Memes

Dawkins at his worst! This turned up in the last part of UK CH4 series on man and animal yesterday. Which did conclude in the right place that man is different from animal because of the degree to which he has escaped his biological imperatives. But it got there by a very dodgy route trying to involve genetics - which is irrelevant - and then having arrived there never realised that it could have gone there directly because it was man who made the distinction in the first place and then made the TV program and that already says a lot!

And if that is not enough of a self invention - make the plinth of a big deal about the distinction between man/animal and then stand upon that plinth and wonder how it got there - memes is even worse!

In itself its a good idea. That ideas themselves spread much like genes - Meme from the greek mimesis. At college I had a similar idea that ideas can be likened to viruses and the same population modelling used. On the internet this analogy between information and virus is a big money sinner for Symantec and Mcafee. A successful virus (idea by analogy) is easily transmitted, has a high infection rate, reproduces well and is not so virulent that it kills the host before it can pass on. (It's a better analogy infact that Memes) Any idea which for example argues for evangelism and spreading of itself is going to become widespread simply on that merit alone. However such formal explanations for the prevalence of ideas completely divorces ideas from their meaning. And, if we do that we undermine the content of our own ideas and are left in a contradiction.

The same for Dawkins. His utter hatred of religious ideas (because by his own research he has a brain defect which means he can't have any religious experiences - altho he used it to prove that people who have religious experiences have a defect ;-) means that Memes is a very attractive idea. It shows that the prevalence of ideas can be explained simply on the basis of the idea's "fitness" - how well it reproduces and spreads. Its fitness is a bit more complex. Firstly does it "compute" well in the human mind, and then also does it make the human do things which help spread the idea.

Of course just as before, if this is true, then Dawkin's entire life's work in genes and memes is subject to the same forces. The same for the UK CH4 program. If these ideas spread then they have a high "fitness", if they fall into oblivion because they are not cool, or are boring, or too hard to understand then that's selection for you.

But that can't be quite right, because if ideas ARE controlled by fashion then it is also true! and therefore it is valid even if it fails. Thus evangelism while it may spread through formal forces like marketing etc, it may also be true!

Its an unfortunate fact that in a free market the "truth" might not sell. Global Warming is a good example. Quite regardless of whether it becomes fashionable or not, or whether people can be persuaded to accept it, quite apart from its "fitness" - if it is true then we have a problem.

So I argue that memes are a good point. But I don't accept that they are the only force in the mind. I also argue that memes are a disease of the mind, and we should aim to cure ourselves of them so that we can view the reality of the world.

Marketing is a tool to pursuade us to do things we wouldn't do if we knew the truth. If we would do it knowing the truth then marketers would just tell us the truth. They don't, they lie because we need to do things we should not do. Ignore all marketing - it is a disease of the mind.

Fashion is the same.

Group membership is the same. If we only do something because other people are doing it, or because it will give us entry status to a group, or ranking in a group, will make us popular, or lower our profile by blending in we should ignore it. Why be part of a group which compromises ourself? Disagree and fall out of the group for that is the right place to be - alone but with integrity. If we truely belong in the group they will accept us for what we are. Confront all groups as an individual and be prepared to be thrown out (which you are likely to be because most groups can only survive using coersion and manipulation through fear and dishonesty - just look at political groups!). I learned this through Buddhism. Any group which calls itself Buddhist cannot be a true representation of Buddha because it must compromise in order to hold itself together - structural considerations become more significant than the group itself). Apparently groups of 100-150 are the maximum that the human brain can deal with - maybe there is some brain science behind group size.

So I think I am correct in my new established policy of personal integrity. Know oneself at the expense of everything else. Certainly ignore other peoples' ideas, marketing, manipulation and their groups. All these are probably diseases which we must be careful not to become mentally infected by. Instead we need to unpack everything we are given and view it on merit - even if the world disagrees! and especially if the world agrees - we should be suspicious of this event always!!