The Meme Machine

Rating:
Summary: The Meme Machine
Review: When I first began to read this book, I couldn't imagine how Meme's could spread or even exist, until the author explained her theory on the development of language as a means by which Memes could get themselves copied from brain to brain. A strange theory and a little difficult to accept, but a facinating one never the less. I would have given this book 4 stars, if it wasn't for the last chapter which read more like New Age Mysticism than scientific theory. Well worth a read.

Rating:
Summary: a decent read but not without its flaws
Review: Ms. Blackmore's layman-oriented recaps of meme theory (and Darwin's theory of evolution) are good for people not familiar with those topics. Some of her arguments are pretty compelling (the idea of meme-gene co-evolution fills in a lot of gaps quite nicely). Her reliance on genetic determinism is somewhat problematic for me; I'm not much of a sociobiology adherent. Her argument towards the end of the book -- that our personalities are wholly based on memes and the drive to spread them -- is over the top, but, on the other hand, it provides one with an interesting new lens through which to look at the world.

Rating:
Summary: "We can live life without hope" ?
Review: Susan Blackmore provided a nice insight for understanding the science of Memetics. She clearly distinguished between social learning and imitation and that was very important point to make. Comparing the memes and the genes and describing how they interact was very interesting.
The problem though, everything else she talked about was a too theoretical that it is so close to be a science fiction, if the word science can be used here at all. What is most depressing is when a "psychologist" such as Blackmore says simply "we can live life without hope". I wonder how she got her degree in Psychology, and I wonder most, how a great scientist such as Richard Dawkins agreed to write a foreward to this book.

Rating:
Summary: Where is pragmatism please?
Review: This is funny to read book, but unfortunately Susan fails to go beyond theoretical speculations. That what I would expect is: proposition of a formal language which would describe memes and which would make it possible to simulate them in computers. Susan, as all humanists, tends to think of memes in fiction-like way, forgetting, that pragmatism is an ultimate proof of given theory. I am working myself on such a formal language of description of memes, but Susan really misses the point... Nervertheless: if you need some fun, buy this book!

Rating:
Summary: Evil Memes Are Attacking You
Review: As the title announces, this book is about memes. That is the clearest part of this book. The author tries to make the case that memes - which she defines as a unit of any behavior - are like genes in that they have a vigorous competitive life of their own. Just how memes get to live in our brains is not always clear. Sometimes she says that memes penetrate our brains because we like to imitate other people's behavior. She explains, for example, that the mass use of fax machines in Windows operating system occurred because people simply imitated others that already acquired them. She rejects the idea that these items might be useful simply because that is "clearly untrue." At other points, however, she tells us that it helps memes to be useful so that their hosts will adopt them and they will therefore win in the competition for living space in the brain - like "they might tap into needs for sex,... excitement or avoiding danger." But many genes never find brains where they can replicate like genes do because "there are many more memes than can find homes." Memes are evidently subject to Malthusian laws.

Of what relevance could these memes be to our lives? She provides a clue early in the book when she tries to explain why we think "too much". Our overthinking, she insists, has no positive function as sociobiologists would claim because she herself has mostly "daft and pointless thoughts." It is clear by the end of the book that she is dead serious about all of this. Memes, she insists, are definitely harmful and should be exorcised from our brains because they are dangerous little creatures that have taken away our free will. She declares that the idea that "the self... is supposed to have free will is just a story that forms part of a vast [grouping of memes], and a false story at that." No wonder she has only "daft and pointless thoughts." She concludes with advice on how to rid ourselves of the influence of memes: live only in the present and they will just go away.

My major criticism of her notions of memes is not that they don't exist, which might be the case, but that she never calculates how many could fit on the head of a pin. Perhaps she will have enough empirical data in her next book to answer that urgent question.

As many reviewers here have suggested, properly read this book makes good science fiction. But I would also recommend it to those types of people who tend to be attracted to the theories that periodically come along that promise to use analogies from the natural sciences to explain human behavior. I would also recommend it to those types of people who are always looking for the evil gremlins the are always trying to mess up our lives. I would not recommend it to those who think I am kidding because you will only find out after spending your money that I am not.

Rating:
Summary: Fun Reading!
Review: We can easily substitute the word "idea" for "meme" and this book would work just as well. Her combination of Buddhism with memetics was very creative, but I believe misguided. She says the Selfplex is a terrible lie, an illusion of personality and ego created by the memes for their own propagation. I think that idea is ridiculous. "I" am the center of gravity around which these memes orbit, and "I" choose which ideas to accept or reject. The memes do not make the man any more than the genes to. True, memes and genes may exert pressure, but certainly not enough pressure to squeeze the life out of the self. Not yet. A good whack on the head does a much better job on destroying the self! To say that ideas are what created the big brain, well that sounds like "vitalism" in disguise to me. She thinks she escapes vitalism by removing the self through a simple semantic trick. Here's a task to consider: explore Jungian archetypes and the motifs of mythology as memes. I wonder what we would come up with?

Or maybe a new Bill Moyer's show, called "The Power of Memes". Or the Hero's Journey and the monomeme.

Rating:
Summary: Relevant Towards Information but not much else
Review: I've always been fascinated by memes, especially in our age of information, but this book tries to extend that concept to biological life and I think that is a mistake. I tend to favor Rupert Sheldrake's theory of Morphic Fields rather that Ms. Blackmore's musings. I think science so often seeks to put a materialistic label on every aspect of reality it does not understand and this book is an attempt to do so.

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating Attempt
Review: A fascinating attempt to place meme theory parallel to genetic theory. Yes she sounds far- fetched at times. But, she remiinds us, so did Darwin. Yes she is lacking verification, but she often suggests what verification research would look like. After all she's just trying to set up an hypothesis for future testing. That hypothesis is that memes (cultural beliefs, practices, inventions, etc.) shape human behavior just as genes do, and are subject to the same forces of evolution. Her selfish memes, like Dawkins' selfish genes, are interested only in replicating themselves. In pusuit of this both memes and genes have constructed species as vehicles, and in the human species awareness states we call "I," "self," and "consciousness." One thing can be said for Blackman. At the end of the book as she faces a meaningless universe, knowing that her "self" and her "consciousness" are illusions, she doesn't fudge. She's totally free of sentimentality about human existence. Compare others on this subject.

Rating:
Summary: Femme du meme
Review: Philosophy should leave everything as it is -- Wittgenstein

Susan Blackwell's tour de force, 'Meme Machine', leaves everything as it is. There are no tricks of words, there's no technical jargon, everything's in plain ENglish. As it turns out, her account hangs together quite well.

For humans, besides DNA, there is a 2nd replicating entity, the meme. A meme is a communicable brain program or unit of human behavior and is, in fact, communicated (replicated) via the uniquely human faculty for imitation.

Selfish genes replicate in a chemical environment, selfish memes replicate in a neural environment (today's computer viruses replicate in electronic environments). When we consider evolution we're as justified in metaphorically ascribing intentions to memes as to genes*.

Leaving her progenitors, Dawkins and Dennett, in the dust, Blackwell argues that meme evolution and gene evolution interact and this is responsible for several Baldwin** effects, among which big brains, homosexualism, and the language instinct.

She makes the startling claim that true altruism is possible, that under the influence of memes people can behave selfsacrificially. Somewhat less controversially, she concludes that consciousness, freewill, god, etc are illusions that benefit the propagation of genes and memes.

She ends with some fashionable suggestions on how to make life bearable once the monstrous truth of her theory has sunk in: If you meditate and empty your mind you can come to live in peace with the idea that YOU dont exist, that youre only some genes and memes replicating.

Then there's the picture of Susan Blackmore on the back flap. Attractive, smart looking, 40ish punkette. Hair painted flaming red!

* There's nothing new in Blackmore's use of the intention metaphor in connection with genes and memes, everybody does it. Still, the metaphor may sometimes not apply and leave us to conclude what we shouldnt.

** The Baldwin effect is a way genetic evolution can be made to seem as if by Lamarckian forces, ie, inheritance of acquired characteristics.

Rating:
Summary: Ideas Unbound
Review: We are not alone. At least not according to Susan Blackmore, author of "The Meme Machine". As we merrily go about our lives, eating, sleeping, and above all reproducing, other agents are simultaneously populating our planet, spreading throughout cities, countries, and continents. But these are not some sort of alien invader that she is talking about (though she does dedicate a chapter to alien abductions), nor are they any kind of dangerous biological agent escaped from a government research lab. They are simply ideas, or to use the term coined by biologist Richard Dawkins, 'memes'.

The term meme has been defined in as many different ways as writers who have used it. The one thing that all have in common is that a meme is a unit of cultural evolution. Examples can include things as diverse as behaviours, catchy tunes, ideas, and fashions. For Blackmore, the defining feature is that a meme is a unit of imitation. Cultural traits pass from person to person via imitation, and this 'thing' which is passed on is what she defines as a meme.

The early parts of the book are dedicated to espousing Blackmore's view of the role that memes play in the evolution of culture. They are, according to the author, replicators, in much the same way as genes. Like genes, they possess all the basic characteristics needed for evolutionary behaviour, that is they vary, they are selected according to this variance, and when copied they retain at least some of the content of the original. And like genes, memes will spread according to their success at reproducing in the environment in which they find themselves - translated in this case as the rate at which they can get themselves imitated. This precept is then later used as the basis for explaining everything from why we find it so difficult to empty our minds of thoughts, to why so many people believe in life after death, to why theories of alien abductions and conspiracies have become so prevalent in recent years.

These early chapters are amongst the most flawed in the book. The few problems she raises with memes are largely skirted around and avoided, rather than being properly addressed. Much more importantly, she completely fails to mention some of the most significant attacks that can be raised against a theory of memetics. For example, cultural evolution clearly does not seem to evolve in the same blind manner as biological evolution. We seldom imitate others' ideas in any sort of a strict rote manner. Rather we first create or censor, merge ideas, or individuate concepts of interest to us. In short, it seems intuitively obvious that ideas do not replicate themselves, we replicate them, and this we do according to our own personal agendas, not suffering under the dictates of the ideas themselves. Surely this is the sort of issue that Blackmore should address if she plans on establishing a convincing basis for a scientific framework for memetics?

The following chapters proceed to outline some of the implications that Blackmore sees as following from her theory of memes, as well as giving memetic explanations for several problems in sociobiology. The ideas are interesting, if highly speculative, and are illustrated with numerous colourful anecdotes and debunks of popular myths (did you know, for example, that Eskimos do not in fact have fifty different words for snow?). Beginning with a memetic explanation of why we have big brains, she proceeds through understanding the origins of language, the coevolution of memes and genes, sexual behaviour, altruism, religion, and more. In each case, memes are argued to be the driving force, shaping both our culture and to a lesser extent our genetic structure itself. Why did language originate? Because memes for language use are able to replicate with a higher degree of fidelity than is otherwise possible. Why are humans ever altruistic? Because nice people are more likely to be imitated than nasty people, so the altruism meme has more opportunities for replication. But time and again, Blackmore fails to give any empirical backing for her ideas. She can neither give us any good reasons for rejecting a more conventional, sociobiological explanation of the situations she describes, nor can she provide us with evidence in support of her own claims. Many ideas for future experiments are given, but until such research is conducted her own ideas must remain firmly in the realm of imaginative speculation.

The final chapters of the book move towards the philosophical implications that Blackmore sees arising from the adoption of a theory of memetics. Are memes relevant to our concepts of personal identity, responsibility, and free will? It is at this point that the book degrades from being simply speculative, to nothing short of pseudo-scientific sermonising. By the final chapter, Blackmore has given up any pretense of science, and is intent instead on preaching the one true path to enlightenment. Only by truly understanding and adopting a memetic point of view, or so she tells us, can we hope to find peace and happiness. In my opinion, these final sections serve no purpose other than to undermine the credibility of the author.

Overall, a mostly interesting read for those curious about the evolution of culture - just don't expect to find too many new ideas worth taking seriously.