h a l f b a k e r yWhere life irritates science.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Memes are complex, the systems that use them are complex, but what can we learn?
Consider memes in conversation. You're either gonna talk about "god", or your not. Any time you say the word, then, your transmitting the meme. Voice recognition systems on about 100 test subjects could be a good platform
for studying meme diffusion in a large group. Also, the evolution of memetic complexes could be studied. What words are becoming grouped together, which ones are becoming seperated?
Initial conditions could be giving each subject, say, 5 ideas to discuss, you can discuss those ideas, and any ideas you hear about, but nothing more or less. If everyone is given 5 different ideas, then we got, oh, 500 memes going around. That'll make for good complexes.
Fruit beared would be knowledge gained on the effectiveness of certain words over others, the plasticity of the human mind as memetic agent, the rate of meme complex formation in closed groups, the optimal number of primary memes in a given complex, the range of effectiveness of memetic agents for a given sample. Different groups will spread information differently, and one day, this type of information can be used to evaulate the potential of a selected group to evolve along particular memetic pathways.
The halfbakery is a good memetic platform, by the way. And, yes, it does seem like I'm just throwing words around, but, make sense of what you will. Memes aren't magic, and I do wish they would become more widley accepted among intellectual groups such as this one. Memetic studies may one day serve to justify cultural nuances that just won't go away. Like binge drinking and rap music.
Dawkins on memes
http://www.rubinghs...s/dawkinsmemes.html
[bungston, May 03 2005]
[link]
|
| |
If you chat this idea up enough, people might take an interest. |
|
| |
Well, I would only say so much... I just want to know exactly what people are talking about, and how these objects of discussion get thrown together, how ideas are grouped and formed as they pass from person to person... its all too vague to talk up all day, I'm counting on those out there who hate the idea to spur me... |
|
| |
No doubt anyone so interested in memes will have read Richard Dawkins on evolutionary modeling of memes. For the rest of you, linked. |
|
| |
Thanks for that link, Bung. That chapter is not the first I ever read on the topic, mostly because I didn't like the selfish gene concept and, thus, never bought the book, but is surely the best overview. |
|
| |
"The Agile Gene" is my preference, by Matt Ridley, though he speaks less of memetics... Can't have your cake and eat it too, eh? |
|
| |
You didn't like the selfish gene concept. Whatever you think of Dawkins his 1975 version was years ahead of its time and laid the basis for contemporary thinking in evolutionary biology....just for the record. |
|
| |
It seemed a little one sided. Like saying "survival of the fittest" is the only evolutionary mechanism, when symbiosis is in stark defiance to such a principle. I was attracted to a more flexible idea, though today I realize the virtue of the selfish gene. Them bastards are damn selfish <i> most of the time </i>. |
|
| |
I agree with you, Dawkins has other failings but i do think he got the central idea basically right. |
|
| |