Rating: 
Summary: Imitation is everything!
Review: Anyone who 'liked' the Selfish Gene will be similarly struck by this contribution to Darwinism. The second replicator is here, it fleshes out the biggest objections to genetic determinism in humans (and yet poses the biggest threat to the human 'ego' that I have ever read). Get this book, face it, this book is going to be a classic - beautifully written and (I think) faultlessly argued, definitely the scariest thing about 1999 - hang on to your hat.
Rating: 
Summary: Speculative Musing
Review: Heard Blackmore talk on the book at Caltech in mid-April 1999.Science makes the assumption there are NO non-material causes. While this is an internally contradictory idea (since it cannot, by definition, be proven correct), it can still be useful to a point. It forces one to identify all the material causes. If you ever run out of those, science can't recognize it and you end up spinning in circles (the "provisional" nature of scientific knowledge). The idea of memes is an attempt to get around the materialistic assumption of science by asserting a non-material cause. The author's parapsychology roots are rebelling. Memes aren't science; they are a fun (mind-candy) way of packaging an obvious aspect of life experienced by finite beings. The idea of memes is similar to evolution; one can spin an endless array of simple-minded stories to justify any conclusion desired. Even mutually exclusive results can be explained equally well with the same theory, if one is sufficiently glib to spin the story. Just hope no one looks at the story too closely, notices the funny games with slippery definitions, misleading analogies, etc. A model that explains everything, even opposite results with equal ease isn't science. It's a form of rationalization that can be used support a particular view on any given subject, nothing more. zero + zero = zero .... so what?
Rating:
Summary: "Life as we know it doesn't exist--and it never did."
Review: Those who have previously written about memes gently tugged at our covers and only whispered that we might want to wake up to a new way of viewing human behavior. Susan Blackmore, on the other hand, storms into our room without knocking, throws open the curtains, and shouts "WAKE UP!" I wonder if we as a civilization are ready to face this new day. The concept of memes may significantly change our world. The exact implications are difficult to foresee clearly at this point. But we know the change can be substantial if it includes altering our concept of "self" (which Blackmore says is just a complex set of replicating memes) or our concept of religion (also a complex set of replicating memes). Joining the list of candidates for re-conceptualization are the biological sciences, social sciences, law (which Sam Vermont writing in Legal Studies Forum already says is dominated by a set of defective replicating memes), advertising, sales, and organizational behavior. It is not clear to me that the world is ready for such profound change. But it is too late. Others may have loosened the lid, but it is Blackmore who definitively let the genie out of the bottle. I have no criticisms but a few wishes. I wish Blackmore, in her chapter on the "Evolution of Culture," had taken an in-depth look at Japan. Japan is unique in that it is the second largest economy in the world but has few natural resources. Japan excels at imitation (reverse engineering). How come? Is this a newly acquired skill or does it reflect something deeper in Japan's culture stemming from the 13,000 years of development in which their culture was relatively isolated from the turmoil that beset Europe and Asia during this era? To what extent is Japan's present culture shaped by memes picked up from nature? Have the Japanese genetically and memetically co-evolved a capacity for imitation that is superior to any other culture in the world? I also wish the author had incorporated the work of Julian Jaynes (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind). Jaynes' work on the origin of language and consciousness may be compatible with, and help explain, Blackmore's view of how language and consciousness evolved. Maybe what the world needs is a nice paper "Compare and contrast Blackmore's perspective of memes with Jaynes' theories of the origin of consciousness." Some readers will predictably reject the ideas in this book. (Indeed, those who wish to retain their religious beliefs may not want to read this book at all.) Other readers will be infected by the "meme meme," but will find this book very unsettling--which is understandable given that "life as we know it doesn't exist-and it never did." For others, though, this book will engage their creative/adaptive memes and give them a feeling of exhilaration from their newfound insight into human behavior
Rating: 
Summary: A modest application.
Review: Meme1:Posit a universum of all possibilities. Meme2:Posit all identifiable things (separate from something else in some way) in the Universum and label them ID(1) . Meme3:Posit repetitiveness:identifiable elements A(1),A(2),...,A(n) are identified as being related in some way.This generates dimensions. Meme4:A(i) & A(i+1)=A(i+2) ,where & is the relationship. If Ai<>Aj,then label it Godelian(ie it contains an arithmetic system and goes on to infinity.)If it repeats(ie Ai=Aj),then label it non-Godelian. Meme5:ID(1) must contain at least one Godelian system for completeness.Thus(Russel , Whitehead , Godel et al) , an element E must exist that is not in ID(1).This is called mining the Universum through paradox. Label the new identifiable system ID(2)=(E Union ID(1) ). Meme6:Repeat(Use Memes above recursively). This gives rise to ID(n) after n repetitions. No matter how large n is,if n is finite , ID(n) can only approach the Universum,never equal it. In other words,there can be no theory of everything as long as the above memes are used. Ie finite identifiable systems can never exhaust the Universum. Transcendance: If n->infinity,then this means that ID(infinity)=Universum If this is applied to our observable universe, then the Universum would be analogeous to God and ID(n) to individuals and/or systems. --- Ps 1:Notice the way one can use memes instead of axioms:feedback systems can be described in a much more flexible way. Ps 2:Falling birthrates. If the raw material for memes are human minds,then the falling birthrate in many countries would trigger big memes (like religions,science,communism,democracy,etc) to a fallback to previously successful strategies(ie fundamentalism). Things might get real interesting very suddenly without the participants really knowing why. Ps 3:So what? Humans and other beasties have long known that we are congeries of individuals who can live much better as a mutually beneficient group than alone.Why should our minds (ie the ID(n) systems above) be any different? Maya makes for a good holiday. All-in-all not a bad effort.The next one should be better. Hamba kgathly AW
Rating:
Summary: Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Everything
Review: In developing a comprehensive theory of memetics to explain human behavior, Blackmore offers the field a stunning achievement. Her ability to synthesize theories and data from a range of disciplines is remarkable. Linguistics, anthropology, evolutionary biology, philosophy, sociology and neuro-biology are all fodder for her simple yet ingenious approach to explaining cultural evolution. Blackmore is weakest at explaining the concept of the meme. "Anything that can be imitated" is insufficiently vague and confusing. She also gives short shrift to the substrate of the selfish replicator--the human brain. Clearly, some memes are successful sheerly for adaptive biologic advantage. In other words, the leash is non-existent between genes and memes. And she dismisses the function of the all important frontal lobes of the human brain, stating: "there is no consistent agreement on frontal lobe function." Neuro-biologists universally agree that the frontal lobes are implicated in social, planning, time management, and humor thoughts and behaviors, as well as being crucial to the understanding of depression and psychoses. Other blind spots the author offers are erroneous statements on prostitution (NOT solely a female trade), homosexuality, and da Vinci (NOT a womanizer, probably a celibate homosexual) But on balance,the book is an important contribution to understanding mind and culture. I agree that meditation offers an escape from the meme trap, and was glad to see the book end on this Buddhist solution.
Rating: 
Summary: Chasing fairies and goblins
Review: This book is an interesting read, although it is marred by a lack of knowledge of the brain. I hope nobody will argue with me that the mind results from the processes of the brain. This can not be ignored. Because she provides no clue of the nature or location of this "second replicator," this theory really provides no explanation. It suffers many of the same faults that Freud's theories suffered: no physical basis which allows the ideas presented to be tested. Blackmore laments that there is no research being done on the idea of memes; no funding agency will sponsor research involving the search for fairies and goblins in the mind, and not many scientists would be interested in it. The concept of memes is a good analogy, but there is a paucity of evidence supporting a second replicator. It may turn out that I am wrong. But while maintaining an open mind, one also ought to remain skeptical, even when the ideas are presented by a skeptic such as Dawk... I mean Blackmore. All theories must be tested and testable. I don't think there is enough evidence of the physical existance of a second replicator to make this theory testable.
Rating:
Summary: A must-read for anyone seriously interested in who we are
Review: Incredible. "Life really is possible without hope" The message is more shocking than Darwin's discovery that there is no designer. More shocking than Dawkins' "selfish genes" who we are here to serve. The message is: "To live honestly, I must just get out of the way and allow decisions to make themselves." There is no need for rebellion. There is no need to fight the memes. Life can still be a wonderful experience. And it is. Thank you Susan Blackmore for bringing hope. And a new religion... Tad is going back to work now.
Rating:
Summary: The Selfish Meme - Why it's not all in the Genes.
Review: ECT, or evolutionary culture theory is now over a century old, and Blackmore provides an engaging and comprehensive review of its present incarnation as MEMETICS. Heredity in humans is not only a genetic process, it is also a cultural or, to use the neologism, a memetic process. Whether or not you happened to be conceived on the cool side of the uterus,it doesn't really matter; memetics shows how a gene-centric understanding is a partial and woefully inadequate explanation of human interaction. The memetic message is that you're only related to your brothers and sisters on your parents' side, genes are only one side of the evolutionary coin. Memetically, your relations are your brothers and sisters in arms, those that share your culture but not necessarily your genes. We share our culture, and tend to learn from and imitate those who are like us culturally, and whilst nepotism counts, we have evolved to help our cultural kin as much as our biological kin. The Meme Machine is a good read, and a welcome rebuttal of genetic determinism. Highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: It's All About Imitation
Review: It is exciting that Oxford has come out with a book on memetics, and Blackmore does a nice job of fleshing out the basics. The Meme Machine follows through on Dawkins' (1976) fascinating suggestion that culture, like biology, evolves through the processes of variation, selection, and replication. It explores how viewing culture as a hereditary system can shed light on many aspects of the human experience, such as why we gossip, believe in alien abduction, and get enthusiastic about sex. (Though the chapter titled 'An orgasm saved my life' never gets around to explaining how an orgasm saved someone's life.) Her central thesis is that what makes humans unique is their ability to imitate, and she takes the 'imitation is where it's at' thesis very seriously. The idea is: once humans became able to imitate, ideas could be transmitted, and cultural evolution took off. Unfortunately, there are deep problems with this proposal. First, the claim that animals don't imitate is highly controversial, and current consensus seems to sway in the opposite direction. (An article by Byrne & Russon in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 21, 1998, and accompanying commentary, provide an insightful review.) Second, Blackmore correctly notes that the archeological record reveals a sudden INCREASE in tool variety. However, if imitation were the bottleneck, then prior to the origin of culture there would have been variation everywhere, and the onset of imitation would have funneled this variation in the most useful directions, i.e. variety would have DECREASED. The evidence is, in fact, consistent with the thesis that creativity, rather than imitation, was the bottleneck to culture. The 'imitation drives culture' hypothesis leads Blackmore to restrict the definition of a meme to something that can be transmitted from one human to another by imitation. So, for example, if a child learns to peal a banana by watching her mother, a meme has replicated. But if the child learns this skill from a cartoon character on tv, no replication has taken place. By the end of the book (particularly in the chapter on the internet) she eases up on this a bit. Human-made artifacts now seem to play a role in her vision, though elements of the natural world still don't. Thus if a child gets the idea for how to peal a banana by watching the petals of a flower unfold, her flower-inspired 'how to peal a banana' meme is NOT transmittable. In the blink of an eye, Blackmore discards the possibility that any experience can be food for thought and thus food for culture, on the grounds that it is "extremely confusing" (p. 45). The worldview impled by the Shroedinger equation is extremely confusing too, but its batting average as a predictor of experimental outcomes is unsurpassed. 'Confusing' is not synonymous with 'wrong'. Blackmore also claims that "perceptions and emotions are not memes because they are ours alone and we may never pass them on" (p. 15). It follows that the feeling evoked by a painting of a stormy night at sea has no relationship to what the artist was feeling at the time... that a teacher's attitude of compassion has no impact on the cultural dynamics of the classroom. Thus it is not clear how Blackmore's narrow definition of meme clears up the confusion. Readers should be aware that, despite the Oxford label, the book the book does not reflect the current level of sophistocation in the field. It presents many ideas without referencing where they were first introduced, or mentioning influencial work in the area (e.g. memetic altruism, memetic explanations of the origin of culture, memes & language, memes & the internet, etc.). Blackmore does not delve deep into evolutionary theory, on the grounds that borrowing concepts from biology could lead cultural theorists astray. To my mind, this is like ignoring what we already know about snow skis when developing the first prototype for waterskis. In fact there is some disparity between the 'science rules' attitude and the lack of theory or data. If the title leads you to expect material on computer models, cognitive science, complexity, information theory, etc. you will be disappointed. There isn't much on the workings of the memetic machinery. But if you like examples of manipulative memes, you will find it interesting. And the potential significance of memetics should not be underestimated. It is not inconceivable that the next century will usher forth more books on cultural evolution than this century has on biological evolution.
Rating:
Summary: Not worth the time
Review: To anyone who takes the (yeah right) "science" of mimetics, I urge you to get a real job. I had difficulty understanding what the big attraction to memes was, but was curious. After reading this book, I think that mimetics and all considerations thereof is pretty much a waste; it does nothing to enable understanding of how the mind works, culture, and so forth. I'm done now; I could get more specific, but I'm sure people will be threatened by a negative review, and my thoughts would fall on deaf ears. In short, the concept of memes is quite meaningless. Save your money.
| 
