"If a meme is the smallest particle then it is possibly analgous to a gene. "
The only sense in which memes exist is that 'social' evolution probably has a smallest particle upon which it operates. We'll call it a meme. [1] If there's no smallest particle then, by definition, they don't exist (IMHO).
What are generally labelled 'memes'[2] are recognisable, repeated patterns of behaviour generated by one or more memes. Each individual instantiation of these (eg. a particular response to 'oh no, not the cushions') is akin to your "phenotype which may be the result of several genes or maybe the result of a gene which has completely different pressures acting on it which are unrelated".
The entire collection of memes in an individual dictates (most) behaviour patterns. When an individual action occurs and is responded to in the world (either positively or negatively) then a set of linked memes are being tried out and do well or poorly. Other people either copy the pattern of behaviour (copying the linked memes, in a modified fashion) or not.
Society evolves because we copy what each other does. The memes are what is copied, often in linked sets - these are behaviour patterns rather than individual actions, genomes and not phenomes.
Hope that made some sense. I think there's a general misuse of the word 'meme' that I don't often react to, but does gradually erode any credibility the atomification of social evolution has... (almost like ideas can be hampered by the other ideas they're linked with)
[1] Imagine Darwin faced with the same question - what's the smallest particle upon which evolution operates? - he might have called it a geen, but he didn't need it for his theory of evolution.
[2] Things like lj quizzes, ways of opening a banana, ways of spear fishing, ways of painting
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: gene/meme
Date: 2003-06-20 10:21 am (UTC)The only sense in which memes exist is that 'social' evolution probably has a smallest particle upon which it operates. We'll call it a meme. [1] If there's no smallest particle then, by definition, they don't exist (IMHO).
What are generally labelled 'memes'[2] are recognisable, repeated patterns of behaviour generated by one or more memes. Each individual instantiation of these (eg. a particular response to 'oh no, not the cushions') is akin to your "phenotype which may be the result of several genes or maybe the result of a gene which has completely different pressures acting on it which are unrelated".
The entire collection of memes in an individual dictates (most) behaviour patterns. When an individual action occurs and is responded to in the world (either positively or negatively) then a set of linked memes are being tried out and do well or poorly. Other people either copy the pattern of behaviour (copying the linked memes, in a modified fashion) or not.
Society evolves because we copy what each other does. The memes are what is copied, often in linked sets - these are behaviour patterns rather than individual actions, genomes and not phenomes.
Hope that made some sense. I think there's a general misuse of the word 'meme' that I don't often react to, but does gradually erode any credibility the atomification of social evolution has...
(almost like ideas can be hampered by the other ideas they're linked with)
[1] Imagine Darwin faced with the same question - what's the smallest particle upon which evolution operates? - he might have called it a geen, but he didn't need it for his theory of evolution.
[2] Things like lj quizzes, ways of opening a banana, ways of spear fishing, ways of painting