tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701672230394209519.post5629655195057981052..comments2023-09-22T01:22:14.441-07:00Comments on Notes on Nothing: God is not a memeJewish Sceptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11262751671021588424noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701672230394209519.post-63536757858916933582008-03-31T17:51:00.000-07:002008-03-31T17:51:00.000-07:00I would recommend Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Sp...I would recommend Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell. I contains best approach to religious memetics that I have read so far.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701672230394209519.post-65282257953086031842008-03-31T15:40:00.000-07:002008-03-31T15:40:00.000-07:00But one needs to understand how religions gained t...<I>But one needs to understand how religions gained this ability to use such functions successfully. Memetics is that theory, which simply explains that cultural items evolve also with replication and modification just like evolution.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeees, ok. <BR/><BR/>Let me clarify and extend the theory in this post.<BR/><BR/>The theory presented here: replication of religion took place via cohesion. As to how, Perhaps a Lamarckian interpretation is more fitting than a Darwinian meme-like one: culture is transmitted intentionally and is based on the inheritance of acquired characteristics, e.g. new discoveries which are then passed on culturally (Boyd and Richerson in culture and the evolutionary process).<BR/><BR/>I don't know if I've compounded my misunderstanding, or contributed anything interesting and new...Jewish Sceptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11262751671021588424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701672230394209519.post-8736641431899314452008-03-31T15:01:00.000-07:002008-03-31T15:01:00.000-07:00The difference is subtle, so let me take some time...The difference is subtle, so let me take some time to explain exactly what I mean. <BR/><BR/>In "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins presents memetics as simply a pedagogical technique to explain that the genetic model works outside the gene, which is what memetics is supposed to be analogous to.<BR/><BR/>Now, in terms of normal genetic evolution, the question is: what methods allows certain animals to succeed? <BR/><BR/>Now its the case that certain animals use aggression better than others, which allows them to succeed, but how they received that method is explained with evolution, which is the theory consisting of evolutionary models of genetic information transfer.<BR/><BR/>The same with memetics. Most, if not all, religions have grown due to warfare and social cohesion, as you claim. But one needs to understand how religions gained this ability to use such functions successfully. Memetics is that theory, which simply explains that cultural items evolve also with replication and modification just like evolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701672230394209519.post-37208985410232785822008-03-31T10:34:00.000-07:002008-03-31T10:34:00.000-07:00I think the question the "meme hypothesis" is supp...I think the question the "meme hypothesis" is supposed to answer is a different question than the question your "theory" answers. Memetics is put forward as a way to learn how the ideas of a religion evolved, and your theory seems to answer the question of what are the mechanisms that keep people in line once they are in a religion or why a certain religion grows. <BR/><BR/>I'm currently indifferent about at what level memetics actually works (though I find it self-evident that it should work at some level), to defend memetics from your argument, I would say that the mechanisms you put forth are either part of human nature that memetics works on top of or/and the memes that have encompassed religions that allow it to propagate, which have been adapted over time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com