Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Paolo Ruffino]

So, are people convinced that their mind is a "dung heap in which the larvae of
other people's ideas renew themselves, before sending out copies of themselves"
(Dennett 1991, p. 202)?

[Paolo Ruffino]

And also, still related to Week3 reading:

Dawkins is famously anti-religious, and this is certainly apparent in his
chapter on memes. Do we need to reject a religious perspective if we agree with
the memetic perspective? Are the two incompatible? Or could you believe in
memes and a religion?

[Georgina.]

I think the question of whether or not the religious and memetic perspectives are compatible or not could all come down to mere pesonal perceptiion and choice whether or not to accept a given idea.
Dawkins makes it very clear that he does not find his answers in religion and refers to himself as a fan of Darwinism on numerous occasions in the text, therefore it would make sense that he should relate the concept of memes to the concept that he appears to relate other areas of his life to - evolution.
Dawkins refers to 'God' being an idea/meme - however a person of more religious belief and influence could argue that evolution is also an idea/meme, creating an opposing argument by reversing Dawkins original argument?

[adubz]

Dawkins states 'God Exists, of only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture'

The fact that God as a meme has over many thousands of years persisted and mutated it is clear that even if it is a meme it holds significance with millions of people. I don't think that by Dawkins classifying it as a meme it negates the beliefs and values people hold with the idea of God.

Furthermore meme's seem to be Dawkins attempt in classifying our thoughts as separate intelligences (probably not using the right word here) that in some way reside in our minds. That one day out of the 'meme pool' a new thought arises and suddenly a new song is created or a new way of building arches comes to us. And if these new thoughts are just replicators then do we have fundamental memes that allow us to understand that a basic idea of a building arch exists and anything built from that is an imitation.                               

[Dominique]

I don't think evolution could be regarded as a meme. As Dawkins cleverly states, "Nothing is more lethal for certain kinds of meme than a tendency to look for evidence". Evolution is a process where a lot of arguments can be evidenced with unbiased conclusive results through the means of gene observation/comparison.

I also agree that although Dawkins portrays himself as a keen Darwinist, he does not degrade the cultural value of Religion. If anything, he explains how as a meme, it has gained a high survival rate even when faith and belief are questioned via simple reasoning (e.g when blind faith is replaced by evidence and bears greater importance). One could therefore say that if a certain meme is a questioned (like religion), other memes rise in order to sustain it's legitimacy and they re enforce each other in return.

At the end of the day even though memes can affect us psychologically, we as human beings have the choice to either accept or reject them- which is why we are always going to 'agree to disagree'.

[Almonds]

Dawkin's is a scientist, to is credit, but this also is detrimental sometimes for what a reader wants, as he will not state his beliefs without evidence. He says on humans ability to be altruistic "I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or the other".

[rihanna123]

I found this concept really interesting the idea of Memes and Minds- How much of ourselves is imitated- or passed on from others before. Darwin's theory is focused towards the transmission of human influence. How do ideas propagate themselves in the same way human beings do.
So we looked at examples of how this idea could be related to our every day lives, we came up with a couple of ideas. (I am not 100 per cent sure how this relates does any one have any idea) We used the example of technology- most people either have a blackberry or iphone- how has this come into consciousness- why are our minds influenced by others? is it to do with memes?

So is it all to do with how are minds work?  Darwin is talking about how an idea replicates through human beings. So the idea with the bird song, each mammal interprets the song but they change the pitch- they imitate each other. So when Darwin talks about cultural evolution he is talking about how our views are intrinsic- belonging to someone else before??

I think this is what he is trying to say but I'm not 100 per cent sure. Can anyone explain further? 
Thanks

[Paolo Ruffino]

Hi rihanna123,
Dawkins suggests that memes are passed from one person to the other but there is a certain degree of adaptation and change - and this is quite obvious, if you think about it, otherwise they would always remain the same. This also derives from his idea of "memes" evolving like genes.

I found this concept really interesting the idea of Memes and Minds- How much of ourselves is imitated- or passed on from others before. Darwin's theory is focused towards the transmission of human influence. How do ideas propagate themselves in the same way human beings do.
So we looked at examples of how this idea could be related to our every day lives, we came up with a couple of ideas. (I am not 100 per cent sure how this relates does any one have any idea) We used the example of technology- most people either have a blackberry or iphone- how has this come into consciousness- why are our minds influenced by others? is it to do with memes?

So is it all to do with how are minds work?  Darwin is talking about how an idea replicates through human beings. So the idea with the bird song, each mammal interprets the song but they change the pitch- they imitate each other. So when Darwin talks about cultural evolution he is talking about how our views are intrinsic- belonging to someone else before??

I think this is what he is trying to say but I'm not 100 per cent sure. Can anyone explain further? 
Thanks

[scary fairy]

In this day and age, memes are no longer limited to transition through word of mouth, I believe the media is a mass transmitter and although no one (including myself) would admit to be overlly influenced by the media, we just need to take a fresh look at our ideologies and question what we assume to be the 'truth'. We will most likely find that our 'reality' is actually culturally constructed and therefore a mass network of memes. - very philisophical!!

[Molly Ko]

Dawkins mentioned that the evolution depended not on the particular chemical basis of genetics, but only on the existence of a self-replicating unit of transmission –the gene. In other words, the meme exemplified self-replicating and it actually affects  human behavior and cultural evolution. Very often, cultural ideas, practices, spread through one's mind to another and this process happens subconsciously-no longer through words of mouth, but through the power of media (advertising,campaign..etc). Human are forgetful, with the constant remind from the media, only we are explored with much of "trends" that are evolving in this contemporary world. The memes then tend to propagate/replicate from one person to another person in within culture. Some propagate successfully, then it will continue to survive from one generation to another. While for those failed to replicate effectively eventually extinct.

[09071540]

Hello everyone!

I thought it would be interesting to share with you that tonight at the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford (25 October 2011) there is a debate about the existence of God to which Richard Dawkins was invited to debate with William Lane Craig, a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in California.
The following link has a bit more information about the event:

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2011/10/does-richard-dawkins-exist.html

This event is part of William Lane Craig's 'Reasonable Faith Tour 2011' about which there is more info on this link:
http://www.bethinking.org/the-reasonable-faith-tour-2011/

[mouse90]

In his chapter the selfish gene, Richard Dawkins' suggests that Memes are like ‘ a virus of the mind’ which pass on from one host to another by imitation. I agree that memes are passed and influence our behaviour, ideas and cultures. However does suggesting that the mind is a ‘dung heap in which the larvae of other people’s ideas renew themselves’ indicate that everybody consumes the same memes, accepts them and replicates them. I think that we still have the ability and power to reject these memes depending on our self and also have the power and control to change these ideas/memes once they have been passed to us; almost like a game of Chinese whispers. Therefore although the mind has the options of replicating all of these memes, they are still competing against each other through natural selection. For example the fashion meme is forever changing from mind to mind depending on the individual, whereas the religion meme continuous to replicate with little distortion or change.

[mlp1984]

I was quite interested in the notion of being either active or passive in the process of meme replication, as defined by Dawkins.

I think that there is an element of choice.  A Roman Catholic for example, consciously makes an oath to raise his or her children as Catholic, when he or she is Confirmed.  Assuming that this life-long commitment is honoured, I think this is a good example, of active participation in the transmission of the meme that is religion, as posited by Darwin.

I also think that the propagation of meme’s can be a passive process and indeed something that we don’t necessarily consciously make a decision to do but instead that it just happens (e.g. our values).

In accordance with Darwin’s comment that “…meme transmission is subject to continuous mutation…” (p. 209), I think that religious interpretation will often vary from one generation to the next; to some extent this depends on what is and isn’t considered relevant (or appropriate) at the time.  I think that this gradual development, or evolution, promotes its survival.  Similarly, Dawkins explains that “Selection favours memes which exploit their cultural environment to their own advantage”. (p. 213). 

Homosexuality and the use of contraception have for example historically been met with disapproval, amongst those of the Roman Catholic faith.  Whilst there are still those who wish to preserve the sanctity of the written word, en mass, there is a sense of acceptance amongst many Catholics that these views are dated and are detrimental to the survival of Catholicism in the modern age.  I think that the survival of religion in the 21st century is largely dependant on its evolution.  I think that there has been a significant drive towards acceptance through education, arguably due to our history and what we have learned from it.  With discriminatory views such as those surrounding homosexuality, religion doesn’t stand a chance in contemporary society.

Perhaps, you could help me to better understand something? According to Darwin, survival value is facilitated by three qualities: ‘longevity, fecundity and copying-fidelity’ (p. 208).  With reference to the latter, I understood ‘copying-fidelity’ to mean the degree of accuracy to which a meme is replicated, from one person to another.  In other words, low copying-fidelity would hinder the survival of that meme.  Does that not stand in stark contrast to Dawkins claim that “…memes are not high-fidelity replicators at all… meme transmission is subject to continuous mutation, and also to blending” (p. 209).  It seems to me that Dawkins is alluding here to the fact that copying-infidelity is actually more likely to improve the survival value of a meme.  So, which is it?

[Paolo Ruffino]

Homosexuality and the use of contraception have for example historically been met with disapproval, amongst those of the Roman Catholic faith.  Whilst there are still those who wish to preserve the sanctity of the written word, en mass, there is a sense of acceptance amongst many Catholics that these views are dated and are detrimental to the survival of Catholicism in the modern age.  I think that the survival of religion in the 21st century is largely dependant on its evolution.  I think that there has been a significant drive towards acceptance through education, arguably due to our history and what we have learned from it.  With discriminatory views such as those surrounding homosexuality, religion doesn’t stand a chance in contemporary society.

Well, I wouldn't put it this way. A religion does not have to "evolve" or change in any direction, as it is not its purpose to satisfy the majority. Religions, as institutions, have moderated or enforced some points of their dogmas in accordance to the cultural changes of the society where they are present. Taking the case of the Roman Catholic Church, you can see many differences nowadays in the ways the same religion is followed in different places of the world - communities in Africa or South America make sense of the Catholic religion enacting hierarchies and practices which are different from those you can see in Europe. This speaks well to the high degree of malleability that a religion has, taking its dogma as foundations. However, this does not mean that a religion 'has to adapt'. It is a case of 'meme' which evolution is partly dictated by an entity, the clergy, which has exactly the purpose of avoiding an uncontrolled re-interpretation, for the sake of preserving the integrity of an original message. Which one might like to believe in or not, but definitely is not supposed to adapt to attract the largest number of people.

Perhaps, you could help me to better understand something? According to Darwin, survival value is facilitated by three qualities: ‘longevity, fecundity and copying-fidelity’ (p. 208).  With reference to the latter, I understood ‘copying-fidelity’ to mean the degree of accuracy to which a meme is replicated, from one person to another.  In other words, low copying-fidelity would hinder the survival of that meme.  Does that not stand in stark contrast to Dawkins claim that “…memes are not high-fidelity replicators at all… meme transmission is subject to continuous mutation, and also to blending” (p. 209).  It seems to me that Dawkins is alluding here to the fact that copying-infidelity is actually more likely to improve the survival value of a meme.  So, which is it?

In those pages you mention Dawkins admits to be 'on shaky ground' when talking about copying-fidelity. I think it has to be understood as for genes: they necessarily change from person to person. By the very same time they are passed to someone else memes, as much as genes, mutate. Copying-fidelity is, as far as I've understood, the capacity of a meme to replicate itself being immune to modifications (which will happen anyway, but possibly to a smaller extent).

[BJRushy]

Thinking about memes and religion in line with notions asserted by Dawkins, would any one agree that there is the possibility for normal people of this day and age to one day be percieved - by people hundreds of years in the future - as being divine and godly? Or does modern technology make us more demanding of specific tangible evidence? I feel that, as adressed by many others a contributing factor to the survival value of the God meme is that of faith; blind faith - an unquestionning acceptance of the existance of god with no need for evidence.
I personally believe that for many people in modern society, evidence is essential when considering justifications of beliefs, and for this reason it could be argued that in the coming centuries religion may be subject to a certain level of demise. This is not to say that I believe religion, specifically the God meme, will ever be completely redundant, but rather will become less widely followed; more widely questioned. I believe that the logic which fuels blind faith comes into contestation with all other notions of postmodern society - notions of always questioning, always demanding evidence and justificcation; something which we as budding academics are prompted to do.