The Meme Machine

by Susan Blackmore, Richard Dawkins (Foreword)

What is a meme? First coined by Richard Dawkins in 'The Selfish Gene', a meme is any idea, behavior, or skill that can be transferred from one person to another by imitation: stories, fashions, inventions, recipes, songs, ways of plowing a field or throwing a baseball or making a sculpture.

The meme is also one of the most important--and controversial--concepts to emerge since 'The Origin of the Species' appeared nearly 150 years ago.

In 'The Meme Machine' Susan Blackmore boldly asserts: "Just as the design of our bodies can be understood only in terms of natural selection, so the design of our minds can be understood only in terms of memetic selection."

Indeed, Blackmore shows that once our distant ancestors acquired the crucial ability to imitate, a second kind of natural selection began, a survival of the fittest amongst competing ideas and behaviors. Ideas and behaviors that proved most adaptive - making tools, for example, or using language--survived and flourished, replicating themselves in as many minds as possible.

These memes then passed themselves on from generation to generation by helping to ensure that the genes of those who acquired them also survived and reproduced. Applying this theory to many aspects of human life, Blackmore offers brilliant explanations for why we live in cities, why we talk so much, why we can't stop thinking, why we behave altruistically, how we choose our mates, and much more.

With controversial implications for our religious beliefs, our free will, our very sense of "self," 'The Meme Machine' offers a provocative theory everyone will soon be talking about.

Genres: Science, Nonfiction, Psychology, Philosophy, Evolution, Biology, Sociology

288 pages, Paperback

First published April 8, 1999

About the author

Susan Jane Blackmore is a freelance writer, lecturer and broadcaster, and a Visiting Professor at the University of Plymouth. She has a degree in psychology and physiology from Oxford University (1973) and a PhD in parapsychology from the University of Surrey (1980). Her research interests include memes, evolutionary theory, consciousness, and meditation. She practices Zen and campaigns for drug legalization. Sue Blackmore no longer works on the paranormal.

She writes for several magazines and newspapers, blogs for the Guardian newspaper and Psychology Today, and is a frequent contributor and presenter on radio and television. She is author of over sixty academic articles, about fifty book contributions, and many book reviews. Her books include Dying to Live (on near-death experiences, 1993), In Search of the Light (autobiography, 1996),Test Your Psychic Powers (with Adam Hart-Davis, 1997), The Meme Machine (1999, now translated into 13 other languages), Consciousness: An Introduction (a textbook 2003), Conversations on Consciousness (2005) and Ten Zen Questions (2009).

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Artic...

Reviews

[Trevor · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you want to criticise a book you can’t go too far wrong if you call it ‘reductionist’. As Steven Weinberg points out in his book, Dreams of a Final Theory it is odd that people should think that reductionism is the perfect one word put down for a theory – given how incredibly successful reductionism has proven in Physics.

My problem is when a theory that might work quite well at one level of explanation is expanded to include other levels of explanation that do not have the same necessity behind them.

Take Natural Selection as a case in point. How do we get from single celled organisms to elephants? That is an interesting question and one that is more or less fully answered by natural selection. This is such an incredibly successful answer that only those with their fingers in their ears screaming out ‘I’m not listening’ are unable to avoid it. But its success can also be a problem too.

Time for a random image. Imagine you are falling from a plane and you have a parachute which you are going to open when you are a safe distance above the ocean, but not too soon so you miss out on the fun fall. So, you are just going to pull the cord when the ocean is a safe distance under you – right? Well, no. The problem is that the ocean is a fractal – it is identical or rather looks identical on every scale. So, all the way down the ocean actually looks exactly as it does at every other height. It might look the same, but the difference between 10,000 feet and ten feet will become very much more apparent to you if you haven’t opened your parachute before one rather than the other. Not all scales are the same, not all theories work at all scales, even if they look pretty much the same to the casual observer.

Dawkins’s book The Selfish Gene is one of those seminal books that many people have read and loved. I’ve read it, but didn’t really love it. Like Gould I had a problem with the idea that we are more or less machines fulfilling the wants and needs of our genes. Our genes are ‘replicators’ – things that want to make lots of copies of themselves – and we are forced by them to do stuff to make sure they get replicated. I can accept that this is partly true, although only partly, for as with Gould I don’t think genes are the right scale for an explanation of this kind. It is not genes that have sex, but organisms – and organisms are made up of many, many genes, not just one.

At the very end of his book Dawkins comes up with the idea that culture seems to be spread in a way that is analogous to his idea of the spread of genes. The counterpart of the gene in culture is something he calls the meme (rhymes with dream). Blackmore takes this idea and goes a bit mad with it. She is a Buddhist, and that is important too, I think. I believe Buddhism is the religion of choice of many people who know nothing about it – you know, people who say things like, “Well, if I had to be religious I think I would be a Buddhist”. Personally, I would rather be a solipsist, but that might just be me. (Sorry, my attempt at subtle humour)

Memes can be songs, ideas like e=mc2 or nursery rhymes. They are always things that get into your head and are hard to get back out again. Blackmore says there is only a certain amount of space in our heads, so there is competition for that space and successful memes are those that win out in the battle for that space. So, House is watched by millions, but some other show is not watched at all. Blackmore’s argument becomes an extreme version of Dawkins’s argument in The Selfish Gene. In the end she concludes that we are just a collection of memes, a memeplex, and our ‘self’ is an illusion created as much by these memes working together as anything else. This is pretty much straight Buddhism – 99% of everything we do is directed at the self, and there isn’t one. This negation of the self is seen by Blackmore as a liberation.

I really like the idea of memes – I love it as a metaphor and I think it has much to say about how we live and learn in the world. But it is only a metaphor. Stretching it beyond this is pure (and not very helpful) reductionism. Culture is not Darwinian – you might be able to get it into that straight-jacket for a time, but force is what is needed to keep it there. Anyway, just because natural selection is wonderfully successful at explaining elephants is no reason why it should explain circuses. This is dull reductionism – not illuminating reductionism. As Searle says somewhere, if your theory makes you say something that is clearly silly, it might be time to look seriously at your theory. Saying ‘there is no self’ is a big statement – you are either going to have to really go out of your way to justify it, or really you shouldn’t be saying stuff like that in the first place.

I really don’t think memetics will ever be a science of culture – but it will always be an interesting prism to glance through.

[Xeon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sin! Sin! It is sin to meditate, to quiet the mind.
Only this way can memes fester and breed within our minds.
Memetics will give you the wisdom to change the world and your life.
No way to verify!
They who do become one with the truth, a family.
They who do would be doing the greatest good.
Yes, feel very good.
For they who do not shall suffer more pain than infinity can muster.
Save them! They shall be forgiven. Their sins atoned.
Go forth and have it memetically put into them.
Elsewise, they will be cast away.
Let the meme become the dream, for it is supreme.
Like chronic back pain, let it never go away.
This be the doctrine of The Meme almighty.

[Nebuchadnezzar · Rating 1 out of 5]

There is an old maxim, "The theory that explains everything explains nothing." This sums up the problem with memetics as a "science." Whenever I see a memetic explanation for some phenomenon, it always seems to either be completely incorrect or simply repackaging a result already well-known within the social sciences in pseudo-biological jargon. The same applies to Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine.

Blackmore completely drops the meme-gene analogy, a smart move considering that it was untenable to begin with. Instead, she defines a meme as a "unit of imitation" or "that which is copied." But what, exactly, is this unit or "meme"? It can be anything from the first few bars of Beethoven's Fifth to Gothic architecture, a triune god, and voting Democrat. Memes may also be found on paper, in brains, on television screens, etc. The definition is so loose that it may be bent to fit just about anything. This is, rather incredibly, only the beginning of the problems with memetics.

By disclaiming the meme-gene analogy, Blackmore ends up painting herself into a corner by continuing to posit cultural evolution as a Darwinian (as opposed to say, Lamarckian) process. Without something like a "functional ecology" of memes or a field of "population memetics," memetic "fitness" becomes difficult to define and more or less circular. Which memes are the fittest? The ones that spread the most! Why have they spread the most? Because they are the fittest!

What Blackmore purports to "explain" with memes is, as above, often leads to unfalsifiable pseudo-explanations or a rewriting of earlier theories. Case-in-point: The evolution of the big brain. We really don't know how the big brain evolved, although certain hypotheses are more plausible than others. (Bipedalism as an explanation, for example, was refuted when the fossil record began to show that bipedalism evolved first.) The idea that the big brain evolved as a "meme machine" is patent hokum if meant in the sense that the brain literally evolved "for" spreading these non-existent entities called "memes." In the sense that the big brain evolved because of the advantages of imitation, then this idea is not new at all. It has much in common with the arguments put forth by, say, Michael Tomasello in The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition, who has, in addition, taken much more care in fashioning said arguments. Memes seem to add nothing to other models of cultural evolution as well, such as gene-culture co-evolution, which has done just fine without memetic theory.

Speculation is frequently totally un-moored from reality, such as her assertions about the "sexual selection" of memes being supported by observations about love poems and songs. This is the kind of thing one might expect to hear from an alcohol-infused, early morning BS session among evolutionary theorists, but not in a published work purporting to be science.

The book lapses into outright falsehood on the issue of the copying fidelity of memes. Natural selection really hinges on a certain degree of fidelity in copying genes, or memes, in this case, otherwise the process breaks down. There are two points where fidelity becomes a big issue: First in transmission and then in memory. Some amount of fidelity will generally be lost in transmission. (If only these memes could be transferred with perfect fidelity in the classroom, teachers would have much easier jobs!) Fidelity will also be lost in the process of remembering. As memory psychologists such as Elizabeth Loftus and Ulric Neisser, among many others, have demonstrated, memory is a reconstructive process. Memories are not stored like information on a hard disk, but rebuilt on recall. Scott Atran, in In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, makes a thorough case in his chapter-length refutation of memetics that fidelity is not high enough for Darwinian-style evolution to hold true. The book as a whole also represents an excellent case study in how to study religion scientifically without recourse to memetics. Once again, memes add nothing. They, in fact, likely subtract by confusing the issue with a bunch of half-baked analogies and unnecessary jargon.

Much of the book is written in a quasi-mystical tone. We are surrounded by these things called "memes," constantly colonizing our minds and using them for their own nefarious purposes. The nature of memes, which are not limited by their medium or substrate but exist in some abstract sense, seems transcendental, smacking of a kind of Platonic idealism. This appears to be the end goal, really, as Blackmore argues for a "Universal Darwinism." Surely, Darwinian evolution applies to more than just biological phenomena -- anyone who's worked in the tech industry with evolutionary algorithms and anti-virus software can tell you that. But Blackmore's conception is just another grand theory of everything claiming to have resolved a whole host of heretofore major intractable problems in psychology and anthropology, explaining everything and nothing, and so making it more of the metaphysical than the physical sciences.

I might have given memetics the benefit of the doubt years ago -- indeed, the idea seemed really attractive at first, as seems to have been the case even with many who were memetics proponents at some point. Perhaps it could have been described as a "protoscience." However, it has been a number of years since the memeticists pet journal (http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/) closed shop without producing any results. (http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2005/vol9/ed...) I think it's fair to say that the entire enterprise has descended into pseudoscience. Reading the works of memeticists, I am often reminded of Freudian psychoanalysis in the sense that pretty metaphors are often substituted for empirical argumentation. And it doesn't surprise me that Blackmore abandoned one pseudoscience, parapsychology, for a newer and more fashionable one.

[Beaman · Rating 1 out of 5]

OK, Here's the good, the bad, and the ugly about this book.

The good:

1. She does a good job of summarizing the body of literature on evolutionary models of the spread of information (i.e. other people's work). The relevant chapters, therefore, are a good introduction to the subject.

2. The chapter on alien abduction is sensitive, fair, and careful about its subject (those with the illusion that they were abducted by aliens).

The bad:

Every thing else, i.e. her own theories. Example. Her theory of why the human brain evolved to be so large: to make imitation possible--sexual selection of good imitators was involved. "Scientific" corroboration: people tend to fall for entertainers, who are good imitators. This is (to put it concisely) so bad!

The ugly:

The chapter on religion. Rigor is thrown out of the window, replaced with astounding naivety. She seems completely oblivious of the scholarly literature on religion (history of religion, philosophy of religion). Only if she had given religion the care she gives the phenomenon of belief in alien abductions!

Two criticisms of "Memetics" in four paragraphs:

(1) One problem with memetics is that it offers no valid *new* insights for historians. If memetics is about ideas evolving over time--documenting such evolution is bread and butter for historians. Ditto if memetics is about the fact that ideas (including ideologies/religions) survive and spread by adapting to social and historical circumstances. If the history of human culture and religion shows us anything, it is that each generation reimagines and reinterprets its ideological and cultural heritage, modifying that which, in some sense, no longer fits.

If anything, Blackmore underestimates the extent to which humans reimagine and reshape their religious/cultural heritages. Ideas do evolve, but cultural evolution is Lamarckian, which is to say, human creativity is involved in the adoption and spread of ideas. Blackmore, by contrast, imagines human societies as passive, uncreative, and zombie-like. Societies helplessly pick up ideas just as they pick up viruses that make them bleed. History tells us otherwise; but Blackmore wouldn't know about that, because her work is not grounded in history: look at her bibliography and endnotes; it's meager on the subject of religion but rich on every other subject.

(2) The memetic theory of religion can be tested against the data of history, just as Darwinism can be tested against fossils or genetics. While Darwinism passes the tests, memetics fails. Here is why. The memetic view is that some (harmful) religious practices and dogmas spread not because of any benefit they may have for the religious people, but only because they help with the spread of religion. For example, take celibacy for priests. It's hard on the priest, but benefits the religion, as it makes the priest divert all his energies to help the religion survive and spread. This is just like the fact that the genetic code of a virus is optimized to spread the virus, not benefit its hosts.

Well, here is the problem. For the argument to make sense, we have to assume that the spread of these harmful ideas follows a Darwinian pattern (If we assumed it to be Lamarckian, as I argued before, then her whole argument would collapse). But if Darwinian selection led to celibacy, what that means is that as a matter of historical fact, there were other religions, or Christianities, lacking the celibacy requirement, and that this lack doomed them to extinction. We may now ask the historical question: Did mutant religions go extinct because they lacked celibate priests? The history of Christianity is well-documented, and the answer to this question is no. A similar argument can be made for the other "harmful" elements of religion she identifies.

[Chrissy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite its age (which becomes apparent only in a select few chapters that focus on the Internet and neuroscience), and despite that I disagree with a number of the author's contentions, I really enjoyed this book. Blackmore presents a comprehensive understanding of memes, those cultural self-replicators that drive much of our behaviour in our modern social world. She makes use of a host well-articulated descriptions, examples, and scientific narratives, offering fairly weighted arguments for most of the (many) topics she touches on, and explores the full extent of her theory as any rigorous scientist should. I was even appreciative to see a number of "I have no idea"s and "I'm not sure"s throughout; the honesty of a researcher who recognizes the need for further exploration shines infinities brighter, to me, than does the stark certainty of a popular science writer..... (that old adage that the more intelligent you are, the more you realize how little you know, applies)

My primary complaint about the book was that it retraced its steps a lot, reiterating basic points and redrawing key analogies a number of times. I imagine this was to really drive the point home for those less familiar with biological evolution or memetic theory, which is entirely fair given the book's publication date. Still, I found myself skimming lightly over some of the middle sections, having deja vue moments and wondering when new ideas would be presented.

A secondary complaint is at once more fundamental to the content of the book less critical to my enjoyment of it. And it's simply this: I'm not entirely convinced by some of the author's proposed extensions of memetic theory, which seem in spots to move the explanation back one rung without really hitting at the core "why" or "how" of the question. Meanwhile, she argues that this is the problem with using consciousness as an explanation for anything (and I agree whole-heartedly): it is an epiphenomenon that itself explains nothing, but instead demands further explanation. It's unfortunate that she didn't acknowledge the similar limitations of memetic theory in this respect, especially as it pertains to the chapter on "self" and the "selfplex." As a cognitive scientist deeply interested in the nature of memory, I don't think Blackmore steps back far enough to reach the core of the "self" issue.

Regardless, the notion of memetic selection in this area has added an additional layer to my own theories of self (which rest, naturally, on a foundation of memory). I'm grateful to Blackmore for outlining these levels of analysis for me in such a thorough manner. It's certainly the task of any scientist to run with their pet theories as far as they can, and wait for evidence to contradict them; the contradictions serve as motivation to refine and move one step closer to "truth," with the understanding that capital T truth is an illusion in science and that your ego is thereby best left at the door.

And on that note, I want to underline how much I enjoyed the final chapter, which flirts much more closely with philosophy than the rest of the book. I love this way of thinking, without a self, and I want to practice it and see where it takes my thoughts; I feel it could have tremendous benefits for my work (or my memes, if you will... it's come full circle!) and my ability to think clearly about theory and computational modelling. As a prototypical grad student sufferer of impostor syndrome, it can only help my science to let go of such concerns and let the ideas drive themselves.

[Richard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Here’s the idea at the heart of this book in a nutshell. For the best part of a century now we’ve become used to the picture (or many of us have anyway) of the four-billion-year history of life on this planet having been driven by a single kind of self-replicating entity, the gene. The result has been biological evolution. But in fact, all this may be only one very specific example of a more general, a more universal, principle—other kinds of self-replicators also being possible. Recently, with the emergence of human beings, a second kind has indeed appeared—the “meme”—and the result in this case is not biological evolution, but cultural: as is the gene to biology, so is the meme to sociology and psychology.
    It’s not a new idea (has been around for decades) but Susan Blackmore’s is a particularly clear summary. It explains what memes actually are: concepts of all kinds, ways of doing things, stories, myths, works of art and music, fashions, advertising slogans…you name it—all the assorted quality and trash which makes up our culture. It explains their method of replication (imitation) and some of the questions they may help answer, such as the puzzling size of the human brain, or the origins of language. There are also the differences between genes and memes: whereas genes need to deal squarely with reality at all times (or the plant, fungus or animal dies) this is not the case with memes; memes can be incorrect beliefs, misconceptions, urban myths, fantasies, pure nonsense or outright lies. Memetics “explains the spread of untrue, bizarre, and even harmful ideas…memes do not need to be true to be successful.”
    Like everything else I’ve read by Blackmore, this is exceptionally well-written—she’s a natural, a superb communicator of even the trickiest details; and although I did finish it as sceptical as I started out (i.e. mildly sceptical, no more) one thought did cross my mind. Many physicists have suggested that the basic “stuff” of the universe isn’t matter, or even energy, but information; and as for biologists, that’s what genes are too—the basic “stuff” of biology is also information. And once you look at the world that way, this “meme” idea doesn’t seem nearly so much of a stretch.

[Richard · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Meme Machine lays out the foundation for a new science... or at least it tries too. And fails.

Blackmore is a wonderfully knowledgeable author, and the varied topics she dives in to while illustrating and describing her meme theory is one the reasons this book is still somewhat worthwhile.

But as for her theory, it just is too hard to swallow. Somehow the replicator function of memes is crucial in order to distinguish them as evolutionary, but then it turns out to be impossible to consistently describe how memes are supposed to replicate. I mean, is a Beethoven symphony really "imitated"? Maybe, but the multitude of ways her memes would have to be imitated really stretches that word beyond the breaking point.

Meme is a very intriguing idea, and as a construct helps illuminate the whole viral marketing thing, and trends, and all that. But as a co-evolutionary factor which explains how we got big brains, not so interesting.

Of course, this book is almost ten years old. Perhaps the "science" has flowered majestically and I'm just plain wrong. Or perhaps it has faded away after its ten minutes of trendy fame elapsed, I dunno. Probably somewhere in between, although I really don't think Blackmore's more extreme claims for memes have much merit.

[Buğra Davutluoğlu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Memetik kurama kadar, davranışlarımız üzerindeki en temel belirleyici unsur biyolojik evrim ve dolayısıyla genlerdi. Ancak özellikle doğum kontrolü, cinsel pehriz, eşcinsellik gibi bazı konularda gene dayalı açıklamalar biraz zorlama ve yetersiz bulunuyor. Ayrıca insanı, bilinen diğer bütün canlılardan farklı kılan beyin kapasitesini, sadece doğal seçilim baskısı ile açıklamak evrimin fikir babalarından biri olan Wallace'in bile itirazlarına hedef olmuştu.

Blackmore bu noktada Dawkins'in açtığı yolda, Dennett'ten aldığı destekle bizleri biz yapan ikinci bir eşleyici fikrini geliştiriyor. Kültürel aktarım birimi olarak 'mem'lerin, genlerle başlayan, taklitle büyüyüp güçlenen ve bugün genleri güdümlemeye varan hikayesi farklı bir bakış açısı yaratıyor.

Yazar, bu kuramla insan beyninin büyümesi, dilin gelişimi, cinsellik, özgecilik, din, bilinç gibi konulara açıklamalar getiriyor.

Memetik kuramının doğa bilimleri ile toplum bilimleri arasında bir köprü görevi üstlenmesi mümkün. Ancak zihin-beden ikiciliğini andıran yoğun 'gen-mem' vurgusu ilginç.

[Enterprise · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm very happy I read this book, and I have a very high respect for Mrs. Blackmore's book. I've rarely read a book so honest about the claims it makes. Blackmore is always very careful to note that her theories and conjectures are frequently just that, and always suggests ways in which they may be disproven, or proven. It's refreshingly honest and at the same time, given the paucity of actual evidence it can work with, remarkably convincing. Definitely give it a shot.

[Kenneth Barfod · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is in my top ten books that have influenced my world view. As a biologist i understand that nothing in nature makes sense unless looked upon in the light of evolution. This book along with Selfish genes by Dawkins opned my eyes to kultural evolution and memes as the unit. I have re read it several times. Memes before internet cats to over the expression.

[Irene Jurna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dit boek presenteert je een radicaal ander beeld van wie je bent. Of eigenlijk klopt dat niet, want Blackmore’s hypothese is: ‘je bestaat niet’.

Dit boek presenteert dus een radicaal ander beeld van wie of wat je niet bent, namelijk de ‘ik’ vanwaaruit je je hele leven beleeft.

“When there is no selfplex (…) there is no real ‘I’ to care about. This lack of self-concern means that you (the physical person) are free to notice other people more. Compassion and empathy come naturally.”

[Jason Mills · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dawkins briefly introduced the term 'meme' in The Selfish Gene in 1976, principally to show that the process of natural selection was not dependent on a particular underlying 'technology' such as genes. Blackmore here expands on his thought, at the core of which is the recognition that the spread and persistence of an idea is not dependent solely on its utility: for instance, I have in my head advertising jingles from decades ago, possession of which never served my interest and has long since ceased to serve even the interests of the manufacturers. The ideas and behaviours which spread and persist are those which are good at doing so, and truth and usefulness are by no means the only factors determining that. A catchy tune or a memorable soundbite might suffuse our minds and our culture in spite of ourselves. ("I know a song that'll get on your nerves, get on your nerves, get on your nerves...")

(Interesting to note that some people think memetics is an empty idea, with no explanatory power. How then to explain its now widespread familiarity in our culture, if not by appealing to its ability to spread regardless of its usefulness..?)

This book is generally regarded as 'giving memetics its best shot', as Dawkins puts it in his appreciative foreword. Blackmore argues carefully and cumulatively, her application of the memetic perspective growing more ambitious as she proceeds. She begins by teasing out an argument that skill at imitation is essentially unique to humans, providing an ecology in which 'imitable things' can perpetuate themselves, solely or in combination with others (in a 'memeplex'). The concept of the meme, under scrutiny, can be tricksy and elusive: Blackmore gives the example of learning from someone how to bake a cake: what is being copied? The cake, the behaviour, the recipe, spoken instructions, a neurological structure? She chooses to set aside the question, observing that copying and spreading of 'information' clearly does occur between humans (and storage media), which is enough to justify pursuing the ramifications. This step might be criticised, although it's worth noting that the term 'gene' is also subject to multiple definitions, which has not impeded or invalidated genetics.

In due course Blackmore takes plausible stabs at the origins of language, the persistence of religions and even the notion of self-identity: the last chapter is especially thought-provoking, presenting a view of the mind cluttered with and constituted by competing memes (though she has some differences with Dennett's take on the matter). On creativity:

Replicator power is the only design process we know of that can do the job, and it does it. We do not need conscious human selves messing about in there as well.

Her tone is reasoned and reasonable, her style a model of clarity and accessibility. The insights she offers are sometimes counter-intuitive and slippery (particularly the unwelcome but increasingly common suspicion that we are passengers in our own minds), but that is not itself a counter-argument: the same could be said of quantum physics or tectonic plates. However, much of what she says is crying out for further practical research, which hopefully academia will take up (if it hasn't already - this was published in 1999).

Some readers will disagree with her thesis (with or without justification), but I doubt anyone would regret having read it. Well worth your time.

[Bryan Jacobson · Rating 2 out of 5]

All of our brains for an environment where Memes (basically ideas) reproduce by being copied from person to person. Memes evolve and compete. Some dwindle (go out of fashion) some rapidly spread across the globe.

This book is a solid introduction to Memes (which I believe are a useful way to think about human thought). I had high hopes based on a brilliant TED video by Susan Blackmore, but I enjoyed this book less than I expected.

Early on the book makes many statements to counter arguments made by various critics of the theory of Memes. It seems overly defensive without actually countering the arguments very effectively (in my opinion). Also there are so many references to Meme explanations by Dawkins and Dennett that I almost wished I was reading one of their books.

Later on Blackmore made various claims that (in my opinion) I felt might be true, but were not supported convincingly and explained well enough to be useful to me.

For example, the whole idea of Memes rests on human's unique and powerful ability to pickup behavior through imitation. Blackmore talks a lot about our sense of "self" being a large "memeplex" (collection of mutually re-enforcing memes). How can I perceive (and hence "imitate") another person's sense of "self"? I was unconvinced.

I do agree with the author that many, perhaps nearly all, of our thought processes are built on the huge collection of memes we've picked up throughout our lives. I also agree with the idea that some memes can be harmful (for example those that result in group suicide or group celibacy). But, I believed in those before reading the book, and I felt like the book could have done more to illustrate them with powerful examples and follow through with the implications.

[Jim Razinha · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mixed thoughts on this. I think Ms. Blackmore has some good substance to her memetics theory, but there are points where she gets too fuzzy, and her explanations didn't convince me completely of its merits. She compares the replication of memes to that of genes, requiring fidelity, fecundity and longevity. I haven't bought off on their fecundity, much less the fidelity of memetic replication, but as this is not my field, I'll just keep thinking.

It took me mulling over the whole when near the end to nail what should have been obvious to me earlier: she restricts her memetic theory to humans because, she contends, only humans can imitate. [As an aside, something like that is direly ripe for religious picking (to counter the dreaded evolutionary genetic theory). And I'm surprised it hasn't to my knowledge been picked.] I just read Frans de Waals' The Bonobo and the Atheist and I wonder if he would agree - I suspect not.

I also think she imparts too large an impact to her theory:

Evolutionary theory faced enormous opposition because it provided a view of humans that humans do not like. The same will probably be true of memetics.

Not really. How is any of what is in this book something humans will not like? Moreover, how many people actually know anything about it? Or care? My observation above hints at no conflict with their religious thoughts on human evolution (or non-evolution.) By limiting such a theory to humans only, one shouldn't be comparing to genetics - genes are in every life in our tiny world, but memes are limited to one highly developed primate?

[Ozten · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is amazing. I highly recommend it. It is non-fiction and can be a little dry, so let me give you the hard sell.

This book is basically Susan Blackmore's PHD thesis on memetic evolution. Okay, are you sold?

Topics touched upon in this book:
* How do you explain homosexual lifestyle in the face of evolution
* What is fashion
* Why/How does tool making evolve
* Why are religions so powerful
* How/why does advertising work
* How can you stop you monkey mind

It's been 5 months, so I might be missing some points or embellishing, but this book gave me a ton of inspiration and really challenged my way of living. It didn't hurt that I read it in Southern Africa.

If you check it out, be sure to try the meditation exercise suggested toward the end of the book.

Really cool stuff, I will re-read this book in a couple of years.

[a theory of addiction · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the seminal text of the nascent theory of memetics. It proposes a universal-Darwinian model of culture with imitated behaviors as the replicating units. This model allows us to see culture and behavior as living, evolving, complex systems of countless networked interacting units - a type of model familiar from evolution, cognitive neuroscience, and complexity science generally. One important insight provided by this new way of understanding cultural change is the realization that culture is not controlled by us and does not necessarily serve our interests in any way - and this includes our own behavior. Addiction can be seen as a self-perpetuating positive-feedback machine.

[Ville Kokko · Rating 3 out of 5]

While this is a worthwhile exploration of the meme concept, I didn't entirely like Blackmore's approach in the end. It sounds like she got too deeply submerged in the meme paradigm, and so would sometimes only apply it when its application needed to be analysed or when switching to other paradigms would be needed.

[Liedzeit Liedzeit · Rating 4 out of 5]

Once upon a very long time ago three memes, “To be or not to be”, “With great power comes great responsibility” and “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” were sitting together over a nice cup of tea.

“You know”, said Obladi, “as much as I enjoy chatting with you guys, I do so much want to replicate.”

“I know exactly what you mean”, said Power, “I also feel the need to replicate. But how?”

“Well”, said ToBe “there is a way. All we need to do is find a host who will make copies of us!”

“Really?” said the others.

“Yes”, replied ToBe, “there is this new species called Homo Sapiens who for some mysterious reason likes to imitate. So all we need to do is to let them develop a large brain and invent language. And then, once they start babbling, everyone will imitate that and soon the world will be full of replicas of ourselves.”

“Brilliant” said Obladi, “lets ask our friends the genes to help us coevolving their brain.”

“But” objected Power “isn’t the brain and the language rather expensive to develop for the humans? It'll cost a lot of energy. What is their benefit?”

“Why should we care?” replied Tobe.

“Exactly”, agreed Obladi “and then we let them develop consciousness so that they will think it is them who originate all our wonderful brothers and sisters.”

“Right”, said Power finally convinced. “Let us start building a Meme-Machine.”


This is basically the story told by Susanne Blackmore. Yes, finally we know why we have a large brain and a language. And consciousness. It is all there for the benefit of the memes. You might think that what makes you human is your consciousness. But you are wrong. Consciousness is an illusion, and a malign illusion at that. Think about it, what has consciousness ever done for you? The way to be happy is to suppress consciousness as far as possible, with sex, mountain climbing or singing in a choir. Consciousness just lets you loop in cycles of self-doubt and anxiety. Just ask Hamlet.


_____

I read The Selfish Gene in 1980, only four years after it was published. And like many people I was fascinated. Dawkins allowed a completely new view on the mysteries of life. If Darwinism is true, why is there altruism? Because, Dawkins said, it is the genes and not individual beings that count. So the bird emitting a warning when a predator nears might die but it saves its brothers and sisters and cousins.

And in addition Dawkins introduced the concept of a meme, like a gene a replicator but a replicator of something immaterial, an “idea”. Like a poem or a melody. And the idea was that the meme can be wrong or bad like an advertisement jingle. From the point of view of the meme, all that counts is that it gets replicated.

Now meme, of course is itself an example of a successful meme. I have witnessed how it became a common word in language. Not quite as successful as say Internet or Hip-Hop but for a term invented by a scientist, it has done really good.

Blackmore builds upon the concept (relying heavily upon and advancing the work of Dennett - who in turn was influenced by Jaynes who is not mentioned at all by her - a different story) and establishes an entire science (or maybe religion) memetics based on the behaviours of memes. And to give just one example of an idea where she improves the thoughts of Dawkins is again altruism. Why are people in every day life altruistic? Why are people generous or friendly when it does not save lifes (and genes). Because that is a means to become popular and being popular means that people listen to you and will adopt your memes. Whereas a miser has few friends and is a meme-sink.

There is something to be said for the “science” of memetics. A lot of the things she say about religion or pseudo-religious beliefs like astrology or homeopathy are very interesting and true. But I do have the feeling that she allows herself to get carried away a bit.

The basic question is what do we except as an explanation? To talk about the life of memes (e.g. p.162) or its views is of course a metaphor. And of course she is well aware that it is a metaphor. And metaphors can be powerful and can have explanational value. But is it true in this case? To talk of a selfish gene is a metaphor. But it is relatively easy to grasp. The gene behaves as if it were selfish. The same is true for a man. All we have is selfish actions. But since we are a cause-seeking species we say it is “selfishness” of the man that is responsible for selfish acts. And this we can transfer to genes. But genes are at least material and I can see them (by some stretch of the imagination) as agents. Maybe I am too thick-headed (probably even) but I cannot make the further transition to memes. And again, I might be old-fashioned, but I do believe that cause must precede effect. So it is the brain that will with the help of the tongue emit sounds that will then (eventually) constitue memes. I also happen to think that consciousness will in some circumstances lead a conscious being to make decisions that it would not make without consciousness. And that some of these decisions are to the benefit of the being.

If I do have reservations against many of the things Blackmore says, why do I attach four stars? Because I happen to be the host of a (not very successful) meme that holds that consciousness is a social construct. And while Blackmore believes in a variant (malign instead of benign for example) her believes are close enough to mine that I think my memes would benefit if hers are replicated. So please, read her book.

[Sandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm not persuaded, but it was still well argued and fun to read.

[Xander · Rating 3 out of 5]

We, human beings, are products of our environment. This sounds like something a Marxist-inspired social scientist would say. But in this book Susan Blackmore argues for the same case, but probably will find these same social scientists (and all political correct thinkers with them) in her way. The main thesis of this book is as follows.

Human beings, like all animals, plants, funci, bacteria and protozoa on this planet, are products of biological evolution. Our 'design' comes from the algorithmic processes of nature. Unlike the rest of nature, we seem to have culture; this begs for an explanation: if culture is such a 'Good Trick' then why don't we see other organisms having the same thing?

Blackmore argues that what distinguishes us from the rest of nature is our ability to imitate. We observe other people doing things, put ourselves in the (mental) shoes of these other people and then do these things ourselves. This sounds simple, but it really isn't - the only thing in nature coming close is birdsong.

Imitation leads inevitably to the existence of pieces of information - memes. Considering there's a finite amount of minds, time, energy, etc. (i.e. genetic constraints), the memes will compete with each other fro our attention and imitation. This leads, by definition, to memetic selection: some memes will fare better than others. Blackmore zooms in on this last issue and builds up a whole new edifice of a new science of memetics on this central issue. What memes are more succesful than others? And more importantly, why?

In summary: whenever an entity that makes copies of itself (i.e. a replicator) originates, with the three key ingredients high copying-fidelity, high fecundity and longevity, a process of selection starts. This unguided algorithmic process leads to the appearance of design. Pieces of information are such replicators, competing for our minds. So after discovering the gene, we have dsicovered a second replicator: the meme. Natural and memetic selection have shaped us and are still shaping us.

In the first third of this book, Blackmore explains her main thesis in easy-to-follow arguments and makes a strong case for the existence of memes and their impact on our lifes. She overstretches her hand a bit when she postulates memes as the origin (cause?) of our large brains and our innate language module. There's still much unknown about the origin of the growth of our brains and the origin of language. To be fair, Blackmore deals with all the possible theories on these two topics and only then offers her own explanation.

The second third of the book , Blackmore shows the power of the theory of memes: she applies her theory to such topics as sex, altruism, New Age phenomena (UFO's, near death experiences, fortune telling, homeopathy, etc.) and religions. In all these cases memetics explains the phenomena better than the rival theories - according to Blackmore. Why do New Age phenomena persist? Because the memes making up these phenomena play on our genetic needs (e.g. the need for understanding/the need for explaining unknown but impressive events). Why do religions exist? Because of our natural reverence for powerful males, high in the hierarchy - so the Catholic God is a sky-daddy (in the words of Richard Dawkins). Why does altruism exist? Sociobiological explanations are good, but - according to Blackmore - do not tell the whole story: we have a innate (i.e. genetic) need to be liked by others. Memes that make you more likeable thrive; you look for mates who are more likeable imitators; memes start "to infect us with altruism". Memetic selection even explains why we (in modern societies) give up the notion of 'sex to reproduce' and use contraceptives en masse. Memes of 'sex for fun' play on our (genetic) drive to enjoy sex, thereby spreading themselves.

The third part consists of an exposition on the internet - the memes' way of seeking a mechanism that leads to higher fidelity, high longevity and higher fecundity in copying themselves. (I saw a recent Ted-talk by Blackmore and she seems to have updated this part of her book with a new (third) replicator: genes, memes and temes.) She closes the book with a dismantling of our illusion of consciousness: the 'self' is itself a complex of memes - a selfplex. There is no single center of consciousness in our brains (Dennett's Cartesian Theatre) and there is no such thing as free will. There is only natural and memetic selection battling it out with eachother with our minds as the primary battleground. This is certainly an interesting notion, something that connects with my own thoughts on consciousness and free will, so I guess this new meme fits neatly in my current memeplex...

This is all interesting, but is it true? Blackmore proposes this book as the foundation of a new science of memetics. A scientific theory should at least lead to (1) testable predictions that make it possible to refute (parts of) the theory and should lead to (2) a new understanding of existing or not-yet-known phenomena (in other words: it should explain something better than existing theories). Throughout the book Blackmore derives testable hypotheses of her main theory, so I guess she accomplishes the first part of building a scientific theory. (One could argue about the specificity of her predictions; they need a lot more fine-tuning to be specific and refutable, but let's grant her this point, it's a start). Blackmore takes up the second problem of a scientific theory with fervor and class: throughout the book she favors evolutionary psychological or sociobiological explanations, but in all these claims these theories (of explaining human behaviour in light of evolution) are not complete enough. She does this to make some room for her own theory, which in itself is a strong case of good science.

If one judges this book on the author's own terms (offering a scientific theory of culture in terms of memes), one can only congratulate Blackmore on the attempt. It's amazing how she is able to build an edifice of a whole new building and how she's able to tell the story in an interesting and comprehensible style. A superb book that offers profound and far-reaching insights!

On a side note: She cites E.O. Wilson as claiming that 'genes have culture on a leash'. As far as I can see (which is not far, in any case), Wilson is right in saying this. What he meant is (I guess) that culture has a maximum variability, and this variability is directly related to our genes. So considering the human being as he/she is, it's (nearly) impossible to find or 'create' a culture that is built on, for instance, complete egalitarianism, celibacy or starvation. This is simply impossible, considering who we are (our genetic ancestry).

Blackmore claims that memes can make us do things contra our nature: the celibate priest or our use of contraceptives are her most vivid and strongest examples. But celibacy is a very dubious concept; there's a lot of evidence that so called celibate priests were either suffering a lot (confirming Wilson's statement of the genetic leash) or where simply not celibate and having illegal children with married women (confirming Wilson's statement of the genetic leash). The same with contraceptives: even though in our Western culture the use of contraceptives has skyrocketed in just 50 years, children are still being born by the dozens (confirming Wilson's statement of the genetic leash). The growth has been checked, but ceasing with sexual reproduction is, for all practical purposes, simply impossible. I guess Wilsons insight is meant as describing the (human) playing field that memes can use for their own reproduction. (Keeping in mind that his language is metaphorical, ofcourse).

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

'Memes' are, in evolutionary biology, traits that are transmitted from individuals to others not via their genetics, but, through imitations. Put bluntly: there are all of our cultural features.

The term was first coined by Richard Dawkins in 'The Selfish Gene' (1976), a book defending a view of evolution centred around genes, although acknowledging that genes aren't sufficient to explain how cultural features propagate (both within and between generations). 'Meme', then (a word closely sounding with both 'gene' and the French word 'même' -meaning 'same') are replicators that is, units copied over generations and with more or less changes over time.

Language, religions, ideologies... All of these cultural phenomena are, therefore, memes. And, not unlike genes, they are hereditary, subjected to possible variations, a selection 'decides' of the more suited to survive, they can cooperate with each other to give rise to 'memeplexes' (like genes when defining a phenotype) and, of course, they also are 'selfish', in the sense that they just spread themselves without any consideration for their hosts' interests (human, books, medias... -that they solely use as mere vehicles).

The concept, then, of replicators similar to genes without being genes (although they can cooperate with them e.g. genes-memes coevolution) is revolutionary for another reason: it may help shed lights upon various questions those answers have, until then, still been controversial. Why did we develop such large brains? Why complex languages? Why altruism? So many 'wastes' from a purely genetical point of view, but that could make sense if 'memes' are introduced into our thinking.

Susan Blackmore delivers here a fascinating book, because it opens wide a whole world that remains to be discovered. It is, also, its weakness: since we don't have enough serious studies on the topic, we can only speculate. How many of her hypotheses, then, are nothing but just-so stories? Nevertheless, it remains a great introduction to what deserves to be a radical new field. Speculative... but engrossing!

[Christina · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,5 Sterne
Blackmore entwickelt eine sehr interessante Theorie zur Evolution von Kultur und Sprache. In einigen Bereichen finde ich sie absolut nachvollziehbar. Allerdings scheint die Autorin zu viel auf Meme zurückführen zu wollen. Bestimmte Aspekte ihrer Argumentation erscheinen mir nicht ganz schlüssig, obwohl das auch daran liegen könnte, dass ich nicht über tiefergehendes Wissen in Biologie und Soziologie verfüge. Außerdem wirkt der Schluss des Buches auch mich fast esoterisch. Es ist etwas ironisch, wenn zunächst Religionen memetisch betrachtet und kritisiert werden, die ihre Anhänger von "der Wahrheit" zu überzeugen versuchen, und dann die Autorin die Leser auffordert, ihre (Blackmores) Wahrheit anzuerkennen, die zu einem besseren Leben führen wird.
Das Buch war insgesamt sehr unterhaltsam und flüssig zu lesen und auch für mich als Laien weitestgehend verständlich.

[Cengiz Aytun · Rating 4 out of 5]

Son kitabımı bu kitabı okumadan yazmıştım. Okurken biraz da, acaba kaçırdığım bir şey var mı diye meraklandım. Kitabı okuduktan sonra memetik kuramını zaten iyi anlamış olduğunu fark ettim. Kitap 30 yıllık olması nedeni ile bazı şeyler artık iyi biliniyor ve bazı bilgiler ise eskimiş. Ama yine de derli toplu bir memetik kitabı olmuş. Kitabın Türkçe çevirisinde pek çok kavramın yanlış aktarıldığını fark ettim. Konuyu bilen biri olarak bu durum okuduklarımı anlamamı etkilemedi. Ancak konuya aşina olmayanlar, bu çeviri hataları yüzünden okurken kafa karışıklığı yaşayabilirler. Sosyal evrim ve Mem konusunu anlamak için okuyabilirsiniz. İyi okumalar.

[Aykut Karabay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Richard Dawkins Gen Bencildir kitabında Gen'lerin kalıtımı devam ettiren bencil eşleyiciler olduğunu öne sürmüştü. Canlı organizmaların'da bu genlerin devamını sağlayan geçici taşıyıcılar olduğunu anlatmıştı. Kitabın sonunda kışkırtıcı bir soru sormuştu; Genlerin dışında gezegenimizde başka eşleyiciler var mıdır? Dawkins in iddiasına göre bunun yanıtı Evet. Yeni eşleyicinin MEM adını verdiği bir kültürel iletim birimi olduğunu öne sürdü. Memlerin bir beyinden bir diğerine sıçrayarak çoğalmasını virüslerin bir konakçıyı enfekte etmesine benzetmiş, kaşılıklı olarak yarışan memlerin genlere hiç bir yararı olmaksızın kendi çıkarları için yayılabileceklerini iddia etti.

Memler taklit yoluyla bir beyinden öteki beyne sıçrayarak kopyalanırlar. Kişiden kişiye geçen her şey bir memdir. Hikayeler, şarkılar, oyunlar,kültürel etkinlikler, televizyon, internet.... Bütün memler taklit ve davranışlar yoluyla kopyalanırlar.

Kitaba göre Memler bizim için yararlı veya zararlı olup olmamasına bakmazlar. Tek amaçları genler gibi bencilce etrafa yayılırlar. ( Memleri varlık gibi betimliyor. Bu benimde katıldığım Mem teorisinin en fazla eleştirilen en zayıf noktası. )

Memetik evrime göre en iyi taklitçiler ile eşleşerek memler yayılıyor. İçinde yaşadığımız modern dünyada moda, sanat, kitap, dini-politik fikirler... vb yoluyla yayılabilir. Daha da önemlisi memleri yayma becerisi modayı kuran ve en iyi takip edenler olacaktır. Yazarlar, artistler,gazeteciler, reklamcılar, müzisyenler en fazla mem yaymaya olanak veren meslekler.

Bilincimizin niteliği, bütün beynin ne yaptığına ve sosyal çevredeki hikayelere bağlıdır. Bu hikayeler bilincimizi etkileyen MEM 'lerdir. Normal bilinç durumumuzda bütün deneyim, bütün sözcük ve başka memetik yapıları kullanan ÖZPLEKSLER tarafından tayin edilir. Yani her mem bir özün kapsamına yerleştirilerek gelişimine devam eder.

Yazar BEN 'in bir sanrı olduğunu, bilinci gölgelediğini savunuyor. Sıradan insan bilinci ÖZPLEKSLER tarafından yapılandırılmıştır. Öteki hayvanlarda taklit yeteneği ve memleri olmadığı için insan gibi öz bilince sahip olamamışlardır.

Bilinç aslında hiç bir şey yapmıyor. Sadece memlerin yönlendirmesi ile kararlar alan taşıyıcı bir yapı. Beynin içinde sadece memlerin olduğunu ve beynin tek işlevinin memleri yaymak olduğunu savunuyor.

Memler arasında da genetik doğal seçilim gibi bir rekabet olduğunu, bu rekabetin kültürel ürünlerde yaratıcılığa neden olduğunu, Kitaplar, teknolojiler, sanat ürünleri.... hepsinin nedeninin memleri yaymak olduğunu savunuyor. Eşleyici gücünün (yani genler gibi memlerin) bu işi yapabilen tek tasarımcı olduğunu, bilinçli insan özlerine gerek olmadığını söylüyor. İnsan özleri memleri yayan taşıyıcılar olduğunu ve asıl yaratıcılığın öz bilinçsiz, kendiliğinden memlerin akışı ile mümkün olduğunu savunuyor.

Yazara göre memlerden kendini korumaya çalışan bir zihin asılsız bir mitten ibarettir. Memetiğe göre seçme işini yapan 'BEN' memetik bir yapıdır. Yani BEN ; Karmaşık bir mem makinesine yüklenen akıcı ve sürekli değişen bir memler grubu. Yapılan tüm seçimler belirli bir ortam içindeki genetik ve memetik tarihin ürünleri. Memleri geçersiz kılabilen ayrı bir yaşam amacına sahip olabilen bir ÖZ olmadığını savunuyor.

Memetiğin gücünün burada olduğunu, Biyolojik dünyadaki genler gibi insan yaşamının, kültürünün, yaratıcılığının bir tür eşleyici (MEM) ile nasıl ortaya çıktığını açıklıyor. Genler gibi memler için de hiç bir tasarımcıya gerek yok. Plan olmamasına rağmen plan için yapılandırılmış varlıklar ve kültürü üretiyor. Tek gerçeğin; Sadece memlerin ve genlerin tek başlarına bitmek tükenmek bilmeyen evrimsel sürecinin olduğunu savunuyor.

Öz; bir memplekstir. Sadece içinde bulunan ortama göre hareket eden beyin, beden ve hepsini yöneten memler vardır. Genlerimizin davranışlarımızın çoğundan sorumlu olduğunu biliyoruz. Memler ise paylaşmanın diğer türlerinden yani kültürel yayılımdan sorumlu. Bu yayılım bir öz olsa da olmasa da devam eder. Beden, beyin ve memlerden oluşan insanlar olarak eşleyicilerin ve ortamın karmaşık bir karşılıklı etkileşiminin ürünüyüz. Blackmore Bunun farkına varırsak gerçekten özgür olacağımızı savunuyor. Bencil eşleyicilerin tiranlığına karşı koyarak değil, karşı koyacak kimse olmadığını bildiğimizde özgür olacağız.

OKUR NOTU;

Kitap bana göre genler gibi kültürün de evrilerek geliştiği gibi doğru tezlere sahip. Ancak öte yandan kitabın en büyük handikapı memlerin genler gibi yayılan yapılar olduğunu savunması. BİLİMSEL OLARAK GÖZLEMLENMİŞ, TEST EDİLMİŞ, VE İSPATLANMIŞ TEK BİR MEM DAHİ BULUNAMAMIŞTIR. Bu noktada Memler kurgusal bir hipotez olarak kalıyor. Kitabı okurken bunu akılda tutmakta fayda var.

[Lee Kuiper · Rating 5 out of 5]

Blackmore’s highly influential and important book about memes is more than just the foundational text of memetics (“the Bible of memetics”), it offers a paradigm shifting worldview of tectonic proportions.

At first she delves into the concept of memes as units of information and goes about defining what exactly a meme is. I did not agree with her heavy emphasis and connection with the Girardian idea of mimesis (imitation and desire) but did come around to see her perspective a little more eventually.

She quickly moves on to other areas, challenging traditional notions of cultural transmission, suggesting that the propagation of memes involves a complex interplay of imitation, variation, and selection, much like biological evolution. She examines the role of memes in shaping beliefs, rituals, technologies, and languages, highlighting their influence on human societies.

Additionally, she discusses the role of the human mind as a meme machine, proposing that our cognitive abilities evolved to facilitate the spread of memes. Blackmore argues that the human brain serves as a vehicle for meme replication and transmission, fostering a competitive environment among memes for survival and propagation.

This was were the book really stimulates critical thinking. Who is in control here? What are the role of memes in shaping our beliefs, behaviors, and the evolution of human societies. It’s a great examination of our illusion of control regarding everything we do and why we do it (similar, though more profound and foundational than The Botany of Desire).

Ultimately, "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore is a thought-provoking exploration of all things memes. She provides a compelling framework for understanding the dynamics of cultural evolution, challenging traditional notions of cultural transmission and offering insights into the role of memes in shaping human societies.

Fantastic.

[Brit Cheung · Rating 3 out of 5]

When an idea suddenly occurs to you，you want to enrich it by more evidence support.;the birth of memetic theory is an accidental attempt to explain the mind evolution. personally I keep my mind open and pleased to stumble upon an idea that might be a parallel explanation of cultural evolution with biological evolution. There could be more than one theory that might or at least try to interpret the idea replication and transmission or the very existence of consciousness. The world is complex and open enough to embrace diverse ideas and different theories to interpret things we already know or those not. If I see the genetic evolution is biology-based，then memetic selection is mind-based that attempted to offer a perspective to penetrate into the mind evolution and try to shed some light on it. I think ideas are both dangerous and serendipitous. I'd reserve any judgement before I delve into it a little bit more. An enjoyable read anyway though I suppose the author has over-expanded her theory trying to cover every facet of this mind thing.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was worth the read. While in many ways it struggled with the burden of proof and lack of research into the field of memes, and as a result came across as a pseudo-scientific approach at debunking all sorts of current thinking, it is put together well and really walks the reader to the rather shocking conclusion.

[Peter · Rating 3 out of 5]

The theory's better than the book.

[Krocht Ehlundovič · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zaujímavý koncept teórie. Autorka, obdivovateľka darvinizmu, sa pokúsila o pekelnú jazdu, keď použila systém evolúcie na objasnenie šírenia myšlienok/nápadov - memov. Autorka v úvode predstavuje level bádania v tomto smere a sama uznáva, že je táto oblasť ešte len v proto-plienkach, keď sa "veda" snaží zadefinovať termíny a metódy - teda netvrdí, že je neomylná a že jej idea je ten najtrblietavejší diamant interpretácie a vôbec... tak to na začiatok, aby si niekto nemusel obtierať mastnú provokatívnu papuľu. Ja som k teórii pristupoval s rešpektom a bázňou, so zvedavosťou a ochotou pouvažovať nad vecou.

Autorka ide krok za krokom, definuje si termíny, potom pristupuje k procesom - ako sa memy vytvárajú v našich hlavách, ako tam rastú a naberajú na kvalitách, ako ich potom šírime - či ony sa šíria. Píše o ich kvalitách, využívajúc darvinovský princíp - víťazí ten naj mém - a tu uvažuje, čo ho robí tým "naj". Následne to prepája s kultúrou, náboženstvom a civilizáciou - i táto oblasť je super: vzbudzuje toľko otázok a myšlienok a to je fascinujúce, človek rozmýšľa a hodnotí... Ja som sa veľmi vytešoval, bolo to ako objavovať a hodnotiť novú teóriu, niečo, čo práve vzniká a človek je tomu svedkom.

Záver bol o to hermetickejší. Autorka sa dostala k idey človek-mém, vzťah a fungovanie, kde (premostím) dospela k záveru, že človek je len nástrojom memov, že vlastné vnímanie svojho "Ja" je konštrukt memov, "Ja" neexistuje vo svojej subjektívnej realite (dúfam, že som to dobre poňal :) ). A podáva aj nástroj na to, ako sa k sebe samému prepracovať. Ako vypnúť mašinu produkujúcu nové bojovné memy. Meditovať a nemyslieť (myslenie - produkovanie myšlienok, hoc akých jest tvorba memov pre nich samých... nie pre nás ako takých, ako jedincov - ľudí).

Oceňujem schopnosť a ideu vyabstrahovať koncept a esenciu ľudskej tvorby ako takej, je to zaujímavá myšlienka jednotky informácie. Že to má veľa dier a živo si viem predstaviť ako kritici po tom skáču a rozdupávajú to do zeme, no kto neskúša (a autorka sa veru snaží ísť na to ako vedkyňa!), nepochybí a aj neobjaví. Odvážny a provokačný počin.

[Konstantin · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have some fondness for Susan Blackmore - she wrote probably the best introductory text on Consciousness and we bonded about Acid dosing when she came to talk to Philsoc.

That being said, I don't think she is the most serious scholar, she tends to get quite swept away by ideas that are really not as good as she wants them to be. This time: memes.

I think there is validity to the theory. Cultural evolution is real, and some features of memetics make useful predictions. In the last few days, I've thought particularly much about how infectious certain internet knowledge has become - particularly political information, where the virtue of being informed and of spreading your opinion makes the meme nearly religious in its infectiveness. Memetics then offers a really good explanation of why we have become so politicised in the last few years.

That being said - it's also somewhat limited. Yes, the fact that the unit and method of reproduction are unclear in the case of memetics do not invalidate it as a theory - but they make it much less useful. Susan herself seems kind of unclear on both of these, and it comes out again and again. Most troubling is how far she pushes it - while yes, religions can be explained well by memetics, I am much less convinced by its explanatory power when it comes to the evolution of language, brain size, and consciousness. The book would be much better if she relaxed a lil.

It's a shame when the introduction of a book does more work than the book itself, I guess.