Re: [asa] RE: (the answer) fun- an evolution riddle (Memes)

I don't think "thoughts" captures what Dawkins and others understand as
"memes." A "meme" is not just a thought in a human mind or the
manifestation of a thought in a human mind (such as a building or work of
art). A meme is supposed to be a discrete unit of cultural replication that
can somehow be inherited, exactly like a gene is a discrete segment of a
nucleic acid that relates to a particular trait. There is no evidence that
such discrete, inheritable units of cultural replication exist, nor does
there seem to be any way to test for them.

Here is how one devotee of memes puts it: "*Memes are a kind of thing.
Memes live in our minds."* (http://www.memecentral.com/Level3.htm) Sounds
like Qui-Gon Jinn talking about midi-chlorians.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>wrote:

> Obviously memes could never be directly measured because they are
> thoughts… they are not physical. A car, building, or watch is just a
> physical manifestation of memes, and some means don't have any manifestation
> at all (such as the value of a dollar- it just exists in the mind and
> fluctuates every second on the foreign exchange depending on trade
> history). As simulators get more powerful, you can simulate designs without
> physically building them- more abstraction. We do that where I work-
> simulate the designs before they are built- because we can model the design
> and know how the physics work on a manufactured part (the resistance for
> each metal layer, cross capacitance between lines, etc.).
>
>
>
> I think obviously too, buildings evolved. Can you imagine someone building
> a cathedral without first learning all the other basics of building- such as
> how to build arches, how to mortar bricks, how to build foundations, etc.
> from more primitive buildings?
>
>
>
> Probably one of the most obvious examples of memes is in education-
> learning step by step (preschool, kindergarten, grade school, middle,
> high-school, college).
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 12, 2009 8:39 AM
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
> *Cc:* ASA
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] RE: (the answer) fun- an evolution riddle (Memes)
>
>
>
> One of the main objections to memes is that they are an entirely
> speculative construct, and there doesn't seem to be any way to test for
> whether they actually exist. Genes were speculative too at some point, of
> course, but the concept was testable and was borne out when the technology
> was able to confirm their makeup and structure. This is not true for
> memes.
>
>
>
> There is no physical structure that can be said to represent a discrete
> unit of culture, nor is there any known physical mechanism for the
> hereditary transmission of such cultural units, nor does there seem to be
> any way to test for such structures or mechanisms. Of course, it's clear
> that certain patterns of behaviour can become coded into brain structure,
> but this does not result, insofar as we know, in any separate transferrable
> unit that could be called a "meme." In fact, many neuroscientists criticize
> the concept of memes because it seems to represent a kind of body-mind
> dualisim that neuroscience largely rejects.
>
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> That's why it was built into the question "What would Dawkins say". Also-
> why object to memes- is it just because Dawkins goes to far in saying that
> explains how religion came to be, ignoring the input of divine revelation in
> addition?
>
>
>
> …Bernie
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 11, 2009 1:23 PM
> *To:* Dehler, Bernie
> *Cc:* ASA
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] RE: (the answer) fun- an evolution riddle
>
>
>
> Hmmm, well, even many TE's reject the concept of memes (see Alister
> McGrath, "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life"), as do many
> other ordinary scientists who find the concept unscientific.
>
> David W. Opderbeck
> Associate Professor of Law
> Seton Hall University Law School
> Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> Yup- David got the final piece of the puzzle- memes. This was my answer to
> the question posed to me in the dream:
>
> 1. Big bang made stars
> 2. Stars explode and make other chemicals
> 3. These new chemicals coagulate and form planets
> 4. Biological life emerges on planet Earth
> 5. Life biologically evolves- from very simple to pigs and humans, making
> pigs and human biologically related (cousins of some sort). This
> evolution happens in genes.
> 6. Humans invent things using evolution (memes)- resulting in a VW bug (or
> any other great human work, such as building a cathedral, computer,
> jewelry, etc.)
>
> To answer this, you have to know two things:
>
> 1. Evolution applies to more than just biology. something not commonly
> known. It is a grand, overarching, theory. There is also cosmological
> evolution, for example, explaining how complex planets evolved from stars.
> Many people think evolution is just limited to biology.
>
> 2. The concept of meme's, as thoughts of humans evolve, resulting in ever
> more complex systems (cars, computers, financial systems, etc.).
>
> Both of these points are something that YEC's would likely rebuke. They
> say the VW is evidence of "intelligent design" and the same should therefore
> apply to more complex systems such as microbiological machines. However,
> this test question I just gave may point out the opposite- just as
> biological systems arise through evolution, so do cars (or watches- maybe
> that would be a better picture since it would relate to Paley's argument).
> In this way, evolution just swallowed-up the intelligent design hypothesis.
>
> .Bernie
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 10:17 AM
> To: ASA
> Subject: [asa] fun- an evolution riddle
>
> I got this riddle in dream (actually saw this similar powerpoint slide).
> See the picture below. If you can't see the picture in email, see the pdf
> file here:
>
> http://www.sciencelovesreligion.com/powerpoint_documents/are-these-related.pdf
>
> I got the question in a dream, and answered it in a dream. After
> awakening, I clarified the question.
>
> I'll post my answer in a few days. I'd like to see if anyone gets the same
> answer or has a better one.
>
> Picture:
>
>
> .Bernie
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 12 12:25:09 2009