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