RE: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?

From: Keith Henson (hkhenson@rogers.com)
Date: Tue Nov 04 2003 - 09:05:06 MST

  • Next message: Walter Watts: "Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?"

    At 09:28 AM 04/11/03 +0200, you wrote:

    >[Blunderov]

    snip

    >To me, the complicated bit is how it is that we construct a contiguous
    >internal narrative of ourselves in spite of the fact that we are not
    >exactly the same now as we were a moment ago. Add to this the fact the
    >fact that we quite often don't behave in the way we would ourselves
    >predict - we seem able to assimilate our inconsistencies into the
    >consistent system we call "I"!
    >
    >Clear as mud, I know, I know.

    Actually we are not that far off from understanding it from hippocampus
    damage cases. But in any case, I don't see how it could be considered a
    "replicating information pattern," a meme or an element of culture to use
    an alternative definition.

    One culture can (and in the case of Easter Island did) bring another
    culture a major concept like writing (Rongo-rongo). But I am unaware of
    any culture bringing another the concept of "I." That seems to be wired in
    to animals, at least to the extent we can see it in other primates.

    Meme is a nice short, memorable word. In that respect Dawkins chose
    well. But the problem is that the popularity of the *word* has led to a
    plethora of people trying to hang divergent meanings on a very simple concept.

    You can elaborate on Dawkins without violating his original discussion in
    Selfish Gene. Any time someone uses the word, you should be able to
    replace it with "replicating information pattern," "element of culture,"
    "learned element of culture," "culturegen" (a earlier term for the same
    thing) or other similar terms.

    So when asked if a religion is a meme, you can ask back: Is it a
    replicating information pattern? Is is a learned element of culture? If
    the asker says yes, they answered the question.

    The point to using the word at all and not just using "idea" or "learned
    skill" or something similar is to bring out the Darwinian selection
    factor. If you are concerned at the level where using "meme" is
    appropriate, you have to be aware that memes interact with other
    replicators (including other memes) in all the ways that all other
    replicators interact with each other. This can be mutualistic the way
    mitochondria have become in our cells or the way lichen is a symbiosis of
    fungi and green alga or a cyanobacterium. They range through neutral to
    parasitic, deadly even.

    At this level you have to be aware that evolution in an environment
    consisting of a number of replicators gets *very* complicated. You have
    "arms races," oscillation like the rabbits and bobcat populations, and
    really complicated interactions with many different kinds of parasites
    that keep any one blood type or histocompatibility type from being "best."

    Keith Henson

    PS. As an example, memes interact with *microorganisms.* Have since
    people figured out memes for cheese and beer and started making them on
    purpose.

    As an example of memes interacting with human genes, you can see both
    positive and negative (from the gene's viewpoint). There are a lot more of
    certain human genes as a result of the Mormon memes for large
    families. There are fewer human genes from the 'nad whacking Heaven's Gate
    cult.

    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 04 2003 - 09:01:13 MST