Far out, man

[Vlad!]

So I read this article today. As he says, this sounds like a load of crap. But what do you guys think? Are we nothing more than the sum product of our bits of knowledge that's driving around a construct created through gene combinations?

[oneafroboy]

This is where your presupositions determine how you look at the evidence, the clues, to truth--what's going on in reality.

If I were an athiest, this actually might seem plausible. (I'm not saying an athiest would be believe it, I'm just saying that there's more room for this theory in their worldview than say the worldview of a Christian.)
It's actually kind of interesting. I'm trying to think of ways to refute it, other than the Bible, or my Christian worldview, etc. I guess I would ask where do new memes come from? Are they just spontaneous mutations? Hmm... I just don't seem to understand how it could work like genes, but I don't have a logical thought to explain why that is...

From a Christian perspective, this is load of bull. I think it's pretty clear that we have control over the "ideas" in our heads, manifested as choices. And we are held accountable for our choices. Granted, sometimes we can be subconsciously following certain ideas without thinking. But I don't think these ideas are like genes that build up who we are, personality and character wise.

Interesting article, though, Vlad! It's definitely got me scratching my head and blinking really hard...    

[Vlad!]

Interesting article, though, Vlad! It's definitely got me scratching my head and blinking really hard...  

I'm glad I'm not the only one

There was an atheistic debater, Zenger or something like that, who would occasionally (in an attempt to show how 'ridiculous' the creationist's claim is), would occasionally make the claim that he was god and he created everything and put all of us here at this precise instant. We have memories because he gave them to us, and we doubt his claim because he makes us doubt. There is no real way to disprove this through logic, since his claims are metaphysical and he can just take each logical argument and twist it around to make it look like he made it to be that way in his status as god.

This meme thing is the same way, I think. People claim that we are the sum total of our memes plus our genes: the genes make up who we are physically, and the memes make up who we are mentally. We have no soul, it's just the interaction of these memes that causes us to do actions and engage in so-called human behavior.

If I were in the position of having to disprove this, here's where I would start:
1. Babies are, supposedly, born with no innate memes, since they're transmitted through language, experience, and the senses. How is it that babies can acquire, process, incorporate, and combine memes if they have none initially? There has to be something else than memes that control us.

2. If there is something other than memes (to wit, we have our own reasoning ability, interpretive facilities, and abilities to interact with others and with new ideas), what significance do they carry at all? Isn't it just a fancy way of viewing information or ideas as discrete packages rather than free-flowing? After all, we do act on our knowledge, but the knowledge doesn't control us. If that were the case, how could mood and actions be influenced by chemical imbalances in the brain?

I think meme theory is deeper and more complex than maybe I give it credit for, but I just don't see it to be compelling.

Any other thoughts?

[Vlad!]

...obviously not. Well, Mr. Adams has been kind enough to produce another column on the subject, so feel free to enjoy. Or not.

[enemy anemone]

I don't get it. apparently I don't have the meme that understands memes...or something. and I like the cogito ergo sum notion and am not convinced that it is wrong just because this guy says that someone else wrote 400-plus pages to say so.

[Vlad!]

Well, I trust Cecil Adams (the columnist) in that, if he says someone wrote something, he probably did write it. Whether that guy is right or not, well, it's open to debate. The only reason I bother to bore you with this stuff is that consciousness and the location of the soul/person really interest me.

[enemy anemone]

oh, I wasn't doubting that whoever wrote a big fat book. it just struck me as amusing that I ought to believe such and such is wrong not only because Cecil says so but because there is a 400+ page book that says so. I might doubt Cecil but there's no way I could doubt 400+ pages, especially if the book is very hard to understand. so it must be right. seems like the old 'confuse them and hit them over the head with a tome' maneuver.  

anyway, I can't say I really have much interest in the meme theory. maybe there is something to it. maybe it's all nonsense. seems like a lot of nonsense to me.  

[Vlad!]

After the (admittedly small amount of) thinking I've given it, it seems to me that memes can either be taken at face value, in which case it seems to be fairly obvious (i.e. "our experiences and memories shape who we are") or taken way too far, in which case it becomes, as the title of this thread suggests, fairly far out. This seems to be a logical extension of the party that argues we are shaped far more by our environment than by our genes.

[hannah28]

I've been thinking about this for a while now...and so far am exactly where i began.  It amazes me how people feel the need to find any possible way to make life and humans seem less then they are.  Right now I would like to know what God thinks of this.  I would think he might be a little hurt at the idea of his creation being looked at as so much less than it is, then again maybe hes laughin at us, and our crazy ideas.  On the other hand I enjoy being challenged to think, and this idea does, ill probably be wondering about this and bringing it up to friends for a weeks to come.