Currently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics is the top hit for "Memetics" in prominent search engines.
The page makes for pretty strange reading. Aaron Lynch gets more mentions than Daniel Dennett. The section on "criticisms" consists of two brief paragraphs.
There's a whole section on whether the definition of meme refers to brain structures or artefacts/behaviors that doesn't seem to mention the possibility that memes might consist of information.
The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Memetics is also rather strange. It's a good place to see how confused many people are about the topic.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine goes viral
Pirate copies of Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine" currently appear to be floating around on the internet.
I presume this is in flagrant violation of international copyright law - since the document seems to move about a bit from time to time.
Virus of the Mind, The Selfish Meme and Darwin's Dangerous Idea seem to have made it there too.
Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Tim Tyler: Evolution in four dimensions (review)
My review of "Evolution in four dimensions".
Sorry, but there's no transcript of this review.
Virus of the mind (review)
Memetics 101 on YouTube
Memetics 101 on YouTube (An introduction to memetics).
Introduction to memes and internet memes (The evolution of memes).
Sunday, 2 August 2009
Causes as memes (video)
Note: The videographer has taken this video down, and it no longer plays.
The associated video is an introduction to causes and life-purposes as memes - YouTube style.
The associated video is an introduction to causes and life-purposes as memes - YouTube style.
Friday, 31 July 2009
Evolution's third replicator?
Sue Blackmore's latest article:
"Evolution's third replicator: Genes, memes, and now what?"
- http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327191.500-evolutions-third-replicator-genes-memes-and-now-what.html?full=true
The article is another one based around Sue's own replicator classification scheme.
She defines memes in a way which few others seem to accept - in terms of behavioural imitation. This defines most modern culture as not being "memetic" - because the associated copying processes are often performed in a digital medium by computers - which are not "imitative" except in an extremely contrived sense.
Also, I find it extremely hard to credit that DNA was the first replicator. Wasn't there RNA before that? And PNA or TNA? And before that there were probably other replicators, based on crystal growth processes. The whole "third-replicator" terminology makes little sense to me.
I give Sue credit for recognising the significance of machines taking over from brains in the copying process. However, I think we differ on the issue of terminology.
Surely the most basic category here is that of cultural replicator - a replicator that can be deliberately written to by an intelligent agent. Whether the copier is a brain or a computer seems like a bit of an implementation detail to me. I think we should give replicators in this basic category our best name - namely "memes".
Replicators are informational - and so can be represented in any physical medium. Cultural replicators have existed in multiple media at least since the invention of writing, if not before.
A meme classification scheme that attempts to divide brains and computers would be challenging - since memes can replicate via both. Information can easily hop between different media - it is portable.
"Evolution's third replicator: Genes, memes, and now what?"
- http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327191.500-evolutions-third-replicator-genes-memes-and-now-what.html?full=true
The article is another one based around Sue's own replicator classification scheme.
She defines memes in a way which few others seem to accept - in terms of behavioural imitation. This defines most modern culture as not being "memetic" - because the associated copying processes are often performed in a digital medium by computers - which are not "imitative" except in an extremely contrived sense.
Also, I find it extremely hard to credit that DNA was the first replicator. Wasn't there RNA before that? And PNA or TNA? And before that there were probably other replicators, based on crystal growth processes. The whole "third-replicator" terminology makes little sense to me.
I give Sue credit for recognising the significance of machines taking over from brains in the copying process. However, I think we differ on the issue of terminology.
Surely the most basic category here is that of cultural replicator - a replicator that can be deliberately written to by an intelligent agent. Whether the copier is a brain or a computer seems like a bit of an implementation detail to me. I think we should give replicators in this basic category our best name - namely "memes".
Replicators are informational - and so can be represented in any physical medium. Cultural replicators have existed in multiple media at least since the invention of writing, if not before.
A meme classification scheme that attempts to divide brains and computers would be challenging - since memes can replicate via both. Information can easily hop between different media - it is portable.
Sunday, 26 July 2009
How companies have sex
"The new game is combining organizational DNA in unique and inventive ways."
- http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/05/sex.html
- http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/05/sex.html
The anthropological perspective on memetics
A few critical articles on Neuroanthropology:
"We hate memes, pass it on...".
"Engaging & Dispatching Memetics";
"Brain-culture, memes, and choosing examples".
I looked briefly at the referenced "Engaging anthropology" By Thomas Hylland Eriksen.
There's too much here for me to bother addressing most of it - but it seems like a load of "sour grapes" and "not invented here" material from anthropologists. Apparently, memeticists do not make sufficient references to existing work on cultural diffusion by anthropologists.
We have seen this sort of thing before when Darwinism invaded the other social sciences - resistance from entrenched defenders of pre-Darwinian systems of thought who feel as though they are in a turf war.
"We hate memes, pass it on...".
"Engaging & Dispatching Memetics";
"Brain-culture, memes, and choosing examples".
I looked briefly at the referenced "Engaging anthropology" By Thomas Hylland Eriksen.
There's too much here for me to bother addressing most of it - but it seems like a load of "sour grapes" and "not invented here" material from anthropologists. Apparently, memeticists do not make sufficient references to existing work on cultural diffusion by anthropologists.
We have seen this sort of thing before when Darwinism invaded the other social sciences - resistance from entrenched defenders of pre-Darwinian systems of thought who feel as though they are in a turf war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
