Subject: The Meme Machine, according to Susan Blackmore. Date: September 15th 2002. Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience, alt.memetics, rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science, alt.comp.philosophy Author: Simon Laub ------------------------------------------------------------- Human bodies evolved by natural selection, just as other animals. But still we are different. According to Susan Blackmore thats because we are capable of imitation. We can thereby copy ideas, habits,inventions, songs and stories. I.e. memes. And now memes are as powerful, if not more powerful, than the good old genes, in directing human evolution. I find the idea intriguing, and certainly Susan Blackmore argue well for the idea in the book "The meme machine". The (evolutionary) pressure for imitation skills requires big brains. So we evolve big brains, as people mate with the ones with the most memes. Language is invented in order to spread memes. Film stars, journalists, writers, singers, politicians and artists become the most attractive, as they are the ones who spread the most memes. Things that are hard to explain in a genetic context (such as adoption, birth control, celibacy) are easy to explain in a meme context (the memes are happy with it, as it help spread more memes). Science becomes a process to distinguish true memes from false memes. Fax-machines, telephones, etc. are created (by the memes) in order to spread more memes. Writing is a battleground in the head between memes wanting to be spread. etc. It all rings true to me. Except Susan Blackmores claim that the self is a complex meme. Certainly, it is puzzling that blind people are reported thinking that their "I" is located at their fingertips, when they read Braille. Still there are other explanations to what a human "I" is (other than memes). Personally, I prefer Antonio Damasios, as he explained it in the book "the feeling of what happens". According to Damasio the core self is created, when the brain monitor changes to its representation of the organism by some object, feeling or whatever. I.e. No memeplexes involved in his explanation. I also think that Damasio could explain why blind people might not think that the "I" is situated somewhere behind the eyes in the brain - without invoking memes. Daniel Dennetts attempt of making the discussion absurd by imagining a brain removed from a body, but linked by laser light to the body, and then asking where is the "I"? - if it is behind the eyes, then where? In the brain? or at the empty place in the physical body? Might demonstrate that some construction is taking place. But I fail to see that the construction must be a meme construction? So what about the future? Does the future belong to the memes entirely? And are the genes at the end of their reign? Is it true that everyday experience favours "self", while logic favours "illusory self", as Susan Blackmore thinks? And is the world really the same, if we remove all the "I" (memes) from it? Some Science Fiction author should have a field day with all of this? -Simon XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Simon Laub www.silanian.subnet.dk