Therefore, memes, such as knowledge, — Pinprick

Memes as conceived by Dawkins are not knowledge but propaganda. We are vital to their survival not the other way round. But it was never a great analogy in the first place, and Dawkins made a habit of taking his own analogies literally as he notoriously does with 'The Selfish Gene'. Obviously genes are not selfish, and do not try to survive or multiply. They are bits of chemical. And memes are bits of sentence. Don't get too excited.

Obviously genes are not selfish, and do not try to survive or multiply. — unenlightened

Likewise, corporations are not selfish (they literally aren't persons) and do not try to survive or help their shareholders to multiply.

If you think about it, comparing memes to genes amounts to breathing life into the former - it creates an image of memes as living entities with the purpose to copy themselves ASAP onto the next available brain. Is this what you had in mind?

Genes are similar to memes in their copying behavior - one from parents to children and the other from brain to brain and that's where the similarity ends I believe.

in the modern world, the physical traits/characteristics that we are born with no longer seem that necessary for us to survive. We no longer need to be athletic in any sense of the word to survive and reproduce. The same can generally be said for our intelligence and even health to a large extent. — Pinprick

The only reason why this is the case though is because we have a medical and economic system which dramatically increases infant survival rates. I don't see how 'memes' (by whatever definition you're using) are any more required to perpetuate that than genes are. What's required to perpetuate that (in a modern setting) is mainly cheap food, clean water, vaccines and antibiotics. To a lesser extent, but still significant, an established medical institution. I'm not seeing the link between these things and 'memes' at all.

in the modern world, the physical traits/characteristics that we are born with no longer seem that necessary for us to survive. — Pinprick

The 'modern world' of which you speak is very recent and so far of short duration. I'm 73; my father, born in 1906, grew up on a farm using horses for power. Men and horses both had to put a lot more energy into their work back then. Two world wars were fought between 1914 and 1945, and physical strength and mental prowess counted for a good deal. True enough, mechanically powered farm machinery; cars, trains, and planes; washing machines and driers; bicycles, etc. have made work life easier. But all that ease takes up about only 100 of 50,000-100,000 years of modern human life.

Our survival may be more dependent on the physical traits in the years ahead than we would like to think. A greener future means expending a lot more energy by moving around under our own power -- like walking and biking, carrying stuff. It won't hurt us, and we have bodies perfectly capable of it.

Memes schmemes. I've never found the concept very useful. I'll grant you that many aspects of our lives seem to be driven by memes. Per @unenlightened, scratch a meme and underneath the surface you will find propaganda urging us to do stuff which benefits some large corporation.

Advertising and public relations, brought to new heights by Sigmund Freud's nephew Edward Bernays, are the vehicles through which corporate bastards try to shape our lives.

Likewise, corporations are not selfish (they literally aren't persons) and do not try to survive or help their shareholders to multiply. — Nils Loc

Curious comparison. Dawkins wants to explain human behaviour in terms of attributes of particles of human make-up that entirely lack such behaviour. Whereas you are objecting to explaining the behaviour of the whole (corporation) in terms of the actual behaviour its parts, (people). It seems a more reasonable project.

Our genes allow us to have memes, but our memes don’t allow us to have genes.

Memes as conceived by Dawkins are not knowledge but propaganda. — unenlightened

That’s stretching the concept a little and then holding it in the corner. Generally speaking they are cultural markers that propagate due to our propensities to novelty and also our contrary reaction to normality.

Propaganda is the purposeful manipulation of the public to bolster certain political ideologies. Saying memes are propaganda is like saying all birds are swans. There is a relation for sure. I don’t believe Dawkins even mentions propaganda in the chapter on memes does he?

There is a relation for sure. I don’t believe Dawkins even mentions propaganda in the chapter on memes does he? — I like sushi

I think he invented the term mainly to explain religion to himself. I should have said 'superstition', rather than propaganda, as a better contrast with 'knowledge'. Anyways, it 'explains' the selfish institution trying to survive in the culture. Or something.

Halfway through rereading the chapter now. Nope, it’s not merely ‘superstition’ either.

Like I said, it is about ‘culture’ in general - as in we don’t have ‘genes’ for science but we certainly don’t say science is a ‘superstition’. ‘Meme’ comes from ‘imitation’, we chop and change things - fashions - and some ‘memes’ manage to survive longer than others.

The main difference between memes and genes is that memes are seemingly irreducible.

If you think about it, comparing memes to genes amounts to breathing life into the former - it creates an image of memes as living entities with the purpose to copy themselves ASAP onto the next available brain. Is this what you had in mind? — TheMadFool

Not really. I always thought memes were simply things other than genes that are passed down from generation to generation. This could be your mom’s recipe for meatloaf, how to throw a curveball, language, etc. Basically anything that is taught and learned. Maybe I’m wrong in calling information passed down from generation to generation memes, but I’d like to discuss it regardless. So, my thought was that at this point in time the skills that we learn seem to what is most necessary for our survival. For example, a person can be born with any number of physical and/or mental disabilities, which would have been a death sentence for our ancestors, but now, thanks to modern medicine, psychology, etc. that person can live much longer, and possibly even procreate. Even if the physical act of sex is impossible due to whatever disability the person has, the person can still pass on his/her DNA to an offspring using various medical fertilization techniques.

Another way of thinking about this would be to say that our genetic inheritance can no longer cause us to be evolutionarily unfit. What would make us unfit would be if somehow we failed to pass on our knowledge of science, medicine, etc.

Another way of thinking about this would be to say that our genetic inheritance can no longer cause us to be evolutionarily unfit. What would make us unfit would be if somehow we failed to pass on our knowledge of science, medicine, etc. — Pinprick

Whatever continues into the future is still dependent upon the actual continuity of genes. The memes need the genes as much as the genes need the memes.

Curious comparison. Dawkins wants to explain human behaviour in terms of attributes of particles of human make-up that entirely lack such behaviour. Whereas you are objecting to explaining the behaviour of the whole (corporation) in terms of the actual behaviour its parts, (people). It seems a more reasonable project. — unenlightened

Isn't animal behavior well explained by genes in theory? Memes (as a kind of horizontal information transfer) helps to explain the added complexity of human behavior.

Not really. I always thought memes were simply things other than genes that are passed down from generation to generation. This could be your mom’s recipe for meatloaf, how to throw a curveball, language, etc. Basically anything that is taught and learned. Maybe I’m wrong in calling information passed down from generation to generation memes, but I’d like to discuss it regardless. So, my thought was that at this point in time the skills that we learn seem to what is most necessary for our survival. For example, a person can be born with any number of physical and/or mental disabilities, which would have been a death sentence for our ancestors, but now, thanks to modern medicine, psychology, etc. that person can live much longer, and possibly even procreate. Even if the physical act of sex is impossible due to whatever disability the person has, the person can still pass on his/her DNA to an offspring using various medical fertilization techniques.

Another way of thinking about this would be to say that our genetic inheritance can no longer cause us to be evolutionarily unfit. What would make us unfit would be if somehow we failed to pass on our knowledge of science, medicine, etc. — Pinprick

Well, what threw me off is you associating memes with knowledge. I'm not sure if knowledge can be considered a meme. Richard Dawkins, the guy who developed the meme concept, refers to religion as a meme and he's also quite famous for denouncing all religions as false. In other words, a false idea qualifies as a meme. Knowledge is about things that are "true".

Actually pinprick is more on point than you are here. A false idea almost certainly qualifies as a meme, but a meme doesn’t necessarily qualify as a false idea. Our scientific knowledge isn’t inherited genetically it is ‘inherited through memes’ (so to speak).

From the horse’s mouth:

“I have been a bit negative about memes, but they have their cheerful side as well. When we die there are two things we can leave behind us: genes and memes. We are built as gene machines, created to pass on our genes. But that aspect of us will be forgotten in three generations. Your child, even your grandchild, may bear a resemblance to you, perhaps in facial features, in talent for music, in the colur of her hair. But as each generation passes, the contribution of your genes is halved. It does not take long to reach negligible proportions. Our genes may be immortal but the collection of genes that is any one of us is bound to crumble away. Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of William the Conquered. Yet it is quite probable that she bears not a single one of the old king’s genes. We should not seek immortality in reproduction.

But if you contribute to the world’s culture, if you have a good idea, compose a tune, invent a sparking plug, write a poem, it may live on, intact, long after your genes have dissolved in the common pool. Socrates may or may not have a gene or two alive in the world today, as G.C. Williams has remarked, but who cares? The meme-complexes of Socrates, Leonardo, Copernicus and Marconi are still going strong.

However speculative my development of the theory of memes may be, there is one serious point which I would like to emphasize once again. This is that when we look at the evolution of cultural traits and at their their survival value, we must be clear whose survival we are talking about ...”

- Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (p.199)

But as each generation passes, the contribution of your genes is halved. It does not take long to reach negligible proportions.

Indeed, you're correct. A person's chromosome/gene contribution gets halved with each generation. Thanks for the info

A false idea almost certainly qualifies as a meme, but a meme doesn’t necessarily qualify as a false idea. — I like sushi

Yup!

The same can generally be said for our intelligence and even health to a large extent. — Pinprick

Without genes to pass down an increase in intelligence over time due to practices that heighten intelligence, we will lose intelligence and fall back into a society where the standards of living and quality of life are less than today since no one with high intelligence is there to handle those kinds of practices.

I see a world governed by a highly intelligent super A.I, where the population of humans can't understand how it works and can only decrease intelligence as it's evolutionary irrelevant to life and existence.

Our genes allow us to have memes, but our memes don’t allow us to have genes. — I like sushi

Well, I get what you’re saying, but perhaps not. If I try to imagine myself as being born and never gaining any advantage from memes, as I’ve loosely described them, I’m not sure I would live long enough to reproduce, or maybe not even know how to reproduce. Therefore, if I want to pass on my genes, memes are essential. So in a way memes are needed to pass on our genes.

Nevertheless, you’re certainly right that the ability to even comprehend, or understand, or express memes in any way is entirely dependent on our genes.

Now you’ve shifted the discussion to the disproved position of the tabla rasa (empty slate). If someone is born and denied sensory experience or help they certainly won’t go far and die quickly. That has very little to do with memes and more to do with basic sustenance.

You seem to be equates memes with experience. That is patently false.

Instances of feral children growing up with wolves and running around on all fours is fascinating stuff. What this tells us is we adapt to the social community as best we can. Wolves growing up around humans are incapable of adapting to human society though. The point here being that there is a latent capacity, a genetic predisposition, that allow adaptive behaviors. Memes - as Dawkins frames them - are components of culture not components of animals.

Note: I’m not talking about memes as you’ve ‘loosely described them’. I’m talking about the actual terminology used by Dawkins.

Now you’ve shifted the discussion to the disproved position of the tabla rasa (empty slate). If someone is born and denied sensory experience or help they certainly won’t go far and die quickly. That has very little to do with memes and more to do with basic sustenance.

You seem to be equates memes with experience. That is patently false. — I like sushi

Eh, you're not being very charitable. Why wouldn't basic knowledge about how to survive constitute learned knowledge, culture (memes)? Subtract any culturally transmitted know how in absence of built-in instincts and there is a survival learning curve that can't really be easily overcome.

Clearly it was overcome because we’re here now. I’m not denying that humans have a relatively long juvenile period during which we fit into our surroundings. The case remains that diverse human cultures exist because of this, but the specific use of the term ‘meme’ doesn’t state that ‘memes’ existed prior to humans - that’s just getting things backwards.

Why wouldn't basic knowledge about how to survive constitute learned knowledge, culture (memes)? — Nils Loc

I never said it wouldn’t. We can survive without culture though, so the assumption that we need ‘memes’ to live was wrong. I’m assuming we can agree that ants don’t have a culture. They still survive and reproduce. Humans, although more vulnerable in infancy, don’t need culture to survive and reproduce - unless we’re calling raising and feeding young ‘culture’.

I wasn’t saying more than that nor am I denying the blatant use of culture for societies.

Now you’ve shifted the discussion to the disproved position of the tabla rasa (empty slate). — I like sushi

No. I’m not a proponent of tabula rasa. I’m not denying instinct, or any other predisposition we are born with.

If someone is born and denied sensory experience or help they certainly won’t go far and die quickly. That has very little to do with memes and more to do with basic sustenance. — I like sushi

Nor am I denying sensory experience or helping. I’m denying specifically anything that was intentionally taught to me be another human being, either individually via parenting, etc.; or collectively via culture, religion, etc.

You seem to be equates memes with experience. — I like sushi

Nope. I’m basically equating memes with anything learned indirectly.

The point here being that there is a latent capacity, a genetic predisposition, that allow adaptive behaviors. — I like sushi

I agree, but I would posit that many adaptive behaviors are learned. An infant has to be taught not to wonder into traffic, how to swim, fire safety, home safety, etc. I’m willing to concede that IF an infant was able to survive long enough to develop the ability to cognitively understand things like causation, then some of the adaptive behaviors could be figured out via experience, or trial and error, or some other such method.

Okay, I think I see. You’re proposing a hypothetical where ALL culture/memes are removed.

Interesting thought. I don’t see how some form of cohesive culture wouldn’t come into being relatively quickly - with a generation or two. I’d love to hear a counter argument to my speculation though.

The root of ‘meme’ was the Greek ‘mimetic’ which means ‘imitation’. This is something all humans do instinctively I’d argue - one example being a new born (within minutes) actively tries to mimic adult facial expressions.

Adaptive behaviors adapt from an original behavior. In terms of memes, those memes that have a strong ability to latch onto human psychology - for better or worse for the human, as with the survival of genes - survive.

I cut short the extract, but this is the point Dawkins was, in his words, trying to ‘emphasize’.

However speculative my development of the theory of memes may be, there is one serious point which I would like to emphasize once again. This is that when we look at the evolution of cultural traits and at their their survival value, we must be clear whose survival we are talking about

The ‘who’ being the ‘meme’.

Anyway, if all memes disappeared we’d make new ones through human error and misunderstanding. We’d create a new language - although some would argue language isn’t ‘innate’. Parents would try and keep their children safe (instinctually protect them) and children would copy their parents and actively test them by doing something and observing their parents reaction (for signs of dis/approval).

There is a book a read sometime ago that goes into more detail about child develop called ‘The Scientist in the Crib’. Obviously it’s biased due to it’s intent but there are some fascinating and useful insights into how children adapt to the world, and how adults adapt to children.

Anyway, to refer right back to the OP it is imaginable that as technologies develop, and perhaps reshape our environment more and more (uploaded consciousness or some kind of more physical melding with computers) then ‘memes’ will take over leaving the empty husk of DNA in the remote past.

I’m sure there are several sci-fi novels out there exploring this already. Westworld is epic for exploring this in a very visceral way (highly recommend if you haven’t watched it).

I don’t think we’re anywhere near hitting that tipping point yet, but we can never be too sure what’s around the corner. I’d be surprised to see such take any serious hold in my life time. Once someone figures out how to actually harness quantum computing (if ever) then we’ll see.

Okay, I think I see. You’re proposing a hypothetical where ALL culture/memes are removed. — I like sushi

Well, that’s one way to achieve what I’m getting at, but it isn’t required. Basically just imagine if you were not able to learn indirectly. Others could still teach each other and learn, but you would be excluded.

Interesting thought. I don’t see how some form of cohesive culture wouldn’t come into being relatively quickly - with a generation or two. I’d love to hear a counter argument to my speculation though. — I like sushi

I’m not sure if anything resembling collective behavior could exist without memes though? I mean, maybe cooperation could be learned strictly through direct experience, or it could be innate, but if that was the case then why do all the memes that try to guide our behavior exist in the first place? To me, the fact that they exist and continue to exist shows that they must be needed. If the golden rule never existed, and no one was ever taught that it is good to treat others the way you want to be treated, would we still do so? I don’t know, I’m just rambling, but maybe even perhaps our genes are selfish as Dawkins suggests, and that memes are what cause, or at least reinforce, more altruistic/cooperative behaviors?

The root of ‘meme’ was the Greek ‘mimetic’ which means ‘imitation’. This is something all humans do instinctively I’d argue - one example being a new born (within minutes) actively tries to mimic adult facial expressions. — I like sushi

I would agree.

Adaptive behaviors adapt from an original behavior. In terms of memes, those memes that have a strong ability to latch onto human psychology - for better or worse for the human, as with the survival of genes - survive. — I like sushi

Yes, when we’re dealing strictly with behavior, but we can’t imitate internal states like beliefs or feelings. So I’m not sure if we could develop systems based on beliefs (religion, politics, morality, etc.). We would be able to draw our own conclusions based on our own personal observations and experiences, but we couldn’t share our conclusions with others without memes, and there’s no guarantee we would all draw the same conclusions.

Anyway, if all memes disappeared we’d make new ones through human error and misunderstanding. We’d create a new language - although some would argue language isn’t ‘innate’. — I like sushi

I don’t know how we could if we weren’t able to teach each other. We may have the genetic predisposition to represent objects, thoughts, etc. with sounds, but not necessarily the same sounds. So how would I know what your sounds meant unless you somehow taught me? All I can do is observe you making sounds, but I don’t know what can be deduced from that.

Parents would try and keep their children safe (instinctually protect them) and children would copy their parents and actively test them by doing something and observing their parents reaction (for signs of dis/approval). — I like sushi

I can agree with this.

Very late reply!

Basically just imagine if you were not able to learn indirectly. — Pinprick

That would be ‘indirectly’ in what sense? If there was no human culture/language then we’d create one via necessary interactions - we’re social beings.

I’m not sure if anything resembling collective behavior could exist without memes though? — Pinprick

As mentioned above briefly the issue is more about where and how you draw a line between what is or isn’t deemed ‘direct’/‘indirect’. If there is no interaction there is no culture, so ‘memes’ in this sense would put an end to all individual to individual communication (there would be no ‘individual’: which is an impossibility for humans).

Yes, when we’re dealing strictly with behavior, but we can’t imitate internal states like beliefs or feelings. — Pinprick

In the broader sense you’re talking about I don’t see how ‘feeling’ and ‘beliefs’ aren’t part of behavior. A behavior necessitates a ‘feeling’/‘belief’ (albeit in a more dispassionate predictive fashion for entities like insects).

our genes are selfish as Dawkins suggests — Pinprick

Dawkins was being extremely liberal with the term ‘selfish’. In the sense that a rock would ‘selfishly fall to the ground due to gravity’. His point for memes being they don’t survive to benefit us or anything, only to propagate and either continue or disappear. Benefits are merely subjective human perspectives.

I should note that in terms of behavior we are empathic. We map our bodies onto items external to our bodies. We see, and seek, causation all around us and, to some degree, see everything as a base representation of ourselves (anthropomorphic qualities).

We may have the genetic predisposition to represent objects, thoughts, etc. with sounds, but not necessarily the same sounds. So how would I know what your sounds meant unless you somehow taught me? All I can do is observe you making sounds, but I don’t know what can be deduced from that. — Pinprick

You figure that out through reasoning. We’re born able to discern ALL sounds and then dispose of the neurons we don’t use so as to attend to the sounds we’re commonly exposed to. We don’t really ‘teach’ in such an explicit way. Children don’t pick up language by learning grammar first and then applying word in a regimented manner. It is pretty much more of a trial and error and task specific task - meaning we deem meaning by association (location, tone, and present objects and feelings/sensations).

I don’t know how we could if we weren’t able to teach each other. — Pinprick

We’d still learn. Teaching is merely a purposeful instrument to direct learning. ALL creatures ‘learn’ in some fashion or another simply by being exposed to various experiences.

One thing can be said. If everyone walked around on their hands and knees and a new child was born they would mimic the other humans and walk around on their hands and knees too. In such a world a bipedal human would be viewed as an act of superhuman skill or strength - if it was found to be advantageous I’m sure the ‘trend’ would quickly spread to a point where crawling on all fours became shunned for it’s inefficency.

That would be ‘indirectly’ in what sense? If there was no human culture/language then we’d create one via necessary interactions - we’re social beings. — I like sushi

By indirect I mean anything that cannot be learned through observation and whatever conclusions we are able to make based on those observations. If it has to be explained or taught to you it’s indirect. The way I imagine things, language would require one person (who created/developed the language) to teach it to another person in order for it to be learned. I guess the sort of gray area would be gesturing to an object while making a specific noise. If you did that, I could probably figure out that the noise you’re making is referring to the object you’re pointing at. I don’t know if I would count that as teaching or not. If it doesn’t, then I suppose words could be learned that referred to physical objects capable of being perceived, but abstract thought would remain concealed from one another. Culture is a vague term in my opinion, and encompasses many different processes(?). Certain parts that make up culture may be able to be developed, but nothing as complex as what we
have today.

In the broader sense you’re talking about I don’t see how ‘feeling’ and ‘beliefs’ aren’t part of behavior. A behavior necessitates a ‘feeling’/‘belief’ (albeit in a more dispassionate predictive fashion for entities like insects). — I like sushi

Because behavior is generally defined as observable. You can’t deduce my beliefs/feelings by only observing my actions. There are beliefs and feelings that do not necessitate action. Also, the same action or behavior can have different causes. I may eat because I’m hungry, or because I’m depressed, and you may not be able to tell the difference.