Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ] 

lotusblossom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,994

22 Mar 2011, 6:56 am

what is your opinion on memes, do you beleive in them or do you think its tosh? Should Dawkins have stuck with genetics and should Blackmore have stuck with psychology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_meme
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zlk03



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

22 Mar 2011, 8:10 am

lotusblossom wrote:
what is your opinion on memes, do you beleive in them or do you think its tosh? Should Dawkins have stuck with genetics and should Blackmore have stuck with psychology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_meme
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zlk03


Some ideas do have traits which allow them to survive in minds easier, so yes, I think the idea is legit. But it isn't hard science


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2011, 8:24 am

The meme is a handy concept. However much work needs to be done to establish a hard core neuro-physiological basis.

ruveyn



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

22 Mar 2011, 9:09 am

ruveyn wrote:
The meme is a handy concept. However much work needs to be done to establish a hard core neuro-physiological basis.

ruveyn


I think that's why Dawkin's threw the idea out there; for the Sociologists and Linguists to play with. I think that a few books have been written on the concept.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

22 Mar 2011, 9:18 am

It looks interesting. I've never heard of it before. It makes sense that there are certain memes that people copy (or are expected to copy).



hill-o-beans
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2011
Age: 110
Gender: Male
Posts: 281

22 Mar 2011, 9:23 am

I find it hard to get my head round the definition of what a meme is. But i do agree with it as far as I can understand it. I read about a sci fi novel that is coming out about a character who sees the world in "spiral dynamics"

"Spiral Dynamics argues that human nature is not fixed: humans are able, when forced by life conditions, to adapt to their environment by constructing new, more complex, conceptual models of the world that allow them to handle the new problems. Each new model includes and transcends all previous models. According to Beck and Cowan, these conceptual models are organized around so-called Memes: systems of core values or collective intelligences, applicable to both individuals and entire cultures."



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,117
Location: temperate zone

22 Mar 2011, 10:08 am

As I understand it a "meme" is the same thing that used to be called "a motiff".

A pattern of design on pottery, the plot line of a folktale, a figure of speech, a melody, wearing baseball caps backwards, are all "motiffs".

They can be traced through time or they can move sideways from culture to culture across the map.

Dawkins took the old concept and then recast it in the image of "the gene" in biological heridity to suggest that motiffs act like genes in evolution.

The idea needs some work.

The biological "gene" is itsself largely a mythic construct. More of a handy short hand than a real thing that can be pointed to in nature.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

22 Mar 2011, 10:21 am

naturalplastic wrote:
The biological "gene" is itsself largely a mythic construct. More of a handy short hand than a real thing that can be pointed to in nature.


Well, doctors do have specific molecules to look at. Not so with memes.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2011, 10:59 am

naturalplastic wrote:

The biological "gene" is itsself largely a mythic construct. More of a handy short hand than a real thing that can be pointed to in nature.


Genes are replacible nuclide sequences on the DNA chain.

They are physical and they can now be identified right down to their spelling G A T C.

ruveyn



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,117
Location: temperate zone

22 Mar 2011, 12:59 pm

ruveyn wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:

The biological "gene" is itsself largely a mythic construct. More of a handy short hand than a real thing that can be pointed to in nature.


Genes are replacible nuclide sequences on the DNA chain.

They are physical and they can now be identified right down to their spelling G A T C.

ruveyn


Not really.
Youre talking about a "cistron", not a gene.
A cistron is an actual stretch of DNA that codes for a specific protien molecule.
A cistron is a real stretch of DNA that dictates an actual protien molecule.

A gene, however, is the DNA involved in the creation of a characteristic on a living body.

Various stretches of DNA that are not even adjacent to each other and maybe spread out on various chromosomes maybe involved in creating a visible characteristic ( like eye color). These spread out stretches of molecules would be "the gene". But calling them that would be an arbitrary human construct.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2011, 2:53 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:

The biological "gene" is itsself largely a mythic construct. More of a handy short hand than a real thing that can be pointed to in nature.


Genes are replacible nuclide sequences on the DNA chain.

They are physical and they can now be identified right down to their spelling G A T C.

ruveyn


Not really.
Youre talking about a "cistron", not a gene.
A cistron is an actual stretch of DNA that codes for a specific protien molecule.
A cistron is a real stretch of DNA that dictates an actual protien molecule.

A gene, however, is the DNA involved in the creation of a characteristic on a living body.

Various stretches of DNA that are not even adjacent to each other and maybe spread out on various chromosomes maybe involved in creating a visible characteristic ( like eye color). These spread out stretches of molecules would be "the gene". But calling them that would be an arbitrary human construct.


Definition of a gene:

(genetics) a segment of DNA that is involved in producing a polypeptide chain; it can include regions preceding and following the coding DNA as well as introns between the exons; it is considered a unit of heredity; "genes were formerly called factors"

ruveyn



Moog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

22 Mar 2011, 4:58 pm

Memetics? Yes I think so. It seems clear that even in my own head, some ideas have more staying power than others.


_________________
Not currently a moderator