything?
I'm surprised nobody mentioned that identity encompasses many more fields than philosophy such as brand identity, corporate identity, legal identity, etc. All identities are about personality and perception of personality. Your legal identity printed on a small card issued by the DMV (or your country's department of personal transportation) is composed of the basic details that makes finding and tracking you easier. If an agency, government or otherwise, needed to know the social aspect of your identity like your favorite foods, your favorite restaurant, etc. they would simply run a backwards trace on your legal identity (works esp. well with digital credit), but in most cases, you are recognized as the character on your driver's license.
Identity is simply about recognition. This is more easily understood if you are at least a bit knowledge about branding: the art of the perception of the thing or person. Let's take the most famous of all examples, Nike, and use the concept of recognition to understand individual identity. Long before Nike became a sports brand with a huge cult following, it was a failing company without a clue in the world. Later they struck gold with the sport of running during a period in American history where running was the "in" thing to do, but this trend faded as well as Nike. They would have bankrupted if it weren't for the association with Nike, the winged Greek goddess of victory, and successful celebrity atheletes. Basically, with a $35 logo and $35m+ athletes, Nike climbed once again to the top of the sports shoe market and later to the top of the sports clothing market while being recognized as the leader in sports merchandise: identity by association. People around the world r! ecognize Nike as the very thing they branded themselves.
Philosophers like to ask the questions "what is identity" and "who am I really", but these are fruitless questions without an understanding of branding.
A brand is not what you say it is; it's what they say it is.
Humans are obsessed with identification via recognition:
What will she think if I say this? What will he think if I wear this? Why are they staring at me? Who am I? Who are you?
You want to be recognized, plain and simple. If you want to know who you are, ask the people around you. Ask close friends and family. Ask honestly otherwise you'll get an answer like, "I don't know. I never really thought about it." If that's the case even if you are sincere in your questioning, you (the brand which is you) are not visible.
Who are you? You are a brand. You are the result of positive and negative memes.
Author
Logged
