Atheism as an "Anti-Meme"
« on: 2007-01-04 01:29:55 »
Question: is the existence of "anti-memes" possible? By "anti-memes", I mean memes which serve only to annihilate other memes, leaving a memetic void, rather than replacing competing memes with themselves. If such anti-memes can exist, would any of you agree that atheistic arguments against the existence of particular deities to be anti-memes?
... If such anti-memes can exist, would any of you agree that atheistic arguments against the existence of particular deities to be anti-memes?
[Blunderov] The "I only believe in one less god than you do" tack has worked quiet well for me in the past. I ask theists why they don't believe in Zeus or Poseidon or Thor or the Tikolosh or whatever and then explain that those are the same reasons I don't believe in Yahwe. Sometimes one can actually see the penny drop, for a moment anyway. Then the "one true god" meme usually kicks back in, but a nagging seed of doubt has often been sown. I have scored one definite kill that I know of with this technique. Nothing else has ever worked as far as I am aware.
Re:Atheism as an "Anti-Meme"
« Reply #2 on: 2007-01-06 14:14:35 »
Next time I encounter someone of a faith trying to convert me, I pose to them the following contest: "Imagine that standing right next to you is someone making the exact same arguments to me that you are, but for a DIFFERENT GOD. In other words, imagine someone standing next to you giving me the same reasons you are, but also telling me that YOU are wrong and that your God is a false God. Now, if you can provide to me some kind of impartial, rational method for deciding which of you to believe, and show me that that method MUST lead me to favor your God, I'll convert right here and now. Remember, both of you clutch texts that you claim as incontrovertible PROOF of the existence of your mutually-exclusive Gods; both of your texts say the EXACT SAME THINGS, except that your text says that your opponent's God is false, and his text says that your God is false. So you can't use your text. And...GO!"
It's too bad there aren't any Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses around Santa Cruz. I'll bet this one would really make 'em squirm.
Question: is the existence of "anti-memes" possible? By "anti-memes", I mean memes which serve only to annihilate other memes, leaving a memetic void, rather than replacing competing memes with themselves. If such anti-memes can exist, would any of you agree that atheistic arguments against the existence of particular deities to be anti-memes?
Yes I think anti-memes as you have defined them exist. For example I currently accept (am infected by) a meme that can be roughly characterized as "supernatural entities exist only in fiction". This serves as an anti-meme for a whole class of memes and effectively rules out me believing in vampires, ghosts, faeries, deities, etc.
Re:Atheism as an "Anti-Meme"
« Reply #4 on: 2007-01-07 23:29:47 »
I am not sure that anti-meme would be the correct terminology. The thought of there being no God is a meme. It is an idea that is usually spread to one person via another person. It is autoreplicative. Viral in nature. The fact that this meme destroys others is part of its nature. Much the same as viral bodies destroy organic bodies.
Re:Atheism as an "Anti-Meme"
« Reply #5 on: 2007-01-08 12:37:54 »
Quote:
The thought of there being no God is a meme. It is an idea that is usually spread to one person via another person. It is autoreplicative. Viral in nature. The fact that this meme destroys others is part of its nature. Much the same as viral bodies destroy organic bodies.
Perhaps "additive" and "subtractive" memes would be a better distinction, then? For not all memes are as necessarily destructive of other memes as Atheism is of religious memes. Also, Atheism serves more to eliminate memes than to attach positive information...becoming an Atheist is, by definition, merely the elimination of religious memes from one's mind. Though Atheism is frequently accompanied by positive/additive memes like Secular Humanism.
Re:Atheism as an "Anti-Meme"
« Reply #6 on: 2007-01-08 19:43:01 »
I would tend to disagree here, as I don't really see memes annihilating other memes - more that memetic information is converted into some other informational pattern rather then being itself annihilated.
I also disagree with the idea of leaving a memetic void. If something posses a meme in the first place I don't see how by using other memes you could remove that meme whilst leaving nothing in replace of it.
The way I see it is if something has memes it is impossible to remove those memes whilst leaving no memes (a memetic void). In my view memes can only be replaced/converted from other memes into other memes; assimilation would be a good word to describe this effect; so basically memes will always assimilate, but never actually annihilate, the information is simply converted via memetic interaction and thus assimilated. If I get lucky perhaps we could deem this the first law of memetics
I weyken that a more accurate terminology would be 'memetic inhibitors', rather then "anti-memes" when considering an example like that of what Lucifer used.
Anti basically means opposite, but all memes are memes and act as such. But the natural quality and information of a particular meme can be opposite to that of another meme, yes, so if you want to deem this an "anti-meme" then I see no error there.
This can be compared to a fine example here: particles and anti-particles.
In the same way that corresponding to most kinds of particles, there is an associated antiparticle - with the same mass and opposite charges, you could apply the same to memetics here with a little fine tuning.
Particles and anti-particles have the same mass - in this same way memes and anti-memes carry the same infectious nature.
Then:
Particles and anti-particles have opposite charges - in this same way memes and anti-memes are made up of opposite types of information and informational patterns.
In this semantic sense I would agree with the term "Anti-meme".
Re:Atheism as an "Anti-Meme"
« Reply #7 on: 2007-01-09 14:18:02 »
White Fox: the "particle-antiparticle" analogy is precisely the meaning I intended.
However, I'd like to see you defend your position, rather than just assert it. Why is it not sensible to say that Atheism, as an "anti-meme", functions simply to annihilate any and all memes that state "there is a God (or god or gods)"? Would you argue that there is no informational distinction between the statements "I believe that no God exists" and "I do not believe that a God exists"? In other words, why is it not possible to bring about the de-meme-ification of a previously-accepted meme without instilling a new meme? Couldn't BOTH be rendered into inert information during the conversion process? If not, explain why many Atheists who have converted from Theism feel no compulsion or desire to SPREAD their Atheism. Don't memes, by definition, instill in their host a desire to spread them? Isn't information that fails to instill this desire, by definition, non-memetic?
White Fox: the "particle-antiparticle" analogy is precisely the meaning I intended.
But you seemed to be basing it on the terms of annihilating other memes and leaving memetic voids. In my "particle-antiparticle" analogy I replaced annihilation with assimilation, which seems (at lest to me) memetically more logical then annihilation. I also do not see how you can infect someone with a meme (serving as an anti-meme) which completely removes another meme but leaves nothing but a memetic void; some other informational pattern should always be left behind if one meme is dissipated by another, since a memes nature/goal is primarily to replicate itself, if a memeplex is Psychologically (or even physically via the cerebrum) able to do so.
An example: If an atheist infected a theist with atheistic memes and these memes took effect, would this really leave the theist in a memetic void? Or would the infected theist now posses atheistic views due to this new memetic pattern?
The way I see it is that one memetic pattern is simply converted into another. If there was a memetic void this would imply (as far as I can interpret it) that there is no more information on the subject (for or against) in question; it would be like having no opinion, ideas or values on that subject at all, since the informational pattern is just simply gone. As far as I know this is simply not the case with what we experience as some type or form of information is always left behind. If you have some other examples then please share them, but I can think of none.
Successful memes are essentially ideas considered as replicators by nature anyway (or at lest are intended to be) so how a memetic void becomes applicable here is something I can't comprehend.
However, I'd like to see you defend your position, rather than just assert it.
I suppose I could ask the same of you, except I feel that I have explained more on how my idea would work and function. I don't really understand what it is you're asking me to defend, but what I have already said here is more of a theoretical opinion, backed up by example and experience rather then mere assertion.
I'm just speaking from my own experiences with analogies and examples to help support what I say.
Why is it not sensible to say that Atheism, as an "anti-meme", functions simply to annihilate any and all memes that state "there is a God (or god or gods)"?
Well I never stated that it was not sensible, just that I don't consider it to be the correct way of interpreting it. Where atheism incounters theism yes memes tend to clash, but not to annihilate into some void. Instead they seek and function to infiltrate (depending on how and in what way they are being communicated) opposing memes and thus try to assimilate within the memeplex of the one being infected; if successful they will achieve there goal of replication.
Would you argue that there is no informational distinction between the statements "I believe that no God exists" and "I do not believe that a God exists"?
Same conclusion and information but just used and presented in a different way; the distinction is a nuance of semantic interpretation.
In other words, why is it not possible to bring about the de-meme-ification of a previously-accepted meme without instilling a new meme?
Just as the primary goal of genetics is to reproduce, the primary goal of memetics is to replicate. If any meme would dissipate another meme then that meme is replaced with the stronger meme. If one meme was destroyed and the other did not replicate then this would propose that the person in question would have no thought, value, opinion or idea on the nature of the destroyed meme in question since it has been annihilated. This is simply not what is seen; if you manage to make somebody change or alter their views (and opinions) your meme is successful and has successfully assimilated the opposing memes and replicated itself into that person’s memeplex where they now hold its/your views.
I have seen this done on many occasions where successful memes assimilate opposing memes because they hold the greater logic, reasoning or evidence; the people who have been infected then carry and accept the opposing views for themselves simply because they have been convinced via successful memes. Either a person will retain their original memes, or they will assimilate and accept new ones - thus replacing informational patterns. What does not happen is that memes are dissipated via other memes and leave no memes behind, if someone knows something they will continue to know it (unless you damage apart of a body where neurons cannot access a particular cerebral area, or cease its bodily function); the only thing you can hope to do is change or alter what they know into something different, not take it completely away whilst leaving nothing.
This is my reasoning on the functioning of memetics. I don’t claim it as fact, but rather as a good theory.
Couldn't BOTH be rendered into inert information during the conversion process?
Possibly, but this is different from implying a memetic void (which I interpret as being completely lacking or devoid) in your example here as memes/infectious information would still be present.
If not, explain why many Atheists who have converted from Theism feel no compulsion or desire to SPREAD their Atheism.
This I weyken requires more of a psychological approach. I would simply class these examples as a case of sterile memeplexes, analogous to infertile genetic structures. Why these memeplexes are sterile, like I said, would require more of a psychological approach in respect to the individual in question which is unnecessary to go into here.
But I wouldn’t mind some examples of some of the people you claim here.
Don't memes, by definition, instill in their host a desire to spread them?
I would say that this is the replicating and infectious nature of a meme, but not completely what a meme is in itself. A meme is simply the mental equivalent or counterpart of a gene. Do we class genes that don’t reproduce as non-genes?
People consist of memes just as they do genes, whether they spread or not. Memes remain infectious to the host whome they continue to personify even if they are not being spread.
A meme, as I experience the term, is basically a cognitive unit of cultural, applicable or productive information, consisting of an infectious pattern which determines and leads to the expression of character; opinions, ideas, values ect.
Basically an informational pattern which is infectious.
Re:Atheism as an "Anti-Meme"
« Reply #9 on: 2007-01-10 11:26:40 »
Quote:
A meme is simply the mental equivalent or counterpart of a gene. Do we class genes that don’t reproduce as non-genes?
This implies that all information contained in the mind is memetic. Do you agree?
Let's see if the Church's definition from the Lexicon is helpful:
Quote:
A contagious information pattern that replicates by symbiotically infecting human minds and altering their behavior, causing them to propagate the pattern. (Term coined by Dawkins, by analogy with "gene".) Individual slogans, catch-phrases, melodies, icons, inventions, and fashions are typical memes. An idea or information pattern is not a meme until it causes someone to replicate it, to repeat it to someone else. All transmitted knowledge is memetic.
If you agreed that all mental information is memetic, then you are at least at odds with the Lexicon's definition, particularly "An idea or information pattern is not a meme until it causes someone to replicate it, to repeat it to someone else."
It is difficult to assert a one-to-one corresponendce between genes and memes, because genes have a definite range of physical-chemical structures that enables them to be classified as genes. One can simply "look at" a chemical compound and determine whether it is a gene. Not so easy for memes. The only thing that seems to differentiate memes from inert mental informational complexes (at least to me) is the fact that memes inspire their host to transmit them--a behavioral distinction. According to the Lexicon definition, if there is information contained in your mind that does not inspire you to transmit it, that information does not constitute a meme. I weyken the "test" for whether information in your mind is memetic or not would thus be: does it inspire you to transmit it?
However, the following question appears to be unresolved: if memetic information is transmitted to you, but upon transmission fails to inspire you to further its transmission, is that information still a meme within you? I would argue that because it fails to inspire transmission, something has been altered in the structure of its informational complex that makes it no longer a meme, just as if you sufficiently altered the chemical structure of a gene, it would no longer be a gene. It would just be a bunch of proteins.
As a point of clarification (address this if nothing else please): what differentiates a "dissipated" meme from a meme that does not replicate? And how could we observe this distinction--what behavioral characteristics of the host would define each?
Lucifer and/or Hermit, I'd like your thoughts on this too, if it pleases you to give them.
Re:Atheism as an "Anti-Meme"
« Reply #10 on: 2007-01-10 16:59:51 »
Having read through this thread I have to say that I agree with White Fox. The idea just makes alot of sense to me on what I know and from what I have seen.
Re:Atheism as an "Anti-Meme"
« Reply #12 on: 2007-01-10 22:57:12 »
Bass and fistfullofroses: given that you agree with White Fox, would you care to answer some of the questions I made in my last post? Let me reiterate them:
1. Given that "An idea or information pattern is not a meme until it causes someone to replicate it, to repeat it to someone else" (as stated in the CoV Lexicon), is it true to say an idea or information pattern, once a meme, is always a meme, even if it ceases to cause its host to replicate it?
2. If information can still be memetic without causing its host to replicate/transmit it, how is that information to be distinguished from non-memetic information?
Lastly, 3. What differentiates a "dissipated" meme (a meme that has been replaced by another meme) from a meme that does not replicate? And how could we observe this distinction--what behavioral characteristics of the host would enable us to determine whether a non-replicating informational pattern held by the host was a dissipated meme, a sterile meme, or a non-meme?
Surely, if you agree with White Fox--that memes which do not replicate are still technically memes--you can answer these. To me it seems to be against the definition of memes, is there something I'm missing?
Re:Atheism as an "Anti-Meme"
« Reply #13 on: 2007-01-14 04:21:09 »
I may be able to shed some light on the matter. The apparent conflict can be resolved by recognizing that there are two senses of the word gene and meme. One sense is a replicator, they are defined as the information that is copied to new "hosts". The other is program, the gene and meme both potentially cause structures and behaviour (phenotypical information patterns) to be generated.
Mules have genes even though they can't pass them on (all mules are sterile). Likewise in the same sense of program humans can host memes (behaviour generators) without passing them on (though anyone observing the behaviour can potentially copy it I suppose). Are there any memes that have no external behaviour? I'm not sure offhand, we can look for some examples.
Nice discussion, but there is another possibility though !
You have to thonk about this the other wy round. Think about the whole package of memes that were left out, behind...to come to the final meme ' there is one God '. All what has been learned, known about natural deities, about Poseidon or whatever has been left out of the picture and a memetic void has been formed.
An anology, think about your hands and how they were cut out of the natural cardboard, so to speak, you are made of. What isn 't anymore between your fingers is memetically gone forever and an empty space, a void is left behind. A bad analogy, I know but i think it will bring the message across.
A meme can be strong, can be so powerful that all other memetic information is annihilates in the proces forming it. Take for example, ' KillRoy was here ', a well known graffiti verse_ all what is left of the memetic proces forming it, is just this one sentance. ALL the rest of the info concerning who, what, where, what for and how is gone. You are able to track down the lost info but you will never be able to find accurate information about it. Although there are theories....
Mememtical- hostorical speaking there is a void of than non- existing memes, but they can be found...... Years ago, I introduced the idea of Future Memes ( memes that influence right now our lives, but not yet formed a solid memetic bias to call them ' the meme ' [ like the possible hazzards of the environmental pollution are future memes_ the real story can only be told in some near future, of what we talk about in the present are only speculations], but to stick to the thread, a void of yet to form info procedes these memes. In the future the gap will be filled. The question is, how do we find now such memes !? How do we find the natural/ necessary information to fill up the gap left by the sentance ' KillRoy was here ' !?
Deduction !? Isn 't the info that now fails to instill the desire to spread non- memetic_ or do we spread the idea that memes are just neat words / pictures/ sentences that catches/ captured the necesarry info by which we recognize, spread, remerber, see the meme !? Is what is a meme all about just the left over ' catch- phrase of a long memetical evolution !?
Remerber that the words we use, the meanings we give, the values we have, the opinions we cherisch, the ideas we work out are the " end- dispositions " of a memetic proces that began in some past. How we ever came to ' one word ', to thé meaning, to that kind of value, to these opinions ', is a proces of annihaliting others and leave behind other ( possible better ?) memes.
Author
Logged
