Memes

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2008-06-24 01:55pm

The term has been much abused by on the internet. However the idea of "self replicating software for the mind" is very fascinating. Has there been any serious research to date regarding memes other than how come up with lolcats ?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-06-24 02:16pm

You might want to do a bit of research into cultural evolution. As the mechanism for its is memes. Specifically memes that are either adaptive or neutral to the host/host population.

Kanastrous · Post by **Kanastrous** » 2008-06-24 02:18pm

Did the meme concept originally draw upon biology?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-06-24 02:23pm

Kanastrous wrote:Did the meme concept originally draw upon biology?

Well, the term was coined by Dawkins, so it is a fair bet yes.

In all honesty the term and research into the concept is only useful, and only really has explanatory power, in terms of evolution. Even if you are just looking at how memes adapt in order to spread without conferring any fitness benefits on the hosts.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-06-24 02:29pm

Dawkins based it on the gene and there are indeed many good books on the subject. He lists a fair few in The Selfish Gene among other books, so I'll see if I can grab the list.

I don't see how the concept is only useful for standard biological evolution. Everything in our lives is based on memes, just as it is genes, if not, more so now. Religion and the quest for power being the most harmful.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2008-06-24 02:50pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:You might want to do a bit of research into cultural evolution. As the mechanism for its is memes. Specifically memes that are either adaptive or neutral to the host/host population.

Well from my very crude understanding memes are still a concept. No one has quantified anything or came up with a mathmatical model that can be tested.

Which brings up an interesting point. Suppose someone did come up with a working model of how information is disseminated among humans. Given this knowledge would it be possible to artifically create religons and fads, engineer revolts, develop ways to basicaly mind trick an entire population to dance to a particular tune ?

Starglider · Post by **Starglider** » 2008-06-24 02:58pm

Sarevok wrote:Suppose someone did come up with a working model of how information is disseminated among humans. Given this knowledge would it be possible to artifically create religons and fads, engineer revolts, develop ways to basicaly mind trick an entire population to dance to a particular tune ?

Yes. But there is no reason to believe that this is possible with anything less than a complete working model of the human mind, i.e. very human-like strong AI (and the computing resources to run a lot of experiments with large populations of them). A much coarser simulation of sufficiently high predictive accuary might be possible, but frankly we're not likely to develop it without building a full working model first.

Assuming of course you mean 'with very high reliability'. People already engineer religions, fads, revolutions etc. It just isn't very reliable or empirical.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-06-24 03:12pm

Sarevok wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:You might want to do a bit of research into cultural evolution. As the mechanism for its is memes. Specifically memes that are either adaptive or neutral to the host/host population.
Well from my very crude understanding memes are still a concept. No one has quantified anything or came up with a mathmatical model that can be tested.

Which brings up an interesting point. Suppose someone did come up with a working model of how information is disseminated among humans. Given this knowledge would it be possible to artifically create religons and fads, engineer revolts, develop ways to basicaly mind trick an entire population to dance to a particular tune ?

You can use similar models to the ones you would use to study genetics. As for quantifying an idea.... good luck The mutation rate and drift alone are pretty well insurmountable. The best you can really do is make testable predictions about proxy measures. Running an experiment with this stuff is impossible, you have to use observation, and even then, you cant measure the memes directly.

Assuming of course you mean 'with very high reliability'. People already engineer religions, fads, revolutions etc. It just isn't very reliable or empirical.

You dont really need all the proximate mechanisms down. You just need the ultimate ones, or a process down. If you wanted to engineer a religion for example, you would look around, figure out what selective pressures were acting in an area, what problems exist, etc. Then you would engineer solutions to those problems that require little or no thought or effort on the part of the end-user. Create a causal narrative that does not contradict people's every day experience. Then you would need a starting population. With internet memes the cost is low, so people catch on fast. However with higher costs you need to bump up the benefit, or bring them in slowly. Once you have bamboozled your first few and gotten them into your cult, it is easy to keep them in, and really easy to get your religion to spread. You just have to overcome a few initial hurdles (you have to displace the native mental fauna...)

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2008-06-24 03:24pm

I recall hearing of one 'meme' that spread throughout England after the abdication of Edward VIII. Somehow, school children from London up to Scotland were suddenly singing a new rhyme with the tagline "Mrs Simpson's nicked our King!"

Authorities were shocked and amazed at how this skipping rhyme had spread so quickly when it seemed no way for children to do so.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-06-24 04:10pm

If you could control the way people think and go about their decision making, then you'd have the key to pretty much the ultimate propaganda tool. Basically the S3 from MGS2 the AI named JFK discusses.

The S3 Plan does not stand for Solid Snake Simulation. What it does stand for is Selection for Societal Sanity...

The S3 is a system for controlling human will and consciousness. S3 is not you, a soldier trained in the image of Solid Snake. It is -- a method, a protocol, that created a circumstance that made you what you are.

Magus · Post by **Magus** » 2008-06-25 08:46pm

Here we go...I found it again. Daniel Dennett has done a fair amount of research into memetics - there's a lecture here that includes a discussion of it.

Srynerson · Post by **Srynerson** » 2008-07-01 01:46am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I don't see how the concept is only useful for standard biological evolution. Everything in our lives is based on memes, just as it is genes, if not, more so now. Religion and the quest for power being the most harmful.

If one accepts the basic premise of meme theory, then how can a widespread meme be characterized as "harmful"? As I understand meme theory, a meme only becomes widespread by conferring an advantage, or at least not seriously disadvantaging, those infected by it.

Grandmaster Jogurt · Post by **Grandmaster Jogurt** » 2008-07-01 02:48am

Srynerson wrote:If one accepts the basic premise of meme theory, then how can a widespread meme be characterized as "harmful"? As I understand meme theory, a meme only becomes widespread by conferring an advantage, or at least not seriously disadvantaging, those infected by it.

A meme becomes widespread by conferring an advantage to its own reproduction. Benefits to the host are one method, but they are not the only way. It's similar to how genes can gain advantage by providing benefits to the creature, but genes that benefit reproduction over longevity harm the host but can become widespread.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2008-07-01 04:06am

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:
Srynerson wrote:If one accepts the basic premise of meme theory, then how can a widespread meme be characterized as "harmful"? As I understand meme theory, a meme only becomes widespread by conferring an advantage, or at least not seriously disadvantaging, those infected by it.
A meme becomes widespread by conferring an advantage to its own reproduction. Benefits to the host are one method, but they are not the only way. It's similar to how genes can gain advantage by providing benefits to the creature, but genes that benefit reproduction over longevity harm the host but can become widespread.

For example, if someone suicide bombs a hated enemy in the name of Allah or whatever. Striking a blow at such an enemy is a good way to spread the memes of whatever religion you are doing it for; but killing yourself in the process sure isn't good for you. Religions in general are a good example of memes, or rather collections of memes that are harmful to their hosts yet spread well.

PeZook · Post by **PeZook** » 2008-07-01 06:14am

Same for viruses: there are some which ruin their hosts, but are very good at spreading. Of course, a virus cannot be too damaging, or the host will die before the bug can spread. Same with religious memes: those which completely ingore reality die out quickly, while those which are well tailored to the human psyche can have whacked-out content and still survive.

Kodiak · Post by **Kodiak** » 2008-07-01 11:25am

It seems like memes evolve just as much as the culture and society that uses them, though I'm hoping we can find better uses for them than the /b/tards that are out there.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-07-01 12:39pm

Srynerson wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:I don't see how the concept is only useful for standard biological evolution. Everything in our lives is based on memes, just as it is genes, if not, more so now. Religion and the quest for power being the most harmful.
If one accepts the basic premise of meme theory, then how can a widespread meme be characterized as "harmful"? As I understand meme theory, a meme only becomes widespread by conferring an advantage, or at least not seriously disadvantaging, those infected by it.

The same way one can still get harmful genes. If it worked that way, we'd not have any kind of disease at all. Likewise, we'd not have any intolerance brought about by memes.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-07-01 01:19pm

Lord of the Abyss wrote:
Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:
Srynerson wrote:If one accepts the basic premise of meme theory, then how can a widespread meme be characterized as "harmful"? As I understand meme theory, a meme only becomes widespread by conferring an advantage, or at least not seriously disadvantaging, those infected by it.
A meme becomes widespread by conferring an advantage to its own reproduction. Benefits to the host are one method, but they are not the only way. It's similar to how genes can gain advantage by providing benefits to the creature, but genes that benefit reproduction over longevity harm the host but can become widespread.
For example, if someone suicide bombs a hated enemy in the name of Allah or whatever. Striking a blow at such an enemy is a good way to spread the memes of whatever religion you are doing it for; but killing yourself in the process sure isn't good for you. Religions in general are a good example of memes, or rather collections of memes that are harmful to their hosts yet spread well.

Religious memes can also benefit the host and communities, depending on how they are applied. Only a few religious beliefs are that harmful. Xenophobia under a lot of evolutionary conditions is actually a good thing, for example. You have to specify time, place, and religion. Hell, even suicide can be advantageous at the group-level under certain conditions...