And why not?
Others on the other memetics list (strangely quiescent recently) have
asked the same question. To me, all 'memetic engineering' is useless
without the mechanism, and more than futile academic hand-waving until
such mechanism is actually found. Like some of us have all said, until
then, it's marketing, advertising, brain-washing, politics, etc.... Until
we have a rose to call a rose, whatever it is goes by some other name...."
Wade T. Smith
List,
(According to historical precident...) We will take the smallest unit of
matter which specifically shows the memetic process in operation and
designate *this* as the cause (and I am implying that this would no more be
the *cause* than is genes the *cause* of genetic traits; rather, that a
gene--like a meme--may be better thought of as a process which occurs within
ever smaller spheres). We should assume that we have seen this entity
through our electron microscopes or at least as graphical energy profiles on
a mechanically produced chart. Then we can manipulate the information on
this level...transmit the carrier (energy field, bug, bacteria, virus, DNA
strand...something small which we can see and which we can manipulate) and
predict that the results will manifest in the host similarly to the
particle/emission which was manipulated. If using the social group is not
experimental evidence enough, we can use the individual in response to
another individual...can use brain wave patterns, fruit flies, viruses, etc.
I like the way that neurons demonstrate the memetic process. Perhaps a
scientist will conclude that neurons are the basic memetic structure; will
predict behavior based on a neuron, will manipulate the neuron, will
transmit the neuron, and will measure the behavior in the new host. Viruses
are also good targets as they have been used to suggest disease processes
but not to suggest a positive process which assists the host in development
(which process should be suggested as the existence of a virus must play a
positive role or it would have been eliminated through evolutionary
repression). If the viral shell has not yet been designated as the "cause"
of a particular noticed effect...this might be open for naming by the
scientist who charters this new territory, attributes it to a specific
effect, and labels the effect with his/her name (without too much argument
from others working in similar fields).
Were we ancients, we could find an un-named star which exhibits this
characteristic and attribute the effect to this star, observing changes in
the star and measuring the effects of such changes on a target population
(though extremely large objects may have enough perspective to notice these
changes given their distance, extremely small objects showing this general
pattern are better today--for our purposes--since we can "put them in our
pocket", so to speak). Using a beetle (scarab) was probably one such way to
transmit memetic information in the past--as are using a familiar, a fetish,
a well-written thesis, a work of art, a ritual, (others?), today.
Brett
Brett
At 10:25 AM 9/16/97 -0400, you wrote:
>> And, I can only say, that--NO--we will never *prove* anything...
>Ah.
>You take the (high) road, and I'll take the (low) road....
>And OK, then, my question is, has anyone attempted to experimentally
>determine the existence of memes to anything close to the degree of the
>experimental determination (the proof) of genes?
>And why not?
>Others on the other memetics list (strangely quiescent recently) have
>asked the same question. To me, all 'memetic engineering' is useless
>without the mechanism, and more than futile academic hand-waving until
>such mechanism is actually found. Like some of us have all said, until
>then, it's marketing, advertising, brain-washing, politics, etc.... Until
>we have a rose to call a rose, whatever it is goes by some other name....
> Wade T. Smith
Returning,
rBERTS%n
Rabble Sonnet Retort
He talked with more claret than clarity.
Susan Ertz