Holy cow...I got bloggered this week! First time ever.
Here's a video...
I'll edit this more when I get some time.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
US Economic Crisis: Is the System Broke? Broken? Or Both?
Like millions - maybe billions - of people around the world, I've been watching the news with a mix growing apprehension, disgust, anger, sadness, and concern for the past few weeks, wondering - in today's parlance - "WTF?" with each new 'emergency' that crops up in this context.
But, after watching the news this morning and listening not only to reporting on the economic issues, but also watching the stuff on the elections and other issues both national and international, a lot of things were mixing around in my head, and suddenly, I had an idea (possibly not a good one) followed immediately by another idea. I toss them out here for the hell of it; hardly anyone reads this blog, so it's likely more for posterity than anything else, but still, I may as well note them...
First Idea: $700b Bailuot..? Who should be bailed out?
When I lived in Finland during the 1990's, I was running a small, struggling company when an economic crisis shook the economy, similar in relative terms in many ways to the one hitting the US now, and it precipitated a government bailout of the banking system. Although the amount (as I recall) was 'only' around $10-$15 billion USD, for a country of 5 million people, it's pretty close to what we're looking at here in scale. Simplifying the situation, what basically happened was that the government 'gave' this money to the banks, which the banks readily accepted, however they did little with the money to help the individuals and companies which were struggling, and there were massive amounts of bankruptcies and defaults on loans. Althought the economy did manage recover after a number of years, the lives and livelihoods of many individuals were ruined, and I never felt that the end really justified the means; I always believed that more could have been done to help the "little people" and more should have, and that it would have not only speeded the recovery, it would have made it stronger.
It is, however, important to note a few things, too. The situation, while similar, has also significant differences. The economy of Finland is structured quite differently than that of the US (this was true more so then than it is now in many ways), with a strong state presence and control in many large enterprises and insitutions, and a largely socialized/subsidized welfare system (along with the expected union influence and tax burdens on individuals and corporations).
Still, an idea that occurred to me then still occurs to me now: Why not bail out the banks through bailing out the "little people"?
The idea is this: instead of giving the cash directly to the banks (in whatever form), why not give some sort of long-term loans in the form of vouchers that can ONLY be used for paying off home mortgages or business loans to the individuals and companies in trouble? This could be done on a monthly basis for as long as actually needed by the individuals and companies until they become self-sufficient or solvent again (let them make this decision voluntarily, so they choose to 'stop' recieving this support before the full amount is drawn, however - if they wish - allow them to draw as long as they decide to, but only up to the total amount of the approved debt).
If the vouchers are given in the form of long-term, low-interest, unsecured loans, the government will eventually get most or all of the money back. Yes, many will still likely default, but that is also still possible with the large entities being considered for bailout now, but the risk, and benefit, is spread out with this scheme, and I would think that many people recieving this help WOULD be more conscientious in paying it back than profit-minded corporate boards and institutionalized (pun intended) shareholders would be. It seems to make sense to me, at least on the surface. I'd be interested to know why it WOULDN'T work - if you're an expert in economics AND able to view the situation objectively (e.g. without coming at it from the point of view of some political-economic framework that you support dogmatically, I mean). Any thoughts, for or against?
Second Idea: The "System" is clearly broken. Broken things need repair - or replacement...
My reasoning goes somewhat like this: "Instead of fearing this crisis and trying to "fix" the institutions and companies that are crumbling, try "embracing" it as an opportunity to fix the systems!"
We have known for a long time that our system has serious problems. Medical and social security insurance are at or near the top of the list, but there are other issues as well, such as corporate and institutional irresponsibility and greed allowing these entities to run roughshod over both our own citizens and also around the world. This crisis is a sign that these things have been allowed to go to far for too long, and the scope and scale of the problem is more or less telling us that something needs to be done - not superficially for the short-term, but fundamentally for the long term.
For years we've been told that among the obstacles to addressing these problems seriously is that there are too many interests involved, too much money at stake, and that any tinkering could result in unexpected problems that could upset the 'balance' of things. (I wonder what 'balance' this is, but I suspect that means the profitability for the companies in trouble now, and the influence and position of the politicians that support them, but I could be wrong....right?) But now the applecart's been upended, and we're up to our ears in apples...and finding many of them rotten already. Since many of the entities involved here are behind many of the systems (and the problems) that have long needed fixing and are now more or less "broke" (in both senses), why not use the situation to begin addressing and reforming things like the insurance and medical industries and social insurance system? It seems to me that this is a unique opportunity to actually do this, and a situation where politicians - if their heart really IS in the place where they want us to believe they are - could sieze upon to do some real good for a change.
I don't have all the answers in detail, and I know it's not a 'simple' thing when you get to implementing it, but one thing IS simple and clear to me: it needs to be done, and this could be a window of opportunity to do it that may not be open again soon.
Another thing that is clear to me is that if we just patch things up by throwing money at it without really addressing the fundamental problems that cause them, we're really only mortaging our future - again - and I would like to think that our government can learn from the mistakes we've made these past 10-20 years, and that is that re-financing and multiple mortgages don't really fix problems; they just push them off to the future, where they wait for us...just bigger, fatter, and that much more tougher to deal with.
I don't know if either of these ideas are really good ones - they seem to make some sense to me though. I do wonder, however, assuming that they ARE, in fact, workable, would any politician have the political courage and personal integrity to adopt one or both?
In my view, by far the biggest problem our country faces is not the complexity of the problems or even the expense fixing them will take; those things can be dealt with. The real issue is do we, as a people, have the will to fix them, and can we force our elected representatives to DO it? Are we willing to begin DEMANDING more of our politicians in terms of competence and integrity instead of accepting less from them...'because they're only human'? It is time, I think, that we accepted the responsibility for the situation and decided to take control of it ourselves, and do it through the only means we have available to us. That also means we have to be honest with ourselves, too.
Have we the courage for that?
-------------------------------------
I should also make clear one point: I do believe free enterprise/capitalism IS an economic system that is workable, and - so far - by far the most effective one in the world. But like with any kind of 'freedom', in order to REALLY work well for the benefit of all involved, everyone who participates in it needs to do so responsibly (preferably voluntarily) with the understanding that how one behaves has an effect on the welfare AND behaviour of all others. This principle, it seems, has been forgotten (or at least winked at), in both our economic and political processes. It's time we decided to do things a bit better.
Two well-known sayings come to mind here:
1. "A people who sacrifice a little liberty for security deserves neither" (paraphrasing B. Franklin).
2. "A thing should be no more, and no less, complicated than it needs to be." (paraphrasing A. Einstein's take on Occam's Razor (my favorite tool!))
I think the meaning and continued relevance today is clear in both, and if you think about it a bit, you can easily see how they apply to our present situation. And - importantly - they are relevant and important no matter which political pole you're oriented to...and correctly understanding these principles would go a long way towards removing the polarization that largely serves only to paralyze us now.
At least, that's what I think. You're mileage, of course, may vary.
But, after watching the news this morning and listening not only to reporting on the economic issues, but also watching the stuff on the elections and other issues both national and international, a lot of things were mixing around in my head, and suddenly, I had an idea (possibly not a good one) followed immediately by another idea. I toss them out here for the hell of it; hardly anyone reads this blog, so it's likely more for posterity than anything else, but still, I may as well note them...
First Idea: $700b Bailuot..? Who should be bailed out?
When I lived in Finland during the 1990's, I was running a small, struggling company when an economic crisis shook the economy, similar in relative terms in many ways to the one hitting the US now, and it precipitated a government bailout of the banking system. Although the amount (as I recall) was 'only' around $10-$15 billion USD, for a country of 5 million people, it's pretty close to what we're looking at here in scale. Simplifying the situation, what basically happened was that the government 'gave' this money to the banks, which the banks readily accepted, however they did little with the money to help the individuals and companies which were struggling, and there were massive amounts of bankruptcies and defaults on loans. Althought the economy did manage recover after a number of years, the lives and livelihoods of many individuals were ruined, and I never felt that the end really justified the means; I always believed that more could have been done to help the "little people" and more should have, and that it would have not only speeded the recovery, it would have made it stronger.
It is, however, important to note a few things, too. The situation, while similar, has also significant differences. The economy of Finland is structured quite differently than that of the US (this was true more so then than it is now in many ways), with a strong state presence and control in many large enterprises and insitutions, and a largely socialized/subsidized welfare system (along with the expected union influence and tax burdens on individuals and corporations).
Still, an idea that occurred to me then still occurs to me now: Why not bail out the banks through bailing out the "little people"?
The idea is this: instead of giving the cash directly to the banks (in whatever form), why not give some sort of long-term loans in the form of vouchers that can ONLY be used for paying off home mortgages or business loans to the individuals and companies in trouble? This could be done on a monthly basis for as long as actually needed by the individuals and companies until they become self-sufficient or solvent again (let them make this decision voluntarily, so they choose to 'stop' recieving this support before the full amount is drawn, however - if they wish - allow them to draw as long as they decide to, but only up to the total amount of the approved debt).
If the vouchers are given in the form of long-term, low-interest, unsecured loans, the government will eventually get most or all of the money back. Yes, many will still likely default, but that is also still possible with the large entities being considered for bailout now, but the risk, and benefit, is spread out with this scheme, and I would think that many people recieving this help WOULD be more conscientious in paying it back than profit-minded corporate boards and institutionalized (pun intended) shareholders would be. It seems to make sense to me, at least on the surface. I'd be interested to know why it WOULDN'T work - if you're an expert in economics AND able to view the situation objectively (e.g. without coming at it from the point of view of some political-economic framework that you support dogmatically, I mean). Any thoughts, for or against?
Second Idea: The "System" is clearly broken. Broken things need repair - or replacement...
My reasoning goes somewhat like this: "Instead of fearing this crisis and trying to "fix" the institutions and companies that are crumbling, try "embracing" it as an opportunity to fix the systems!"
We have known for a long time that our system has serious problems. Medical and social security insurance are at or near the top of the list, but there are other issues as well, such as corporate and institutional irresponsibility and greed allowing these entities to run roughshod over both our own citizens and also around the world. This crisis is a sign that these things have been allowed to go to far for too long, and the scope and scale of the problem is more or less telling us that something needs to be done - not superficially for the short-term, but fundamentally for the long term.
For years we've been told that among the obstacles to addressing these problems seriously is that there are too many interests involved, too much money at stake, and that any tinkering could result in unexpected problems that could upset the 'balance' of things. (I wonder what 'balance' this is, but I suspect that means the profitability for the companies in trouble now, and the influence and position of the politicians that support them, but I could be wrong....right?) But now the applecart's been upended, and we're up to our ears in apples...and finding many of them rotten already. Since many of the entities involved here are behind many of the systems (and the problems) that have long needed fixing and are now more or less "broke" (in both senses), why not use the situation to begin addressing and reforming things like the insurance and medical industries and social insurance system? It seems to me that this is a unique opportunity to actually do this, and a situation where politicians - if their heart really IS in the place where they want us to believe they are - could sieze upon to do some real good for a change.
I don't have all the answers in detail, and I know it's not a 'simple' thing when you get to implementing it, but one thing IS simple and clear to me: it needs to be done, and this could be a window of opportunity to do it that may not be open again soon.
Another thing that is clear to me is that if we just patch things up by throwing money at it without really addressing the fundamental problems that cause them, we're really only mortaging our future - again - and I would like to think that our government can learn from the mistakes we've made these past 10-20 years, and that is that re-financing and multiple mortgages don't really fix problems; they just push them off to the future, where they wait for us...just bigger, fatter, and that much more tougher to deal with.
I don't know if either of these ideas are really good ones - they seem to make some sense to me though. I do wonder, however, assuming that they ARE, in fact, workable, would any politician have the political courage and personal integrity to adopt one or both?
In my view, by far the biggest problem our country faces is not the complexity of the problems or even the expense fixing them will take; those things can be dealt with. The real issue is do we, as a people, have the will to fix them, and can we force our elected representatives to DO it? Are we willing to begin DEMANDING more of our politicians in terms of competence and integrity instead of accepting less from them...'because they're only human'? It is time, I think, that we accepted the responsibility for the situation and decided to take control of it ourselves, and do it through the only means we have available to us. That also means we have to be honest with ourselves, too.
Have we the courage for that?
-------------------------------------
I should also make clear one point: I do believe free enterprise/capitalism IS an economic system that is workable, and - so far - by far the most effective one in the world. But like with any kind of 'freedom', in order to REALLY work well for the benefit of all involved, everyone who participates in it needs to do so responsibly (preferably voluntarily) with the understanding that how one behaves has an effect on the welfare AND behaviour of all others. This principle, it seems, has been forgotten (or at least winked at), in both our economic and political processes. It's time we decided to do things a bit better.
Two well-known sayings come to mind here:
1. "A people who sacrifice a little liberty for security deserves neither" (paraphrasing B. Franklin).
2. "A thing should be no more, and no less, complicated than it needs to be." (paraphrasing A. Einstein's take on Occam's Razor (my favorite tool!))
I think the meaning and continued relevance today is clear in both, and if you think about it a bit, you can easily see how they apply to our present situation. And - importantly - they are relevant and important no matter which political pole you're oriented to...and correctly understanding these principles would go a long way towards removing the polarization that largely serves only to paralyze us now.
At least, that's what I think. You're mileage, of course, may vary.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
NOTES ON MEMES
Below are some notes on memes and memetics that are the result of recent personal exploration of the subject. I believe that although the concept of memetics is very important as currently understood, I think that perhaps it has been looked at too 'narrowly' in some senses, and perhaps 'not quite right' in others. I take the idea of memes a lot further, I think, than most currently do, and I think this approach also makes things in other domains (related and unrelated) much simpler to understand, and affords an avenue to a better understanding of human cognition, while possibly also providing a roadmap (or at least some directional signs) for the path to the creation of more powerful data/information architectures and - possibly - artificial intelligence.
These notes are presented in no particular order (for now) - they are just 'notes' - notes to myself to help aid my own thinking about this topic, and do not reflect a "final" or "complete" expression of the ideas I am considering here. I share them in hopes of getting constructive feedback - and criticism - of the ideas expressed here.
[Please also note: any positive statements or "assertions" I make are either my opinion or the result of my reasoning on the subject; I admit ahead of time I could be wrong and hope for reasoned argument explaining why I am (or could be) wrong. My goal is to understand the issues under consideration here, not to promote the idea as some agenda. That said, it does make sense to me, and you can expect me to defend it until I can be convinced what I am saying is unreasonable. ;o) ]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TENTATIVE DEFINITION: mind (n.) - an entity or system capable of perceiving, creating, manipulating, transmitting, and being effected and influenced by memes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Memes require the presence of 'mind' and are patterns that are created and encoded within a functioning brain.
Much as genes require the presence of molecules/amino acids as a base, or substrate, for the expression, preservation, and transmission of the genetic pattern, a "meme" requires a mind - or more specifically, a functioning brain upon (or within) which the memetic pattern can be imprinted. The reason for this is that memes require a structure (or entity) that can receive the memetic in the form of some perceptual input, process it, store it, and transmit (or express) it via some form of output. Without these capabilities, no meme can replicate. In addition, a meme requires a mind for its very creation; memes do not 'exist' without a mind, but rather come into existence with a mind that is capable of perceiving patterns, and it is only within brains that memes can be said to be 'active'. The physical object of perception is NOT a "meme"; rather, in the case of the initial perception of some entity, the pattern perceived causes a memetic pattern to be created via the brain's cognitive processes. In the case of an object that is a "storage vessel" that contains a memetic pattern, the memetic pattern is taken in with the perception of the physical object. As a child's mind begins to develop, much of what is going on is the creation, initial imprinting, and organization of memetic patterns within the child's brain. In essence, memes provide the mechanisms AND environment through and in which we learn and think.
2. Memes use both physical means and other memes to get transmitted between minds.
Be it via language, manufacture of some object, or some combination of these or other means, all memes need some physical means to be transmitted, perceived, and taken up by other minds. The invention of language, itself a meme, created a ready-made vehicle for other memes to be more readily and efficiently expressed and shared between entities and made it possible for them to more rapidly expand and evolve. Although memes exist in the minds of ALL entities which have a brain, their complexity and abilities to replicate are directly limited by the entities abilities to express or transmit the memetic package. Further, the degree of variability (or ability to mutate) is further affected by the methods of transmission. Imitation and mimicry (modes of expression and transmission that rely mainly on behavior for expression and observation for perception), for example, offer very limited possibilities for transmission, replication, and evolution, while spoken and written language greatly enhances these processes.
3. Memes can be ideas, concepts, behavioral patterns, or representations of physical entities.
In one sense, (some) memes, or at least generalized variants of some memes, could be seen as similar to Plato's 'Forms' and could relate to what Heidegger is striving for in his ideas of "modes of being". Their expressions could be in many forms, and some can consist of numerous related expressive forms. Memes can utilize other memes for their expression and transmission (e.g. as religion uses writing, behavior (tradition/ritual), and social structures (congregations, etc.) to perpetuate itself; songs can be recorded on cd's, paper representations (muscial notation, lyrics, etc.). Memetic patterns can represent things that actually "exist" in their own right, things that could exist if we undertook to facilitate their actualization, and things that cannot possibly exist (be actualized/realized in reality according to known laws of physics).
4. Memes can be simple or complex (combinations of memes).
A "meme" is rarely "naked", or "fundamental" in that it can be expressed as and represents a single "most basic" memetic pattern. In fact, if such are possible, I suspect that such "naked" memes are so fundamental and "abstract" that we would not recognize them nor even have a means to perceive, let alone understand them, given that we ourselves must utilize memes to "think" and they would form the substrate in which we think. That said, it could be possible that we could generally describe some such, however that will require a bit more pondering for me to do it. I bring this up in order to mainly "put it out there" so that it can be kept in mind while we consider memes in other ways. Most often, memes will be combined with other memes in some form. While we can, if we choose, elect to deconstruct a given memetic package into memetic subcomponents (at least to some degree), we will find that such an exercise can often result in a 'fractal-like' structure…with one exception - there is, ultimately, a "bottom" (hence, only fractal-like, and not fractal.), however it's unlikely we'd be able to access that level directly. Memes, in fact, can be extremely complex, and should be looked at from varying degrees of granularity and from different perspectives in order to understand them. Memetic structures are likely "layered" in a sense, with memes able to subsume, and be subsumed by, other memes, and also possibly "intersect" with each other in different ways at different levels.
5. Memes are replicators that are dependent upon expression and transmission to replicate and evolve.
Memes are highly subject to 'mutation' due to imperfections in expression, transmission, and uptake, however that are also highly 'mutation tolerant' - most mutations can survive with significant variations in expression, transmission, and uptake (the simpler the meme, the more unlikely it is that any errors manifested in expression, transmission, and uptake would be "fatal", rendering the meme useless or unworthy of replication. Higher degrees of complexity, on the other hand, would tend to make them (and/or variants of them) 'easier' to spread if 'fit'. I further suspect that the organizational/structural level at which an error is manifested would also have a greater effect on its survival (or selection) fitness than more 'superficial' errors, however it is also possible that the more superficial layers could provide sort of a 'protective wrapping' to some degree, protecting the lower levels from severe mutations (or errors). In any case, a memes are dependent upon 'mind' for their very existence, and upon the processes mentioned above for their survival and evolution. Memes are emergent entities/structures that arise "automatically" with the actualization of a "mind", and do not exist in any meaningful sense in the absence of a mind. That said, memetic patterns can persist outside of mind, and can be re-activated when the vessel containing the memetic pattern is perceived by another mind (example: life on earth is sterilized by some nearby star going supernova, however we leave behind physical objects such as books and computers and the like in more or less undamaged form. After thousands of years, some entity from somewhere stumbles across our artifacts and contemplates them. He sees a book, and deciphers our language….you get the idea! )
6. Memes are highly subject to mutation and memes can evolve quickly, however some meme-variants may prove to be stable or at least mutation-resistant to some degree.
A "meme-variant" is a "variation on a meme" or a "mutated" meme that retains the main/most important qualities of the original meme (or memeplex), but may differ in certain expressive forms or in other, mostly superficial, details. Memes are subject to many conditions and processes that can alter them. They can be poorly, incorrectly, or incompletely, expressed, for one example, with similar problems able to crop up during perception, uptake, and imprinting by another mind. Damage can be done to the vehicles or containers via which they are being transmitted between minds (static in a radio transmission, signs can be defaced, etc.) for another example. These things and others can have effect on the integrity, completeness, and consistency of a given memetic pattern, thereby introducing change in the pattern. Memetic patterns already present in a mind that takes in a similar memetic pattern can have some parts of the meme 'reinforced' in the mind, while weaker parts can be altered. Note also that it will be harder to change 'lower' levels of a memetic entity than the superficial ones for much this reason (the 'inner' or lower levels of a given memetic pattern or memeplex would likely have been reinforced many times and are less 'exposed' to processes that can induce change, and hence be stronger and more resistant to change. On the other hand, the more superficial parts of newer meme-sets will likely not have been reinforced so many times and are also more 'exposed' to change-inducing effects. (This can perhaps help explain why we are so resistant to some types of change and more ready to embrace others. (addendum - could this effect (and using this approach) also help explain why some types of brain injury or illness produce the symptoms they do - and from there, give hints as to how the brain organizes and deals with information - and also help support (or refute) this mode of thinking?)
7. Memes are adaptive
Being entities or structures that survive and evolve over time, then they must be able to adapt, and memes appear able to adapt to a wide variety of conditions in different ways. One way in which they demonstrate "adaptability" is their ability to be successfully replicated and transmitted via a variety of mechanisms and processes. This is more clear when you appreciate that at each step of the process from creation of a meme in a mind to its apprehension in another mind, copies - unique individual expressions - of the meme are created; the meme "itself" does not 'travel' from one person to another, but rather individual new expressions of the memetic pattern are created and transmitted. Since the means and vehicles can vary, and different things can affect how completely or correctly a given memetic pattern is transcribed and transmitted at each step, memes must by highly adaptive and 'fault tolerant' in order to arrive generally intact and be imprinted within a new brain.
Various fitness criteria, such as appeal (to the entities involved, e.g. utility, beauty, etc.), have a significant effect on their replication and evolution. Memes, especially more complex ones, evolve much the same way as biological organisms, however with many more diverse fitness selectors at work. Further, given the way memes appear to be constructed (from other memes), sometimes certain memes can use the positive selection qualities of other memes to enhance their own survival, in a sense hijacking or piggy-backing on them, even if 'their own' qualities could be negative in terms of benefit to the hosts.
8. Meme-bases are memes and meme-variants with, upon, or around which more complex memes are made.
A "handle" or a "wheel" can be examples of memes that are meme-bases. They are normally minimally/generally (but still very strictly and clearly) defined, however their variants are wide-spread and still recognizable for what they are and do. They could be said to be extremely adaptable and highly subject to mutation, but also extremely fit, with their fitness tied inextricably to some deep appeal or utility to the host organisms that remains more or less constant despite changes in the social or physical environment. Some examples could be "spear-points" which have found use in nearly every human society, or "music", a meme which has appealed to humans since pre-historic times, and has demonstrated an ability to utilize a wide variety of mechanisms for its survival and transmission.
9. Memes can be parasitic and can affect how a host mind thinks and behaves in ways that serve to assist the meme in surviving and spreading.
These are likely normally complex memes that use positive selectors to enhance their survival, however they may or may not be generally beneficial to their hosts individually or collectively. Naturally, in order to become widespread, they need to support a large population of hosts, however they can be 'aggressive' in a sense in that they can cause aggression in hosts that to do have that particular "memotype" imprinted, or have a similar, but competing one imprinted. Conflicts between people on the basis of religion, politics, or other seemingly superficial basis in the absence of a direct need based on mainly genetic-based needs (such as territory, resources, etc.) could be examples of this. (note: in biological entities, genetic and memetic "imperatives" likely interact in interesting, and likely conflicting ways, and could help explain why humans exhibit behavior that cannot be well-explained in terms of biological-genetic survival or otherwise appear to not make sense. It would be interesting to note how an electronic entity, devoid of genetic and biochemical drives would behave based solely on memetic influences (or others that could emerge in or with such a mind), or to examine the behaviour of "lower" animals in terms of the memes and memetic processes they are able to deal with relative to their brain structures and sizes).
10. Memes can incorporate host entities as part of their structure, with different host entities contributing (to) 'parts' of a greater superstructure (e.g. social entities/structures).
11. Memes can be expressed in different ways and forms.
For example, memes may be expressed through behavior (e.g. social and economic activity), physically (e.g. "unicorns" can be considered a meme, and they can be expressed via writing or drawing). Memes can use other memes to get themselves expressed and transmitted (writing/language is a powerful example of this, involving behavioral and more 'physical' types of memes and media . (behavior is also a 'physical' expression, however as it mainly involves human action (us doing something) that doesn't always result in a persistent external 'thing' being made, it can be non-obvious to most)).
12. Physical expressions of memes are not the memes themselves, but representations of the memetic patterns.
Strictly speaking, the actual meme is the memetic pattern which defines it, apart from the physical mode of its expression (defining this clearly is a bit dicey for me, however the concept is clear in my mind - it's expressing that's the issue). In my view, the only expression where a meme can be considered as "real" or "operative" is neural structure in a brain upon which it is imprinted, and even this is not 'written in stone', but is subject to change and evolution over time. Other physical expressions are subject to "error" or variation (mutation) in expression, transmission, and perception when taken up by another mind, and is further subject to change based on the nature/qualities of the memetic structures already existing in the mind taking up the meme in question. Memes are not 'active' or 'operant' until/unless its pattern is taken up into and can become effectual within a mind. A memetic expression is sort of like the 'container' or 'vehicle' used by the meme for transmission/uptake between minds.
13. Memes are structures minds use to interact with and 'understand' the world.
They help create, reinforce, and/or define the various types of structures, or context (local/global, etc.), within our minds needed for this interaction and understanding. Everything we see or perceive is represented to us in our minds as a meme or in terms of memes. Although "transparent" to us (because of the memetic substrate upon which we think), memes represent the 'objects' or 'entities' we perceive in the world in a way in which we can think about or understand them. In a sense, reality 'for us' is composed of memes, not the actual entities they represent. Memes are as 'perfect' or 'complete' as our understanding is about them. It is via memes that 'we' (as a species) can obtain, share, and retain information about the world.
14. Memes are NOT metaphysical - they require some form of physical substrate to exist.
Even though it's been stated that memes are not the physical expressions (except perhaps the memetic patterns imprinted in a brain), they are dependent upon physical reality for their existence, whether as neural patterns within a brain or some 'container' used for expression and transmission to/between minds, be it in the form of a type of behavior or some physical object. Absent of brains or the physical expressions containing an imprinted memetic pattern caused by entities with brains, there are no memes or memetic patterns. This point must be better explained, reinforced, and understood lest it become the basis for some form of 'memetic spirituality', which would be, I feel, a serious and dangerous impediment to a deeper, fuller, and more accurate understanding of the subject - and how we go about "using" it to understand ourselves and our world.
15. Memes can be of different types in several senses.
Memes can be simple or complex. Memes can represent things from "real" entities that are/have been actualized in reality to fictional entities and ideas that cannot possibly be actualized, and anything we can 'think of' in between. Classification of memes and memetic structures is a job unto itself, however it's clear that there must be different types and categories of memes. Due to the way memes can combine, however, this can be a difficult task, and I suspect will lend itself to only generalized descriptions and categories. This is something I won't tackle too much in detail here, but make (another) note of it here for future consideration.
16. All memes replicate.
Even if to very limited and/or simple degrees, or in non-obvious contexts; the fact that two entities can communicate with each other effectively demonstrates this. Every time a meme is expressed or an object with a memetic pattern imprinted on it is copied, it is replicated, more or less accurately. A popular CD bring printed and sold by the millions is a form of replication. A recording on a CD being played over a PA system heard by many people at once is another (in the form of the sound waves emitted and heard by the audience). A piece of gossip heard and passed on is another example, as is some action that is watched and mimicked by another (the transmission forms being the action of the first actor and the pattern of light waves that bring the image of this action to the watcher). Each step in every mode of transmission causes another copy of the meme to be reproduced, with varying degrees of accuracy. Memes do not 'move' - only copies of memetic patterns expressed in different forms are created and imprinted at subsequent steps in the transmission process.
COMMENTS
- an understanding of memes is useful in communicating with entities between which there are no common languages; e.g. some memes may be more or less 'universal' or at least common among certain phenotypes. This, I believe, is demonstrated in our abilities to communicate with certain animals, with the ease or difficulty related directly to the complexity of the memes that the entities are able to mutually comprehend or deal with, e.g. the differences in the types (and complexity) of the memes that are 'relevant' to them.
MEMETIC STUCTURES
Memes likely exist in, take on, or can be categorized by various structures. I suspect this in part hierarchical, and with both "horizontal" and "vertical" hierarchies (or categories) created.
Memes can subsume and be subsumed by other memes of lesser or greater complexity and 'size', however there are probably also "rules" which would govern this (the simplest type being that poorly integrated structures would not be very 'fit' as a whole, and hence "die off". This would imply a structure with various "levels", with simpler or more fundamental memes being at or near the center, and more complex structures (even composed of other, simpler memes linked in various ways) being layered over them (perhaps even with some 'parts' (or memes) sharing some common parts). I am not sure if the analogous structure to use here for illustration should be an onion, a ball of twine, a bowl of spaghetti, or even a rainbow - but since we're combining memes, and they lend themselves to it, why not combine all four? I bet we'd be closer with that than any other single description.
Or completely off base. Someone smarter than me will have an answer, I'm sure.
I used a number of terms in the text above - I'll clarify here what I mean by them:
meme - the conceptual entity defined by a memetic pattern - this is NOT identical to a thing a meme may represent (e.g. a family or a given song), but more the conceptualized version of such a thing. Memes are "how we think" - they constitute the patterns in our brains that give rise to mind and thought.
memetic pattern - the pattern itself that gets encoded in a brain, in a vehicle (an action, a book, a grouping of people for some purpose, etc.), or in a transmission medium (e.g. the light reflected from a page in a book to the retina of one's eye and the neural signal transmitted from the retina to the brain).
meme-variant - a variation of a meme that is close, but sufficiently different from an 'original' meme so that it can be perceived as a different meme. Normally it would differ mainly in superficial ways (e.g. the Episcopal Church would be a meme-variant of the Catholic Church) and retain many or most of the qualities of the ancestor meme.
memeplex - a complex meme (or memetic structure) that subsumes other memes. Most memes are also memeplexes, being strictly specific, however for effective usage, I would re-define the term generally as a collection of memes used to define/create a larger meme. A religion could be a "memeplex", for example. Or a science or an art. Essentially, it is a relative term indicating a meme that subsumes or consists of other 'memetic components'.
meme-base - meme-bases are "stable" (highly fit/adaptive) memes and meme-variants with, upon, or around which more complex memes are made.
memetic component - a meme (or set of memes) that is a part of (subsumed by) a memeplex.
vessel/vehicle - a physical expression upon which a memetic pattern is imprinted for transmission between minds.
memetic replication cycle - the process through which a meme goes from creation/imprinting of the memetic pattern in one mind through its expression, transmission, perception, and imprinting in another mind.
These notes are presented in no particular order (for now) - they are just 'notes' - notes to myself to help aid my own thinking about this topic, and do not reflect a "final" or "complete" expression of the ideas I am considering here. I share them in hopes of getting constructive feedback - and criticism - of the ideas expressed here.
[Please also note: any positive statements or "assertions" I make are either my opinion or the result of my reasoning on the subject; I admit ahead of time I could be wrong and hope for reasoned argument explaining why I am (or could be) wrong. My goal is to understand the issues under consideration here, not to promote the idea as some agenda. That said, it does make sense to me, and you can expect me to defend it until I can be convinced what I am saying is unreasonable. ;o) ]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TENTATIVE DEFINITION: mind (n.) - an entity or system capable of perceiving, creating, manipulating, transmitting, and being effected and influenced by memes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Memes require the presence of 'mind' and are patterns that are created and encoded within a functioning brain.
Much as genes require the presence of molecules/amino acids as a base, or substrate, for the expression, preservation, and transmission of the genetic pattern, a "meme" requires a mind - or more specifically, a functioning brain upon (or within) which the memetic pattern can be imprinted. The reason for this is that memes require a structure (or entity) that can receive the memetic in the form of some perceptual input, process it, store it, and transmit (or express) it via some form of output. Without these capabilities, no meme can replicate. In addition, a meme requires a mind for its very creation; memes do not 'exist' without a mind, but rather come into existence with a mind that is capable of perceiving patterns, and it is only within brains that memes can be said to be 'active'. The physical object of perception is NOT a "meme"; rather, in the case of the initial perception of some entity, the pattern perceived causes a memetic pattern to be created via the brain's cognitive processes. In the case of an object that is a "storage vessel" that contains a memetic pattern, the memetic pattern is taken in with the perception of the physical object. As a child's mind begins to develop, much of what is going on is the creation, initial imprinting, and organization of memetic patterns within the child's brain. In essence, memes provide the mechanisms AND environment through and in which we learn and think.
2. Memes use both physical means and other memes to get transmitted between minds.
Be it via language, manufacture of some object, or some combination of these or other means, all memes need some physical means to be transmitted, perceived, and taken up by other minds. The invention of language, itself a meme, created a ready-made vehicle for other memes to be more readily and efficiently expressed and shared between entities and made it possible for them to more rapidly expand and evolve. Although memes exist in the minds of ALL entities which have a brain, their complexity and abilities to replicate are directly limited by the entities abilities to express or transmit the memetic package. Further, the degree of variability (or ability to mutate) is further affected by the methods of transmission. Imitation and mimicry (modes of expression and transmission that rely mainly on behavior for expression and observation for perception), for example, offer very limited possibilities for transmission, replication, and evolution, while spoken and written language greatly enhances these processes.
3. Memes can be ideas, concepts, behavioral patterns, or representations of physical entities.
In one sense, (some) memes, or at least generalized variants of some memes, could be seen as similar to Plato's 'Forms' and could relate to what Heidegger is striving for in his ideas of "modes of being". Their expressions could be in many forms, and some can consist of numerous related expressive forms. Memes can utilize other memes for their expression and transmission (e.g. as religion uses writing, behavior (tradition/ritual), and social structures (congregations, etc.) to perpetuate itself; songs can be recorded on cd's, paper representations (muscial notation, lyrics, etc.). Memetic patterns can represent things that actually "exist" in their own right, things that could exist if we undertook to facilitate their actualization, and things that cannot possibly exist (be actualized/realized in reality according to known laws of physics).
4. Memes can be simple or complex (combinations of memes).
A "meme" is rarely "naked", or "fundamental" in that it can be expressed as and represents a single "most basic" memetic pattern. In fact, if such are possible, I suspect that such "naked" memes are so fundamental and "abstract" that we would not recognize them nor even have a means to perceive, let alone understand them, given that we ourselves must utilize memes to "think" and they would form the substrate in which we think. That said, it could be possible that we could generally describe some such, however that will require a bit more pondering for me to do it. I bring this up in order to mainly "put it out there" so that it can be kept in mind while we consider memes in other ways. Most often, memes will be combined with other memes in some form. While we can, if we choose, elect to deconstruct a given memetic package into memetic subcomponents (at least to some degree), we will find that such an exercise can often result in a 'fractal-like' structure…with one exception - there is, ultimately, a "bottom" (hence, only fractal-like, and not fractal.), however it's unlikely we'd be able to access that level directly. Memes, in fact, can be extremely complex, and should be looked at from varying degrees of granularity and from different perspectives in order to understand them. Memetic structures are likely "layered" in a sense, with memes able to subsume, and be subsumed by, other memes, and also possibly "intersect" with each other in different ways at different levels.
5. Memes are replicators that are dependent upon expression and transmission to replicate and evolve.
Memes are highly subject to 'mutation' due to imperfections in expression, transmission, and uptake, however that are also highly 'mutation tolerant' - most mutations can survive with significant variations in expression, transmission, and uptake (the simpler the meme, the more unlikely it is that any errors manifested in expression, transmission, and uptake would be "fatal", rendering the meme useless or unworthy of replication. Higher degrees of complexity, on the other hand, would tend to make them (and/or variants of them) 'easier' to spread if 'fit'. I further suspect that the organizational/structural level at which an error is manifested would also have a greater effect on its survival (or selection) fitness than more 'superficial' errors, however it is also possible that the more superficial layers could provide sort of a 'protective wrapping' to some degree, protecting the lower levels from severe mutations (or errors). In any case, a memes are dependent upon 'mind' for their very existence, and upon the processes mentioned above for their survival and evolution. Memes are emergent entities/structures that arise "automatically" with the actualization of a "mind", and do not exist in any meaningful sense in the absence of a mind. That said, memetic patterns can persist outside of mind, and can be re-activated when the vessel containing the memetic pattern is perceived by another mind (example: life on earth is sterilized by some nearby star going supernova, however we leave behind physical objects such as books and computers and the like in more or less undamaged form. After thousands of years, some entity from somewhere stumbles across our artifacts and contemplates them. He sees a book, and deciphers our language….you get the idea! )
6. Memes are highly subject to mutation and memes can evolve quickly, however some meme-variants may prove to be stable or at least mutation-resistant to some degree.
A "meme-variant" is a "variation on a meme" or a "mutated" meme that retains the main/most important qualities of the original meme (or memeplex), but may differ in certain expressive forms or in other, mostly superficial, details. Memes are subject to many conditions and processes that can alter them. They can be poorly, incorrectly, or incompletely, expressed, for one example, with similar problems able to crop up during perception, uptake, and imprinting by another mind. Damage can be done to the vehicles or containers via which they are being transmitted between minds (static in a radio transmission, signs can be defaced, etc.) for another example. These things and others can have effect on the integrity, completeness, and consistency of a given memetic pattern, thereby introducing change in the pattern. Memetic patterns already present in a mind that takes in a similar memetic pattern can have some parts of the meme 'reinforced' in the mind, while weaker parts can be altered. Note also that it will be harder to change 'lower' levels of a memetic entity than the superficial ones for much this reason (the 'inner' or lower levels of a given memetic pattern or memeplex would likely have been reinforced many times and are less 'exposed' to processes that can induce change, and hence be stronger and more resistant to change. On the other hand, the more superficial parts of newer meme-sets will likely not have been reinforced so many times and are also more 'exposed' to change-inducing effects. (This can perhaps help explain why we are so resistant to some types of change and more ready to embrace others. (addendum - could this effect (and using this approach) also help explain why some types of brain injury or illness produce the symptoms they do - and from there, give hints as to how the brain organizes and deals with information - and also help support (or refute) this mode of thinking?)
7. Memes are adaptive
Being entities or structures that survive and evolve over time, then they must be able to adapt, and memes appear able to adapt to a wide variety of conditions in different ways. One way in which they demonstrate "adaptability" is their ability to be successfully replicated and transmitted via a variety of mechanisms and processes. This is more clear when you appreciate that at each step of the process from creation of a meme in a mind to its apprehension in another mind, copies - unique individual expressions - of the meme are created; the meme "itself" does not 'travel' from one person to another, but rather individual new expressions of the memetic pattern are created and transmitted. Since the means and vehicles can vary, and different things can affect how completely or correctly a given memetic pattern is transcribed and transmitted at each step, memes must by highly adaptive and 'fault tolerant' in order to arrive generally intact and be imprinted within a new brain.
Various fitness criteria, such as appeal (to the entities involved, e.g. utility, beauty, etc.), have a significant effect on their replication and evolution. Memes, especially more complex ones, evolve much the same way as biological organisms, however with many more diverse fitness selectors at work. Further, given the way memes appear to be constructed (from other memes), sometimes certain memes can use the positive selection qualities of other memes to enhance their own survival, in a sense hijacking or piggy-backing on them, even if 'their own' qualities could be negative in terms of benefit to the hosts.
8. Meme-bases are memes and meme-variants with, upon, or around which more complex memes are made.
A "handle" or a "wheel" can be examples of memes that are meme-bases. They are normally minimally/generally (but still very strictly and clearly) defined, however their variants are wide-spread and still recognizable for what they are and do. They could be said to be extremely adaptable and highly subject to mutation, but also extremely fit, with their fitness tied inextricably to some deep appeal or utility to the host organisms that remains more or less constant despite changes in the social or physical environment. Some examples could be "spear-points" which have found use in nearly every human society, or "music", a meme which has appealed to humans since pre-historic times, and has demonstrated an ability to utilize a wide variety of mechanisms for its survival and transmission.
9. Memes can be parasitic and can affect how a host mind thinks and behaves in ways that serve to assist the meme in surviving and spreading.
These are likely normally complex memes that use positive selectors to enhance their survival, however they may or may not be generally beneficial to their hosts individually or collectively. Naturally, in order to become widespread, they need to support a large population of hosts, however they can be 'aggressive' in a sense in that they can cause aggression in hosts that to do have that particular "memotype" imprinted, or have a similar, but competing one imprinted. Conflicts between people on the basis of religion, politics, or other seemingly superficial basis in the absence of a direct need based on mainly genetic-based needs (such as territory, resources, etc.) could be examples of this. (note: in biological entities, genetic and memetic "imperatives" likely interact in interesting, and likely conflicting ways, and could help explain why humans exhibit behavior that cannot be well-explained in terms of biological-genetic survival or otherwise appear to not make sense. It would be interesting to note how an electronic entity, devoid of genetic and biochemical drives would behave based solely on memetic influences (or others that could emerge in or with such a mind), or to examine the behaviour of "lower" animals in terms of the memes and memetic processes they are able to deal with relative to their brain structures and sizes).
10. Memes can incorporate host entities as part of their structure, with different host entities contributing (to) 'parts' of a greater superstructure (e.g. social entities/structures).
11. Memes can be expressed in different ways and forms.
For example, memes may be expressed through behavior (e.g. social and economic activity), physically (e.g. "unicorns" can be considered a meme, and they can be expressed via writing or drawing). Memes can use other memes to get themselves expressed and transmitted (writing/language is a powerful example of this, involving behavioral and more 'physical' types of memes and media . (behavior is also a 'physical' expression, however as it mainly involves human action (us doing something) that doesn't always result in a persistent external 'thing' being made, it can be non-obvious to most)).
12. Physical expressions of memes are not the memes themselves, but representations of the memetic patterns.
Strictly speaking, the actual meme is the memetic pattern which defines it, apart from the physical mode of its expression (defining this clearly is a bit dicey for me, however the concept is clear in my mind - it's expressing that's the issue). In my view, the only expression where a meme can be considered as "real" or "operative" is neural structure in a brain upon which it is imprinted, and even this is not 'written in stone', but is subject to change and evolution over time. Other physical expressions are subject to "error" or variation (mutation) in expression, transmission, and perception when taken up by another mind, and is further subject to change based on the nature/qualities of the memetic structures already existing in the mind taking up the meme in question. Memes are not 'active' or 'operant' until/unless its pattern is taken up into and can become effectual within a mind. A memetic expression is sort of like the 'container' or 'vehicle' used by the meme for transmission/uptake between minds.
13. Memes are structures minds use to interact with and 'understand' the world.
They help create, reinforce, and/or define the various types of structures, or context (local/global, etc.), within our minds needed for this interaction and understanding. Everything we see or perceive is represented to us in our minds as a meme or in terms of memes. Although "transparent" to us (because of the memetic substrate upon which we think), memes represent the 'objects' or 'entities' we perceive in the world in a way in which we can think about or understand them. In a sense, reality 'for us' is composed of memes, not the actual entities they represent. Memes are as 'perfect' or 'complete' as our understanding is about them. It is via memes that 'we' (as a species) can obtain, share, and retain information about the world.
14. Memes are NOT metaphysical - they require some form of physical substrate to exist.
Even though it's been stated that memes are not the physical expressions (except perhaps the memetic patterns imprinted in a brain), they are dependent upon physical reality for their existence, whether as neural patterns within a brain or some 'container' used for expression and transmission to/between minds, be it in the form of a type of behavior or some physical object. Absent of brains or the physical expressions containing an imprinted memetic pattern caused by entities with brains, there are no memes or memetic patterns. This point must be better explained, reinforced, and understood lest it become the basis for some form of 'memetic spirituality', which would be, I feel, a serious and dangerous impediment to a deeper, fuller, and more accurate understanding of the subject - and how we go about "using" it to understand ourselves and our world.
15. Memes can be of different types in several senses.
Memes can be simple or complex. Memes can represent things from "real" entities that are/have been actualized in reality to fictional entities and ideas that cannot possibly be actualized, and anything we can 'think of' in between. Classification of memes and memetic structures is a job unto itself, however it's clear that there must be different types and categories of memes. Due to the way memes can combine, however, this can be a difficult task, and I suspect will lend itself to only generalized descriptions and categories. This is something I won't tackle too much in detail here, but make (another) note of it here for future consideration.
16. All memes replicate.
Even if to very limited and/or simple degrees, or in non-obvious contexts; the fact that two entities can communicate with each other effectively demonstrates this. Every time a meme is expressed or an object with a memetic pattern imprinted on it is copied, it is replicated, more or less accurately. A popular CD bring printed and sold by the millions is a form of replication. A recording on a CD being played over a PA system heard by many people at once is another (in the form of the sound waves emitted and heard by the audience). A piece of gossip heard and passed on is another example, as is some action that is watched and mimicked by another (the transmission forms being the action of the first actor and the pattern of light waves that bring the image of this action to the watcher). Each step in every mode of transmission causes another copy of the meme to be reproduced, with varying degrees of accuracy. Memes do not 'move' - only copies of memetic patterns expressed in different forms are created and imprinted at subsequent steps in the transmission process.
COMMENTS
- an understanding of memes is useful in communicating with entities between which there are no common languages; e.g. some memes may be more or less 'universal' or at least common among certain phenotypes. This, I believe, is demonstrated in our abilities to communicate with certain animals, with the ease or difficulty related directly to the complexity of the memes that the entities are able to mutually comprehend or deal with, e.g. the differences in the types (and complexity) of the memes that are 'relevant' to them.
MEMETIC STUCTURES
Memes likely exist in, take on, or can be categorized by various structures. I suspect this in part hierarchical, and with both "horizontal" and "vertical" hierarchies (or categories) created.
Memes can subsume and be subsumed by other memes of lesser or greater complexity and 'size', however there are probably also "rules" which would govern this (the simplest type being that poorly integrated structures would not be very 'fit' as a whole, and hence "die off". This would imply a structure with various "levels", with simpler or more fundamental memes being at or near the center, and more complex structures (even composed of other, simpler memes linked in various ways) being layered over them (perhaps even with some 'parts' (or memes) sharing some common parts). I am not sure if the analogous structure to use here for illustration should be an onion, a ball of twine, a bowl of spaghetti, or even a rainbow - but since we're combining memes, and they lend themselves to it, why not combine all four? I bet we'd be closer with that than any other single description.
Or completely off base. Someone smarter than me will have an answer, I'm sure.
I used a number of terms in the text above - I'll clarify here what I mean by them:
meme - the conceptual entity defined by a memetic pattern - this is NOT identical to a thing a meme may represent (e.g. a family or a given song), but more the conceptualized version of such a thing. Memes are "how we think" - they constitute the patterns in our brains that give rise to mind and thought.
memetic pattern - the pattern itself that gets encoded in a brain, in a vehicle (an action, a book, a grouping of people for some purpose, etc.), or in a transmission medium (e.g. the light reflected from a page in a book to the retina of one's eye and the neural signal transmitted from the retina to the brain).
meme-variant - a variation of a meme that is close, but sufficiently different from an 'original' meme so that it can be perceived as a different meme. Normally it would differ mainly in superficial ways (e.g. the Episcopal Church would be a meme-variant of the Catholic Church) and retain many or most of the qualities of the ancestor meme.
memeplex - a complex meme (or memetic structure) that subsumes other memes. Most memes are also memeplexes, being strictly specific, however for effective usage, I would re-define the term generally as a collection of memes used to define/create a larger meme. A religion could be a "memeplex", for example. Or a science or an art. Essentially, it is a relative term indicating a meme that subsumes or consists of other 'memetic components'.
meme-base - meme-bases are "stable" (highly fit/adaptive) memes and meme-variants with, upon, or around which more complex memes are made.
memetic component - a meme (or set of memes) that is a part of (subsumed by) a memeplex.
vessel/vehicle - a physical expression upon which a memetic pattern is imprinted for transmission between minds.
memetic replication cycle - the process through which a meme goes from creation/imprinting of the memetic pattern in one mind through its expression, transmission, perception, and imprinting in another mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)