Susan Blackmore on Memes and other replicators

[BaalChatzaf]

Please have a look and listen to:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_b..._and_temes.html

Darwin's Dangerous Idea ups the ante to memes and techno-memes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anonrobt]

Very interesting.......

[Dennis Edwall]

Very interesting talk, thanks for the link. The idea is cute, and it makes me think of the theory of electrons and holes in semiconductors. In reality, there is no such thing as a particle called a hole, there are only electrons. But it is much easier to explain the operation of semiconductors by postulating the existence of quasi-particles we call holes, and then treating them analogously to electrons.

Holes as particles do not exist - but reality acts like they do when we apply the right theory which does a good job of explaining our observations.

Similarly, the invention of memes does a good job of explaining our observations of how certain ideas or imitable phenomena get transmitted from one mind to another.

Dennis

[ReligiousIdeology]

Great video, thanks for sharing.

I really admire her transition from believing pseudo-science to denying it. That shows an open, analytical mind. I especially admire her outspokenness on being a free-will denier. It's difficult enough to rid your own mind of that greatest of human delusions; quite another to discuss it with others, let alone convince them.

[Brant Gaede]

The above poster is Victor Pross.

--Brant

[Selene]

So Mr. B.F. Skinner:

Your statement did not originate in a free will choice, so how was it generated?

"It's difficult enough to rid your own mind of that greatest of human delusions; quite another to discuss it with others, let alone convince them."

Adam

[ReligiousIdeology]

The above poster is Victor Pross.

--Brant

No, I am not.

What is going on here? I've experienced hostility to my views online, but not paranoia.

My name is Tyler Wat. Yes, my father actually thought it was a good idea.

But why does that matter? Are there background checks before one may be welcomed here?

[ReligiousIdeology]

So Mr. B.F. Skinner:

Your statement did not originate in a free will choice, so how was it generated?

"It's difficult enough to rid your own mind of that greatest of human delusions; quite another to discuss it with others, let alone convince them."

Adam

Do you really want to have a friendly discussion about it, or are you going to call me by various names in mockery?

[Brant Gaede]

I know what you did to Angie, you son-of-a-bitch. I've got private emails from her. Go away. You don't even Google--and with a name like that!

--Brant

[Selene]

Now Mr. Skinner:

Was this statement evoked by a coincidental number of events that caused you to write these words in this order at this time on this forum?

"Do you really want to have a friendly discussion about it, or are you going to call me by various names in mockery?

Or, is there another explanation?

Since free will is an "illusion", what set of forces caused you to type that sentence?

Adam

[Dragonfly]

Since free will is an "illusion", what set of forces caused you to type that sentence?

The point is that we may never know what "set of forces" causes us to utter certain statements, which doesn't imply that this "set of forces" doesn't exist, however. The brain and its interaction with the environment is far too complex to determine the exact form of these forces.

[Selene]

Wow, that sounds really mystical, I could feel the forces moving my fingers on the keyboard, but since I have no free will [mind], I cannot even ever hope to know what those forces are.

I guess it was just pure randomness or luck that created the Manhattan Project or the artificial heart lung kidney dialysis machine I worked on in the Animal Medical Center in NY City when I was 16 in 1962.

It's amazing how those unknown forces got me on the right trains to be at work at 8 AM.

Adam

[ReligiousIdeology]

I know what you did to Angie, you son-of-a-bitch. I've got private emails from her. Go away. You don't even Google--and with a name like that!

--Brant

I have no idea what you're talking about.

What should I google? Do you mean I'm not ON google? I apologize for not being a celebrity, but even if I were I'd have to compete with a 14th century Englishman of not-insignificant renown.

Seriously, do you do background checks here? Is harassment a serious problem for Objectivists? Like I said before, I don't know much about it, but I thought it was rather popular.

I must say I find this a bit scary, but intriguing. I'd intended only to post my comment and see where it went, but now I want to figure what all this drama is about.

Most of all, I just want to find out what part of my behavior has led you to suspect me of being this person who apparently abuses women in some way. Because, let's review for a moment: all I did was post a question about ideology vs science.

[ReligiousIdeology]

Do you really want to have a friendly discussion about it, or are you going to call me by various names in mockery?

Now Mr. Skinner:

Thanks, I've got my answer.

[Dragonfly]

Wow, that sounds really mystical, I could feel the forces moving my fingers on the keyboard, but since I have no free will [mind], I cannot even ever hope to know what those forces are.

No, the fact that you cannot know those "forces" has nothing to do with the nature of "free will", but with the complexity of your brain, which makes it impossible to trace all the effects of individual neurons firing.

I guess it was just pure randomness or luck that created the Manhattan Project or the artificial heart lung kidney dialysis machine I worked on in the Animal Medical Center in NY City when I was 16 in 1962.

Non sequitur. That we cannot know in detail what's going on in our brain doesn't mean that it must be a random process.

It's amazing how those unknown forces got me on the right trains to be at work at 8 AM.

Sure, just as it is amazing how the blind, mechanical process of evolution creates the most sophisticated and intricate organisms. That is no argument against evolution, however.

[ReligiousIdeology]

Since free will is an "illusion", what set of forces caused you to type that sentence?

The point is that we may never know what "set of forces" causes us to utter certain statements, which doesn't imply that this "set of forces" doesn't exist, however. The brain and its interaction with the environment is far too complex to determine the exact form of these forces.

Correct.

What we call "free will" is simply the carrying out of the weightier of a set of competing motives.

It's not the "will" that's controversial, it's the "free" part that's an illusion. At no point did Homo sapiens step outside the causal chain. The very idea is preposterous, almost science-fiction-like.

Here's Susan Blackmore's take on it.

[Selene]

Mr. Skinner:

"What we call "free will" is simply the carrying out of the weightier of a set of competing motives."

Slkdj dku alkj k alkjf thkn! Now that refutes everything she and you are stating.

Adam

[Selene]

Dragonfly:

So, essentially, a thinker could posit a force, entity, God or Gods being all powerful and all knowing that could construct and move these unknowable forces and allow us to know it as evolution?

My bad, there should have been a question mark on this sentence, "I guess it was just pure randomness or luck that created the Manhattan Project or the artificial heart lung kidney dialysis machine I worked on in the Animal Medical Center in NY City when I was 16 in 1962."

Just for the record, I would have had to be arguing that point, rather than dialectically posing a question, for it to be a Non sequitur*, ie. If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me.

Finally, I would argue that you would have to modify this statement with a time stamp at the end of it, ie., "...as of this point in human development,

"...the fact that you cannot know those 'forces' has nothing to do with the nature of 'free will', but with the complexity of your brain, which makes it impossible to trace all the effects of individual neurons firing.

Adam

*"Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow."), in formal logic, is an argument where its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies" <Wikipedia.

[ReligiousIdeology]

Mr. Skinner:

"What we call "free will" is simply the carrying out of the weightier of a set of competing motives."

Slkdj dku alkj k alkjf thkn! Now that refutes everything she and you are stating.

Adam

It doesn't, actually.

But this is clearly beyond you.

(Perhaps the motive to prove me wrong will outweigh your motive to be confrontational, and you'll actually go listen to the interview.)

[Selene]

B.F.:

I can call you by your first name, since we are so close now, right?

FYI I have seen the video, my friend and have been following those folks for years.

And now, I am even more impressed with you because you can "see" inside my neurons and tell me what my motive is! OMG! I feel born again where was that road sign for Damascus again?

Come on, now that we are on a first name basis, show me the road.

Adam

[Mikee]

Bob, Thanks for posting this. Too bad the discussion has to be preempted by dealing with extraneous crap.

Susan Blackmores' lecture is very interesting, but I don't see the necessity of inventing a new term "temes" to deal with technological designs. I also am disappointed that she felt the necessity to introduce a "fear factor": our "temes" are potentially replicating out of our control and care nothing for destroying the environment. Symbiote's don't destroy their partners environment. I think she's watched the terminator too many times. We are and will forever be the masters of our technology.

[tjohnson]

I don't see any value in the term 'meme' for that matter. It seems to mean the same thing as 'idea'.

[ReligiousIdeology]

FYI I have seen the video, my friend and have been following those folks for years.

It's not a video, it's a radio interview. Seriously, the least you could do is click the link. You might even decide -- of your own free will of course -- to click "Play"...

I always find it interesting to discuss free will with an otherwise intelligent person who affirms it. I can always tell whether they understand the implications of the matter by their response. Those who affirm free will "just because" (i.e., they haven't given it much thought), tend to be skeptical of contrarian arguments but willing to discuss it in reasonable tones. But those who have given it much thought indeed, ah, now those are the ones to watch out for. The response is almost visceral. Their seething rage almost palpable. They know perfectly well what the implications are, and they don't like them one little bit. If free will falls, their entire worldview falls with it, and most people don't take too kindly to that!

It's understandable. As for myself, I enjoy having my beliefs shaken. It keeps things interesting. Otherwise, I'd be hanging out on some echo-chamber of a forum, feverishly clicking refresh, hoping for another "intruder" to slay.

[Selene]

B.F.:

You are just a foggy meme creeping and slinking in on random little cat feet.

Your post seems a little confused, as I made reference to a video allowed you to conclude that I had not clicked on this link?

I'm confused, disoriented. It's almost like my whole gestalt is disintegrating beneath me and I am swimming in a cauldron of neurons with no tether to their sources.

I am so glad you are here to keep me from drifting into oblivion.

Adam

[Dragonfly]

My bad, there should have been a question mark on this sentence, "I guess it was just pure randomness or luck that created the Manhattan Project or the artificial heart lung kidney dialysis machine I worked on in the Animal Medical Center in NY City when I was 16 in 1962."

Just for the record, I would have had to be arguing that point, rather than dialectically posing a question, for it to be a Non sequitur*, ie. If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me.

That's just sophistry. Your "guess" was obviously meant as a "refutation" of my argument, by implying that this would follow from what I said. Therefore I was justified in arguing that it did not follow from my argument, or in Latin, that it was a non sequitur. Your logic-chopping is not a substitute for a valid argument.

Finally, I would argue that you would have to modify this statement with a time stamp at the end of it, ie., "...as of this point in human development,

In fact we can prove that, although our knowledge about the brain will no doubt increase in the future, we will never be able to trace the effects of every neuron to our thoughts and actions, as due to the combinatorial explosion the number of possible combinations will far exceed the total number of elementary particles in the universe. At most we can make statistical estimates, which is in fact what we're doing when we try to reconstruct the thoughts behind someone's statement (knowing his background, earlier statements, external events etc.), in the same way that will never be able to calculate the effect of every single molecule in a gas, but by using statistical mechanics can derive the empirical gas laws.