Are you hosting a memetic parasite?(apxhard.com)
apxhard.com
Are you hosting a memetic parasite?
https://apxhard.com/2021/03/17/are-you-hosting-a-mimetic-parasite/
82 comments
It's easy to get caught up in information flows, and assess how the state of the world aligns with your values. It's much harder to propagate your values into the world. Just worrying sometimes feels like you're doing something, when you're not. It's a shame that most of us are so disempowered that tuning out is probably the best option for our individual wellbeing.
I realised Social media was a memetic parasite right from the start when I could feel the urge to take a photo of something, rather than just enjoy it rising in my consciousness.
People felt the urge to take pictures rather than just enjoying things long before social media. Many of us enjoy the photography process itself, and we like to share our art with friends.
I just made a dark room in my bathroom last week to try black and white photo paper developing. The slow hard treacherous process is giving me a new appreciation for photography of the past.
I guess I do remember people talking a disposable camera to a party and then personally giving the prints to their friends weeks later. What I found in the mid 2000s was this new thought of 'what photo to take' and 'what caption to write' , Like I was my own publicist. always in an imaginary conversation with people who weren't actually around, which is more a hallmark of loneliness than of touted 'being connected to the things and people I love' ...
Observe, that today memes do not require the host to be alive. One could boast of a diet on YouTube, die of it a few days in and the videos would happily live on.
In your example at least the recipient is alive, but in fact I wonder if one could argue that with machine learning models training on web data, a meme can now perform an entire reproductive cycle without a human in the loop.
If not now, in the future yes. I believe I've discussed just that possibly on HN. The creation of a virtual social media around a person that drives them to extreme or insane positions. Just imagine a set of bots that gives a very positive response to oddly coloured cats. At first you post 'normal' cats with odd patterns, but then then you find that unnaturally coloured cats get an even better response. Could we actually see a person dying their white cat cyan for fake internet responses and positive affirmations that are completely disconnected from human reality? I believe yes, and that its probably already happened.
Same with memes found in books. The host being alive has not been a requirement...ever?
The videos age as well though. They aren't necessarily always in their prime, so its impact does tend to get reduced over time. so not "happily living on".
[deleted]
They may as well grow in popularity over time as they get shared and liked and pushed to others by recommender algorithms.
I did think about that, in the scenario described by TP, I am putting faith that the claims made by a popular lifestyle video will be scrutinized and thus debunked.
Oh yes, the high level of discourse in the YouTube Comments section. ;)
The host is the culture, not any one individual.
The culture is the environment, the host is "any one individual".
Interesting model. I have found the meme model a useful thing in the past but have not distinguished things except by their transmissibility and energy consumption. The meme parasite model is an interesting way to distinguish "harmful" memes from good ones.
Currently, I suspect parasitic memes have lots of room to flourish because we keep people alive who are hosts. There is very little selection pressure.
But that is because we are in a time of unbelievable prosperity, a Stable Era. I believe that as other countries catch up, we will enter a Chaotic Era. The real pressures will pop up then and either a massive gap will yawn between those with many meme parasites or the ones with meme parasites will follow their directive to eat those without.
Not to sound like an accelerationist but since I'd prefer that parasitic memes die out, I hope that the chaos comes fast, so that even if I am heavily infected the coming purge wipes me so that Clean Humanity may survive. If we wait too long, too many of us may be infected, and we may win but doom us all to a local optimum.
And as Toby Ord argues in The Precipice, that would be a terrible end.
Currently, I suspect parasitic memes have lots of room to flourish because we keep people alive who are hosts. There is very little selection pressure.
But that is because we are in a time of unbelievable prosperity, a Stable Era. I believe that as other countries catch up, we will enter a Chaotic Era. The real pressures will pop up then and either a massive gap will yawn between those with many meme parasites or the ones with meme parasites will follow their directive to eat those without.
Not to sound like an accelerationist but since I'd prefer that parasitic memes die out, I hope that the chaos comes fast, so that even if I am heavily infected the coming purge wipes me so that Clean Humanity may survive. If we wait too long, too many of us may be infected, and we may win but doom us all to a local optimum.
And as Toby Ord argues in The Precipice, that would be a terrible end.
Good satire!
Connection refused is likely that the site was "nullrouted" (not really, but don't have a better term) by a hosting provider after HN hug and not crumbled under load itself (usually you experience very long response times, which would then often be a 5xx error). Wall of shame: https://www.whoishostingthis.com/#search=apxhard.com (Dreamhost).
There is no antimemetics division.
I've been feeling very paranoid about posting ANYTHING online, honestly. Or chat, email, video call, etc. Is that what we're talking about?
It's a reference to this: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/antimemetics-division-hub There Is No Antimemetics Division and its sequel Five Five Five Five Five are some of the best sci-fi stories I've ever read.
I'm really enjoying this. Thanks for posting it!
There’s some really great SCPs on there, I go through the top rated ones every few months. Some very creative and well thought out pieces.
I have a feeling like the developers of Control (the video game) were heavily influenced by SCPs.
I have a feeling like the developers of Control (the video game) were heavily influenced by SCPs.
Huh I’m not familiar with that game. Gonna check this out.
Edit: ok, just checked out the Wikipedia page. You will be happy to learn that it is directly inspired by SCP.
Edit: ok, just checked out the Wikipedia page. You will be happy to learn that it is directly inspired by SCP.
It’s a great game, really hit that X-Files / Fringe vibe that has been largely missing from a lot of media in the last decade or so.
haha, that's not a visual programming language!
[deleted]
What surprises me about habits like watching news or scrolling Facebook is that people don't get bored by it. Because this is our failsafe mechanism for not falling into repetitive loops.
And I get the appeal of most of these things. When I was an adolescent I had this or other 24h info network on most of the time on a tv in my room. I spent nights arguing with people on Usenet.
But after a few months or maybe a year or two, I would get bored with them. Yet people can keep going for decades. Why is their memetic immune system not firing up?
And I get the appeal of most of these things. When I was an adolescent I had this or other 24h info network on most of the time on a tv in my room. I spent nights arguing with people on Usenet.
But after a few months or maybe a year or two, I would get bored with them. Yet people can keep going for decades. Why is their memetic immune system not firing up?
Casual social interaction argumentative or otherwise is natural. I mean it's not like we're by nature solitary animals who sit in our rooms and ponder the mysteries of the universe for ten hours. That's just a nerdy hobby of a minority of people who write blogs like that.
Every day when I go to work (pre-covid anyway) I used to chat with the middle-aged lady living next door and we'd talk about the weather or the news or whatever, and there's nothing new about it but it's enjoyable. I've heard someone argue it's like a low-key reality check, sort of like people pinging each other checking if everything's still in tune.
Not too long ago we used to congregate in large communities and extended families for much of the day, and for the last few decades we've locked ourselves in cubicles and single family homes. My grandmother had 8 siblings and three generations living in one home, there was always something to talk about or get in a fight with. It's no wonder most people are yearning for a sort of casual background chat.
Every day when I go to work (pre-covid anyway) I used to chat with the middle-aged lady living next door and we'd talk about the weather or the news or whatever, and there's nothing new about it but it's enjoyable. I've heard someone argue it's like a low-key reality check, sort of like people pinging each other checking if everything's still in tune.
Not too long ago we used to congregate in large communities and extended families for much of the day, and for the last few decades we've locked ourselves in cubicles and single family homes. My grandmother had 8 siblings and three generations living in one home, there was always something to talk about or get in a fight with. It's no wonder most people are yearning for a sort of casual background chat.
I think there are a few factors.
The other side never tires, and it always offers something new. This novelty is different to a conversation with a real (or virtual) human that will tire or run out of new content which leads to natural boredom.
The effort is also smaller. Bite size interactions are easy to digest and "just one more" whereas starting a new movie or TV show has a larger mental hurdle.
It also has elements of gambling. What's in the news feed mystery box this time? Refresh and see. It does not have to be good every time. Intermittent reinforcement takes care of that. In this respect it has a lot in common with many video games.
The other side never tires, and it always offers something new. This novelty is different to a conversation with a real (or virtual) human that will tire or run out of new content which leads to natural boredom.
The effort is also smaller. Bite size interactions are easy to digest and "just one more" whereas starting a new movie or TV show has a larger mental hurdle.
It also has elements of gambling. What's in the news feed mystery box this time? Refresh and see. It does not have to be good every time. Intermittent reinforcement takes care of that. In this respect it has a lot in common with many video games.
Those who are alive have genes that have survived billions of generations due to our ancestors' habitual vigilance for predators, prey and mates. We are hardwired to scan the world for those, whatever the channel. Our predecessors who got bored too quickly by massively repetitive scenery were less likely to become our ancestors.
Tell that to all the descendants of Genghis Khan....
If we go back in history far enough: yes, of course we will realize that X% of humanity is a descendant of person Y. But that is just a rather obvious consequence of the fact that genetic signals can travel through a genepool pretty quickly. Nevermind that we are talking about ancestry, not any particular genetic signals. It's just that Genghis Khan, King John and Charlemagne are rather prominent ancestors, and that their geneanalogy is documented well. I'm pretty sure we would find similar results with most people who still had decendants by, let's say, 1750. Since then, humanity went through a phase of tremendous population growth, which by definition expands the set of descendants of any of our ancestors. Most humans that have ever existed are alive today. Their ancestry must come from somewhere.
I guess we'll never know :(
I agree with much of this article. I looked at the twitter output of an acquaintance a couple of days back and after literally 60 seconds I felt my mind becoming a stew of frustraion and anxiety -- i agreed with many of the points and retweets and slogans but to what end? On the other hand I'm dubious of effective altruism as a model for improving the world it seems to me it has very little chance of creating necessary structural change. Charitable giving is great but why as a society should we be subject to the whims of individual philanthropists -- often gross benneficiaries exisiting power structures.
> why as a society should we be subject to the whims of individual philanthropists
Well, what do the alternatives look like? It's not like powerful politicians aren't self-aggrandizing; I'm sure many of them would like to effect structural change, but the structural change they want is probably pretty suspect. Nor is it the case that "political majorities", writ large, have an untarnished reputation for gentleness and decency.
Well, what do the alternatives look like? It's not like powerful politicians aren't self-aggrandizing; I'm sure many of them would like to effect structural change, but the structural change they want is probably pretty suspect. Nor is it the case that "political majorities", writ large, have an untarnished reputation for gentleness and decency.
> as a society should we be subject to the whims of individual philanthropists
As a society we can be changed by individual people. I would prefer to retain that, yes.
As a society we can be changed by individual people. I would prefer to retain that, yes.
I dont really believe the altruism model will work myself, at least with our current society and the power memes have over people.
CGP Grey's, This video will make you angry really gives a lot of insight into the nearly biological nature of memes and the selection process that goes into the ones that we end up seeing.
https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc
CGP Grey's, This video will make you angry really gives a lot of insight into the nearly biological nature of memes and the selection process that goes into the ones that we end up seeing.
https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc
> Charitable giving is great but why as a society should we be subject to the whims of individual philanthropists -- often gross benneficiaries exisiting power structures.
This is an interesting framing. What form of social organization would make it so that altruistic behavior was not a result of the whims of people in extant power structures? It seems tautologous that if someone has the power to allocate funds, they are the current beneficiary of the extant power structure.
This is an interesting framing. What form of social organization would make it so that altruistic behavior was not a result of the whims of people in extant power structures? It seems tautologous that if someone has the power to allocate funds, they are the current beneficiary of the extant power structure.
That was a wonderful article, and an important concept from someone who found wisdom through suffering.
The central idea reminds me of the quote by Jung:
"People don't have ideas; ideas have people."
It's pithy, and maybe not entirely true, but it's something we see every day, and can all resonate with.
The central idea reminds me of the quote by Jung:
"People don't have ideas; ideas have people."
It's pithy, and maybe not entirely true, but it's something we see every day, and can all resonate with.
Gad Saad, professor of evolutionary psychology, recently wrote a book called “The Parasitic Mind”, that develops a similar set of ideas: https://bookshop.org/books/the-parasitic-mind-how-infectious...
Saad also appeared on the Jordan Peterson podcast recently, explaining his framing and terminology around ideas infecting minds: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/gadsaad/
Saad also appeared on the Jordan Peterson podcast recently, explaining his framing and terminology around ideas infecting minds: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/podcast/gadsaad/
> One answer would be that “I care about the world and when I see things that are wrong I get upset, which is good and reasonable.” But that’s the parasite speaking.
I think it's a social mechanism to weed out traitors. It's a necessary part of the process, not just a parasite meme.
I think it's a social mechanism to weed out traitors. It's a necessary part of the process, not just a parasite meme.
Not working for me, try https://archive.is/20210319065509/https://apxhard.com/2021/0...
I recommend the Web Archives Firefox extension by the way. Useful not just for archive.is but also for e.g. Google cache (googlebot is often allowed pass paywalls).
I recommend the Web Archives Firefox extension by the way. Useful not just for archive.is but also for e.g. Google cache (googlebot is often allowed pass paywalls).
Thank you for the link and extension recommendation.
What about the other parasite, M0?
https://www.datapacrat.com/Opinion/Reciprocality/r1/index.ht...
https://www.datapacrat.com/Opinion/Reciprocality/r1/index.ht...
To go with that, The Ghost Not is maybe easier to grasp
https://www.datapacrat.com/Opinion/Reciprocality/r2/index.ht...
https://www.datapacrat.com/Opinion/Reciprocality/r2/index.ht...
M0 made sense to me, Ghost Not doesn't.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
> More intelligent people can play host to far more sophisticated parasitic memes. Educated adults are less likely to believe that lizard people rule the world
There's evidence that highly educated people are _more_ likely to believe in the Qanon conspiracy.
Belief isn't just shorthand for "checking out the evidence and making claims about the world on the basis of the probability of that evidence." There can be a will to believe whatever supports your social or material interests that trumps reason. We are now living in post-epistemological times.
Interestingly, at the end of the article he brings up pro wrestling and remarks on not believing it anymore. But this kind of credulity is almost the opposite of what pro wrestling is all about - you have to buy in to take part (kayfabe). Everyone does, everyone knows it.
There's evidence that highly educated people are _more_ likely to believe in the Qanon conspiracy.
Belief isn't just shorthand for "checking out the evidence and making claims about the world on the basis of the probability of that evidence." There can be a will to believe whatever supports your social or material interests that trumps reason. We are now living in post-epistemological times.
Interestingly, at the end of the article he brings up pro wrestling and remarks on not believing it anymore. But this kind of credulity is almost the opposite of what pro wrestling is all about - you have to buy in to take part (kayfabe). Everyone does, everyone knows it.
What's your source that more educated people are more prone to buying into Qanon?
The original source is over a hundred pages of polling data, so I won’t link to that.
https://m.slashdot.org/story/381628
https://m.slashdot.org/story/381628
They aren't scientists. And their conclusion is not just false; it's the opposite.
If you have a college education, you're proportionally much more likely to have a "very unfavorable" view of QAnon. (26% with no college degrees, versus ~42% with college or higher).
How did the journalists get it wrong?
1) They fixated on a poorly worded polling question: "How accurate or inaccurate are the claims made by QAnon?" (I myself believe that QAnon's claims are "somewhat accurate", in a similar way that I notice that broken clocks are correct twice per day.)
2) They failed to notice that non-college-educated people overwhelmingly account for people who are "unaware" of QAnon. It could be inferred that education correlates with worldly awareness, and hence the ability to have opinions on obscure topics.
In conclusion, don't trust popular press. Journalists lack the analytical skill and incentives to accurately report on science, much less on raw data. https://xkcd.com/882/
If you have a college education, you're proportionally much more likely to have a "very unfavorable" view of QAnon. (26% with no college degrees, versus ~42% with college or higher).
How did the journalists get it wrong?
1) They fixated on a poorly worded polling question: "How accurate or inaccurate are the claims made by QAnon?" (I myself believe that QAnon's claims are "somewhat accurate", in a similar way that I notice that broken clocks are correct twice per day.)
2) They failed to notice that non-college-educated people overwhelmingly account for people who are "unaware" of QAnon. It could be inferred that education correlates with worldly awareness, and hence the ability to have opinions on obscure topics.
In conclusion, don't trust popular press. Journalists lack the analytical skill and incentives to accurately report on science, much less on raw data. https://xkcd.com/882/
[deleted]
I don't believe (hardly) anyone in academia uses the term meme. Perhaps there's a good reason for that?
It's not clear any clarity is added to the world by replacing the term for culture or thoughts with whatever the term meme is trying to accomplish.
It's not clear any clarity is added to the world by replacing the term for culture or thoughts with whatever the term meme is trying to accomplish.
>I don't believe (hardly) anyone in academia uses the term meme. Perhaps there's a good reason for that?
First, "What the academy uses" is a pretty low bar for clarity, thinking, relevance, and all that...
That said, meme was popularized by Richard Dawkins, an academic.
Mimetic theory (conceptually related) was formed by Rene Girard, a Harvard scholar (and has tons of citations).
Plus, "meme" gives 717,342 results back on JSTOR, 2 million+ on Google Scholar, and 219,789 on ScienceDirect.
So, there's that.
>It's not clear any clarity is added to the world by replacing the term for culture or thoughts with whatever the term meme is trying to accomplis
It is perfectly clear what is added, if one bothers to read a description of the term "meme". Neither culture nor thoughts mean the same thing. So much so, that your complain isn't even wrong.
First, "What the academy uses" is a pretty low bar for clarity, thinking, relevance, and all that...
That said, meme was popularized by Richard Dawkins, an academic.
Mimetic theory (conceptually related) was formed by Rene Girard, a Harvard scholar (and has tons of citations).
Plus, "meme" gives 717,342 results back on JSTOR, 2 million+ on Google Scholar, and 219,789 on ScienceDirect.
So, there's that.
>It's not clear any clarity is added to the world by replacing the term for culture or thoughts with whatever the term meme is trying to accomplis
It is perfectly clear what is added, if one bothers to read a description of the term "meme". Neither culture nor thoughts mean the same thing. So much so, that your complain isn't even wrong.
I cursory look at the JSTOR front page results shows a lot of those links are writing about internet memes- in other words people posting things about people posting things on Twitter. Journal articles in places like "The Social Internet Reader." Not exactly the stuff of evolutionary biology. I'll concede there would appear to be some academics taking it seriously among that noise.
Culture and thoughts may not mean the same thing, but people are not using the word "meme" consistently- hence sometimes it means cultures and sometimes thoughts and sometimes it's a term for cat pictures on twitter.
Culture and thoughts may not mean the same thing, but people are not using the word "meme" consistently- hence sometimes it means cultures and sometimes thoughts and sometimes it's a term for cat pictures on twitter.
You know, meme was originally coined [1] by Richard Dawkins, an academic scientist, in his book The Selfish Gene.
1. https://books.google.com/books?id=WkHO9HI7koEC&pg=PA192
1. https://books.google.com/books?id=WkHO9HI7koEC&pg=PA192
The Selfish Gene is a popular text by an academic articulating a very specific view of evolution, one that's caught on among a certain subculture but which isn't mainstream as far as I can tell.
Plenty of terms originally coined by academics lack broad academic or even intellectual credibility. I'd agree with the OP that the use of "Meme" is one. I'd also agree that this is because the term provides no clarity - ideas aren't like genes. Genes reproduce by a set mechanism, ideas can be stretched and modified any way you want. Genes are interpreted and realized by a fairly set mechanism. Ideas can be realized any old way. The "Meme" concept is one person's bad analogy imo.
Plenty of terms originally coined by academics lack broad academic or even intellectual credibility. I'd agree with the OP that the use of "Meme" is one. I'd also agree that this is because the term provides no clarity - ideas aren't like genes. Genes reproduce by a set mechanism, ideas can be stretched and modified any way you want. Genes are interpreted and realized by a fairly set mechanism. Ideas can be realized any old way. The "Meme" concept is one person's bad analogy imo.
"The Selfish Gene is a popular text ... among a certain subculture but which isn't mainstream as far as I can tell."
"broad academic or even intellectual credibility"
I see what you did there.
I don't see a problem with memetics being non-mainstream in the way it's described here. Sure. If you want a job doing something called _memetics_. If you want to gain clout and respectability among your peers for illuminating some dark corner of the worlds problems with your writing, memetics is not going to impress anyone.
I say, More ideas the better!
"broad academic or even intellectual credibility"
I see what you did there.
I don't see a problem with memetics being non-mainstream in the way it's described here. Sure. If you want a job doing something called _memetics_. If you want to gain clout and respectability among your peers for illuminating some dark corner of the worlds problems with your writing, memetics is not going to impress anyone.
I say, More ideas the better!
That's why I said "hardly" anyone uses it, not nobody uses it.
The word "meme" was invented by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. He's public facing, but his origins are academic. The word caught on because it's a good word that conveyed a novel idea. One could say that it memed its way into our hearts.
[deleted]
What do you think the word meme means[1]? What academic word or phrase should replace it?
[1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme
[1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meme
The dictionary definition suggests "idea" would do fine.
If you took the article and replaced meme with idea would anything be lost?
If you took the article and replaced meme with idea would anything be lost?
The entire concept of viral replication.
It seems sufficient to acknowledge that virality is a property of ideas. We can then continue using a single term to reference the notion of an 'idea'.
>virality is a property of ideas
It's only a property of some ideas. People have self-contained ideas all the time, including ideas they're inclined to absolutely keep to themselves.
It's only a property of some ideas. People have self-contained ideas all the time, including ideas they're inclined to absolutely keep to themselves.
Virality isn't a boolean property that's true for a distinct class of ideas, it's a probability of transmission.
Not telling anyone your ideas is like a mountaintop hermit not spreading a new viral strain.
Is your comment different than saying "some ideas are catchier than others"?
Not telling anyone your ideas is like a mountaintop hermit not spreading a new viral strain.
Is your comment different than saying "some ideas are catchier than others"?
>Is your comment different than saying "some ideas are catchier than others"?
No, and that's the whole point.
Since "some ideas are catchier than others", ideas are superset of memes.
Memes being, precisely, the ideas with higher virality.
Ideas with low or zero virality are not memes.
No, and that's the whole point.
Since "some ideas are catchier than others", ideas are superset of memes.
Memes being, precisely, the ideas with higher virality.
Ideas with low or zero virality are not memes.
The field of virology doesn't draw a line in the sand excluding certain viruses with low transmission rates.
Viruses that are more transmissible simply draw the attention of the field.
Presumably, a scientific study of ideas would observe ideas commonly transmitted in the wild.
Presumably, a scientific study of ideas would observe ideas commonly transmitted in the wild.
>The field of virology doesn't draw a line in the sand excluding certain viruses with low transmission rates. Viruses that are more transmissible simply draw the attention of the field.
The field of meme-ology however does. So there's that.
The field of meme-ology however does. So there's that.
Here's a sentence from the article with meme replaced with idea "One perhaps non-obvious consequence of seeing ideas as organisms is the concept of a idea parasites."
This seems to work fine.
Whether insight comes from calling an idea an organism is another issue, I suspect it's a poor metaphor.
This seems to work fine.
Whether insight comes from calling an idea an organism is another issue, I suspect it's a poor metaphor.
“semiotics”, which predates it in depth and knowledge by some years.
!!! That's a very unusual application of 'semiotics'.
I would be very grateful to ANYONE who could produce a reference to a published paper or text describing both memetics and semiotics in culture.
I would be very grateful to ANYONE who could produce a reference to a published paper or text describing both memetics and semiotics in culture.
Meme is just I Can Haz Sign. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
Another critique comes from semiotic theorists such as Terrence Deacon[41] and Kalevi Kull.[42] This view regards the concept of "meme" as a primitivized concept of "sign".
Another critique comes from semiotic theorists such as Terrence Deacon[41] and Kalevi Kull.[42] This view regards the concept of "meme" as a primitivized concept of "sign".
> "I Can Haz Sign"
?? I don't know what that refers to.
Regarding the references from Wikipedia--I apologize for my enthusiasm in a post about memetics, if I gave you the impression I was just shooting off in the forum. I should have worded it better. I'm sure the reference to Wikipedia was an honest gesture at being informative.
"Kalevi Kull (born 12 August 1952, Tartu) is a biosemiotics professor at the University of Tartu, Estonia." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevi_Kull)
Yes. Tartu is the holdout for semiotics in academia. My guess is Professor Kull has to have an opinion about memetics teaching at Tartu.
> "Terrence William Deacon ... is an American neuroanthropologist ... is currently Professor of Anthropology and member of the Cognitive Science Faculty at the University of California, Berkeley." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrence_Deacon)
Anthropologist would certainly have an opinion about memetics. Blackmore (2000) essentially spends her whole book making the case for memetics in this field.
I was excited by the prospect someone in the _semiotic_ community would take memetics seriously (other than the subfield of bio-semiotics).
Noth (1995) is not a recent publication, but it is a serious survey of semiotic theories. He devotes only 5 paragraphs of 575 pages to memes. (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Handbook_of_Semiotics/r...) (you only get to see the beginning in this link, but I have the book and there is only one more paragraphs on the next page).
Quoting the rest of the paragraph from Wikipedia, "Another critique comes from semiotic theorists such as Terrence Deacon[41] and Kalevi Kull.[42] This view regards the concept of "meme" as a primitivized concept of "sign". The meme is thus described in memetics as a sign lacking a triadic nature. Semioticians can regard a meme as a "degenerate" sign, which includes only its ability of being copied. Accordingly, in the broadest sense, the objects of copying are memes, whereas the objects of translation and interpretation are signs.[clarification needed]"
It's a radical notion, even for semiotics, there could be anything more primitive than the sign itself. And a sign lacking a triadic nature is incomplete critique, since semiotic community is divided between bipartite and tripartite sign theory. Nevertheless, intellectually I'm very curious about the possible connections. Semiotics is so terribly 'static', and suffers to make sense of change. While memetics is incessantly dynamic, but where's the beef?
Alas, the search continues...
?? I don't know what that refers to.
Regarding the references from Wikipedia--I apologize for my enthusiasm in a post about memetics, if I gave you the impression I was just shooting off in the forum. I should have worded it better. I'm sure the reference to Wikipedia was an honest gesture at being informative.
"Kalevi Kull (born 12 August 1952, Tartu) is a biosemiotics professor at the University of Tartu, Estonia." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevi_Kull)
Yes. Tartu is the holdout for semiotics in academia. My guess is Professor Kull has to have an opinion about memetics teaching at Tartu.
> "Terrence William Deacon ... is an American neuroanthropologist ... is currently Professor of Anthropology and member of the Cognitive Science Faculty at the University of California, Berkeley." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrence_Deacon)
Anthropologist would certainly have an opinion about memetics. Blackmore (2000) essentially spends her whole book making the case for memetics in this field.
I was excited by the prospect someone in the _semiotic_ community would take memetics seriously (other than the subfield of bio-semiotics).
Noth (1995) is not a recent publication, but it is a serious survey of semiotic theories. He devotes only 5 paragraphs of 575 pages to memes. (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Handbook_of_Semiotics/r...) (you only get to see the beginning in this link, but I have the book and there is only one more paragraphs on the next page).
Quoting the rest of the paragraph from Wikipedia, "Another critique comes from semiotic theorists such as Terrence Deacon[41] and Kalevi Kull.[42] This view regards the concept of "meme" as a primitivized concept of "sign". The meme is thus described in memetics as a sign lacking a triadic nature. Semioticians can regard a meme as a "degenerate" sign, which includes only its ability of being copied. Accordingly, in the broadest sense, the objects of copying are memes, whereas the objects of translation and interpretation are signs.[clarification needed]"
It's a radical notion, even for semiotics, there could be anything more primitive than the sign itself. And a sign lacking a triadic nature is incomplete critique, since semiotic community is divided between bipartite and tripartite sign theory. Nevertheless, intellectually I'm very curious about the possible connections. Semiotics is so terribly 'static', and suffers to make sense of change. While memetics is incessantly dynamic, but where's the beef?
Alas, the search continues...
The beef is that both fields struggle to be anything but descriptive.
Both semiotic and memetic engineering are both a joke on par of "don't think of elephants", much less science.
Phlogiston was descriptive too. Arguably useful. Completely wrong as it turned out by serious study.
The key problem with meme as a concept is that unlike biology with virion the concept cannot even predict how successfully the thing will spread out to where. Similarly with signs and how will they impact communication.
The real test of an idea is what predictions it makes not how well it describes things.
Both semiotic and memetic engineering are both a joke on par of "don't think of elephants", much less science.
Phlogiston was descriptive too. Arguably useful. Completely wrong as it turned out by serious study.
The key problem with meme as a concept is that unlike biology with virion the concept cannot even predict how successfully the thing will spread out to where. Similarly with signs and how will they impact communication.
The real test of an idea is what predictions it makes not how well it describes things.
> "...both fields struggle to be anything but descriptive ... The real test of an idea is what predictions it makes not how well it describes things."
So you agree they are descriptive, and for you the test is the effectiveness of their predictions.
In a scientific context these are both valid criticisms. Semiotics had it's brush with scientific rigor and suffered a similar blow as formalized mathematics suffered in the early 20th century.
Of course mathematics survives not because its logically consistent, but because it's useful. Semiotics is also useful in many disciplines such as art, literature, design, communications, philosophy, where it provides a consistent language and framework to describe culture and language construction of meaning. Semiotics is sufficiently useful to generate new perspectives in short order (Greimas' Semiotic Square) is a neat trick.
Memetics also has a number of neat tricks which are usefully descriptive of phenomena.
Jokes aside, any work which is mostly descriptive suffers the same criticisms, and different descriptions of those disciplines also do justice, or work to discredit equally well.
Not for nothing. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, but I do have more than a passing _blog_ fancy of these topics. I'm always looking for others who are equally interested, and maybe, like me still look for more better uses. (^_^) And I'm thinking there may be a few here on HN, because this post did get some upvotes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotic_square
So you agree they are descriptive, and for you the test is the effectiveness of their predictions.
In a scientific context these are both valid criticisms. Semiotics had it's brush with scientific rigor and suffered a similar blow as formalized mathematics suffered in the early 20th century.
Of course mathematics survives not because its logically consistent, but because it's useful. Semiotics is also useful in many disciplines such as art, literature, design, communications, philosophy, where it provides a consistent language and framework to describe culture and language construction of meaning. Semiotics is sufficiently useful to generate new perspectives in short order (Greimas' Semiotic Square) is a neat trick.
Memetics also has a number of neat tricks which are usefully descriptive of phenomena.
Jokes aside, any work which is mostly descriptive suffers the same criticisms, and different descriptions of those disciplines also do justice, or work to discredit equally well.
Not for nothing. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, but I do have more than a passing _blog_ fancy of these topics. I'm always looking for others who are equally interested, and maybe, like me still look for more better uses. (^_^) And I'm thinking there may be a few here on HN, because this post did get some upvotes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotic_square
Memes are arguably topics of semiotics, but the mere existence of the word "semiotics" doesn't mean we don't still need "meme". "Memetics" would properly be identified as semiotics, or at least a not-particularly-distinct subfield thereof.