23discordians (May 30, 2009 at 10:44 am)

Actually I studied to be a biologist and memetics was the thing that made me start to question the inherent rationality of science. As far as I can see it is only more scientific than things which get refered to a pseudo-science because of its adherence to a reductionist aesthetic. Deciding what is and is not science is tricky little problem that we are probably best to leave out of this though, I agree.

23discordians (May 30, 2009 at 10:38 am)

Because your ideas got into your head by being good replicators and you get to decide which ones are useful based on other memes which are also their because of their ability to replicate NOT because of any degree of truth they may contain. Truth is kinda key if you want to claim a theory is TRUE. Once you start introducing ways around this memetics becomes nothing more than a series of banal truisms about people liking things that other people like.

tmtyler (May 30, 2009 at 7:43 am)

Anyway, you last comment seems to suggest that your problem is not really with memetics, but with broader areas of science in general. Deciding what is and what is not science is a topic which has been written on extensively by philosophers of science. I am not terribly interested in the problem - and so will just defer to them.

tmtyler (May 30, 2009 at 7:43 am)

I'm not really trying to patronise you - I just don't understand the problem you seem to be having.Why should the accuracy or usefulness of ideas depend on the pattern of their spread? From the point of view of host DNA, some memes are deleterious pathogens, and other ones are beneficial symbiotes. Both can be good at spreading. That provides one possible way for an individual to distinguish between "good" and "bad" memes on utilitarian grounds - and no doubt there are others.

23discordians (May 29, 2009 at 8:28 pm)

I have read extensivley about science and the scientific method. And I would suggest that if you had done the same you may have heard of the demarcation problem. Which is particularly troublesome when combined with a feyerabendian view of science, as I have already stated is my position.Also you completely ignored the point of my critcism. Your use of the pathogen analogy is telling, if scientific and religous ideas both spread like pathogens, what reason is there to prefer scientific ones?

tmtyler (May 29, 2009 at 7:13 pm)

Memetics is mostly just a terminology for cultural evolution. Cultural evolution is just another branch of science - though one that is still developing.If you can't distinguish between science and religion (because both ideas spread rather like pathogens do) then you have a basic problem which has been written about endlessly - and which you should hopefully be able to resolve by reading about the philosophy of science and the scientific method.

23discordians (May 28, 2009 at 4:33 pm)

So a memeplex? I would agree with your rough definition of truth. My problem comes when I try to apply memetic theory to memetics. I end up with no reason to believe it anything other than a particularly good replicator, replacing other memes and giving an impresion of usefulness. That would be a good description of the christianity meme right? It is wrong but effective because it dispells other memes and causes belief that it is useful. But on what grounds do I believe memetics to be 'truer'?

tmtyler (May 28, 2009 at 4:20 pm)

More like a bunch of associated ideas - like most scientific theories. "True" mostly seems like a synonym for smething one is reasonably certain of. So: it is true that gravity is an attractive force, for example.

23discordians (May 28, 2009 at 2:15 pm)

Actually I have changed my mind about memetics being pseudoscience but for reasons more to do with the problem of demarcation in science and my feyerabendian view of science than the validity of memetics itself.However I do have a couple of questions. Is memetics a meme? If so, how can you be confident of its truth? Does the idea of truth even make sense in a system where beliefs are selected by their 'fitness' or adaptive success?

tmtyler (May 20, 2009 at 10:47 am)

Genetic algorithms do contain genes in my book. That is why we call them "genetic" - because they involve genes.This usage of the term "gene" has a long history - dating back at least as far as the 1960s.

tmtyler (May 20, 2009 at 10:43 am)

The results of genetic algorithms are applied in the real world. That is why people make such systems in the first place. Their evolution influences evolution on the rest of the planet - and that is the point of their existence. If the systems interact as much as this, I prefer to see things as one evolutionary process, composed of multiple different types of replicators in their own ecosystems.

tmtyler (May 20, 2009 at 10:38 am)

I prefer my take on this terminology. I subsequently made another video - explaining my position in more depth: "Against replicator terminology".