Confused
alt.memetics archives
28 September-14 October, 1994
Number of articles: 6
From: "Sean" (p00124@psilink.com)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Confused
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 94 00:50:58 -0500
I fail to see the difference between an "idea" and a meme. If someone
has a new fashion idea, it spreads from person to person. If someone
has a song idea, and passes it along, it spreads. An idea can seem
to have a life of its own -depending on your definition of life- but
it doesn't. We give it life, toss it to the next guy etc. etc.
So, how does a meme differ from an idea? Sounds like a new term
for a very old concept, and that something obvious is being made
complex. This isn't a flame, I really want to understand the
difference.
Sean
From: nv91-asa@black06.nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Confused
Date: 05 Oct 1994 11:15:35 GMT
Sean wrote:
>I fail to see the difference between an "idea" and a meme. If someone
>has a new fashion idea, it spreads from person to person. If someone
>has a song idea, and passes it along, it spreads. An idea can seem
>to have a life of its own -depending on your definition of life- but
>it doesn't. We give it life, toss it to the next guy etc. etc.
>So, how does a meme differ from an idea? Sounds like a new term
>for a very old concept, and that something obvious is being made
>complex. This isn't a flame, I really want to understand the
>difference.
For an idea (a mental pattern) to be a meme, it must be able to reproduce
and spread to other hosts. If I get the idea of a new song, but never
tell anybody or sing it to them, the idea is just an idea. However, if I
spread it and it can spread on itself (say, by being a catchy tune), it
will be a meme. Of course, the terms "idea" and "meme" are often used quite
loosely.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
nv91-asa@hemul.nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
From: Dave_Trautman@itc.educ.ualberta.ca (Dave Trautman)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Confused
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 1994 11:12:07 -0600
nv91-asa@black06.nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) wrote:
>> Sean wrote:
>>
>>I fail to see the difference between an "idea" and a meme.
>>(stuff deleted)
>>This isn't a flame, I really want to understand the
>>difference.
>
to which Anders replied:
> For an idea (a mental pattern) to be a meme, it must be able to reproduce
> and spread to other hosts. If I get the idea of a new song, but never
> tell anybody or sing it to them, the idea is just an idea. However, if I
> spread it and it can spread on itself (say, by being a catchy tune), it
> will be a meme. Of course, the terms "idea" and "meme" are often used quite
> loosely.
But I still have trouble with that.
And idea may spring from a memetic change. A memetic influence can be
found in almost all ideas. But ideas are not memes. Ideas are an
expression of an individual's desires or need through a thought process.
Where this is different from memes I haven't the knowledge to speak to.
But I too am confused about whether the memetic influence operates below
the conscious awareness of an individual or if it can operate consciously.
I believe that someone can consciously "operate" a memetic change, but
that the meme's influence is not within the awareness of the receiver.
This whole area intrigues me because I have been investing a lot of my
time in studying the impact of various communications technologies on the
form and content of messages. I think there is something here that would
explain how a person can respond to the delivery of a message through a
communications technology without having any prior experience (or even any
fluency with the contents) with the message. Perhaps mere contact with a
medium can produce its own memetic contamination. And perhaps,
thereafter, the content begins to take over in the process of change.
If I can get a clear distinction between a discreet "idea" and a
contaminating "meme" then i could better determine the most signficant
level of influence that contact with a communications technology may have
on an individual.
Dave_Trautman@itc.educ.ualberta.ca
--
Dave Trautman, TV Producer
Faculty of Education, University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Dave_Trautman@itc.educ.ualberta.ca
From: nv91-asa@black03.nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Confused
Date: 07 Oct 1994 14:47:05 GMT
Dave_Trautman@itc.educ.ualberta.ca wrote:
>And idea may spring from a memetic change. A memetic influence can be
>found in almost all ideas. But ideas are not memes. Ideas are an
>expression of an individual's desires or need through a thought process.
>Where this is different from memes I haven't the knowledge to speak to.
>But I too am confused about whether the memetic influence operates below
>the conscious awareness of an individual or if it can operate consciously.
>I believe that someone can consciously "operate" a memetic change, but
>that the meme's influence is not within the awareness of the receiver.
I would say memes are a subset of the ideas, with special properties like
transmissivity, reproductivity and such things. A meme doesn't necessarily
have to work on a conscious level, although many does since we communicate
so efficiently on that level. A subconscious meme could be an unwritten
social custom (like greeting by shaking hands) which is spread from person
to person.
>This whole area intrigues me because I have been investing a lot of my
>time in studying the impact of various communications technologies on the
>form and content of messages. I think there is something here that would
>explain how a person can respond to the delivery of a message through a
>communications technology without having any prior experience (or even any
>fluency with the contents) with the message. Perhaps mere contact with a
>medium can produce its own memetic contamination. And perhaps,
>thereafter, the content begins to take over in the process of change.
Different memes can spread differently in different mediums. For example,
memes like "Kilroy Was Here" or popular toilet humor spread through grafitti,
and would not be as efficient in other mediums. Its a bit like different
ecological niches or disease vectors, different organisms have specific
preferences.
>If I can get a clear distinction between a discreet "idea" and a
>contaminating "meme" then i could better determine the most signficant
>level of influence that contact with a communications technology may have
>on an individual.
Here is my attempt:
An idea is a mental pattern inside a human mind. It may or may not be
expressible as a change of behavior, communication or in other ways.
A meme is an idea which spreads to other minds through various means
(i.e. it is not independently invented in each mind, it is transferred).
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
nv91-asa@hemul.nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
I agree with Anders on most points. However I would like to add some
remarks with regard to the notion of 'operation at a conscious level'.
Anders:
>I would say memes are a subset of the ideas, with special properties like
>transmissivity, reproductivity and such things. A meme doesn't necessarily
>have to work on a conscious level, although many does since we communicate
>so efficiently on that level. A subconscious meme could be an unwritten
>social custom (like greeting by shaking hands) which is spread from person
>to person.
The distinction conscious-subconscious is no longer valid in its original
form. If a person claims to be conscious of a specific behavior pattern,
this means that his/her mind contains a representation of this behavior
and/or intentions leading to this behavior.
This representation is a *theory*, a necessarily simplified model of what's
really happening in the mind, and of what really causes the behavior.
The way we form such theories is determined by our culture, in other words:
by memes. These are *metamemes*, since they somehow hold statements about
other memes.
Memes and metamemes of this type usually collaborate in meme complexes.
This implies that eventually *memes* determine how they are cognitively
represented. Some memes' strategies are to hide themselves completely for
any representation. Other memes prosper by a subtle control of the way
people think of them.
Most certainly our minds contain representations of the behavior pattern of
shaking hands. What we do *not* represent is the underlying reason for
shaking hands, its strategic functions for the meme complexes it is part
of. In this respect the meme of shaking hands operates at a non-conscious
level.
But the same thing can be said of memes we usually think of as conscious,
the ideas we express orally. We have a pretty good representation of the
meaning of what we say, but we are hardly aware of the strategic functions
of the way we communicate.
Conclusion: conscious-unconscious is a very unclear dichotomy. If we want
to apply it anyway, we must make sure we know what we talk about.
If needed, I'm willing to provide examples for the above statements.
++Marc
From: nv91-asa@black04.nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: Confused
Date: 14 Oct 1994 17:30:53 GMT
++Marc wrote:
>I agree with Anders on most points. However I would like to add some
>remarks with regard to the notion of 'operation at a conscious level'.
What?! Have my memes out-competed yours? :-)
>Anders:
>>I would say memes are a subset of the ideas, with special properties like
>>transmissivity, reproductivity and such things. A meme doesn't necessarily
>>have to work on a conscious level, although many does since we communicate
>>so efficiently on that level. A subconscious meme could be an unwritten
>>social custom (like greeting by shaking hands) which is spread from person
>>to person.
>
>The distinction conscious-subconscious is no longer valid in its original
>form. If a person claims to be conscious of a specific behavior pattern,
>this means that his/her mind contains a representation of this behavior
>and/or intentions leading to this behavior.
Yes, I might have used the term a bit loosely. But most people can talk about
manners (they have representations), but behave according to social norms
without thinking of it. Ever noticed how reflexively we start to shake hands
when the other part offers it? I would say that handshaking is largely
controlled by the subconscious parts of the brain, which have been programmed
by the higher levels through upbringing and education (and in turn have
downloaded a locomotor pattern in the brainstem and spinal cord, most
probably).
>This representation is a *theory*, a necessarily simplified model of what's
>really happening in the mind, and of what really causes the behavior.
>The way we form such theories is determined by our culture, in other words:
>by memes. These are *metamemes*, since they somehow hold statements about
>other memes.
Yes, metamemes are memes too (the meme of memetics is just one such. By the
way, why does this metameme spread so well? What hooks does it use?).
>Most certainly our minds contain representations of the behavior pattern of
>shaking hands. What we do *not* represent is the underlying reason for
>shaking hands, its strategic functions for the meme complexes it is part
>of. In this respect the meme of shaking hands operates at a non-conscious
>level.
>But the same thing can be said of memes we usually think of as conscious,
>the ideas we express orally. We have a pretty good representation of the
>meaning of what we say, but we are hardly aware of the strategic functions
>of the way we communicate.
The difference is that handshaking fullfills a social function which is
quite hard to discern (its not obvious why we greet each other, to answer
it we have to think for a while and develop a representation), while most
memes have quite obvious conscious functions. Both contain hidden strategic
functions and hooks, but the verbal memes are usually easier to change and
handle than non-verbal, since verbal communication is so much faster and
leads to quicker evolution.
>Conclusion: conscious-unconscious is a very unclear dichotomy. If we want
>to apply it anyway, we must make sure we know what we talk about.
>
>If needed, I'm willing to provide examples for the above statements.
Could be a good idea, so we know what we are talking about. I have begun
to realize that I'm not entirely sure about it. On the other hand, I have
never understood what people mean with "conscious" either.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
nv91-asa@hemul.nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y