Just WTF is a meme?

wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Just WTF is a meme?

I haven't poked the bear in a while so here's one.

Seems to me that a meme is not a real "thing". In the spirit of materialism (a little irony - spirit? materialism? Get it?), just what is a meme? The damn things don't really exist. They are more like Platonic forms than a real objects. The whole concept of a meme is an invention that is nothing more than an attempt to shoe horn evolutionary theory into the realm of abstract ideas. Seems more like pseudo-science to me.

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
The concept of a meme was

The concept of a meme was something Richard Dawkins propogated in The Selfish Gene. When he originally concieved of it, his original intention was to create an analogy that would help to explain his thesis on genes. He stated later that had computer viruses existed in 1976, the year of publication, he would have used those instead, since they are a better anlogy.

A meme is not an entity. A meme simply represents, in the broadest sense, a unit of cultural information. Tunes, catchphrases, fads, those sorts of things. Memes are spread by media transmission. Word of mouth, chat rooms, writings, etc. As such, they are said to replicate, and they hence change. The evolution analogy comes in where the speculation is that the mutation of memes within a meme pool constitutes adaptive advantage of certain memes, in which case, memetic spread would be deterministic. 

On the other hand, memes do exist. They exist in the minds of those things which contemplate them, hence as neurons, and they exist by virtue of that they replicate via their modes of transmission, writings, prints, films, etc. Any media that can transmit memes, which is any media, will do. 

Of course, the concept of memetic evolution, that memes do evolve by virute of a selection process within a meme pool which alters meme frequency, is speculative, but interesting. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
As DG said a meme is a unit

As DG said a meme is a unit of information. If information can be said to exist then memes can exist.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: As DG said a

Vessel wrote:
As DG said a meme is a unit of information. If information can be said to exist then memes can exist.

So what is a unit of information? How do we measure the information content of a system? Is information quantized? How is calling something a meme any more informative than simply calling it a concept or an abstraction? Seems like a lot of work for no gain.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: The

deludedgod wrote:

The concept of a meme was something Richard Dawkins propogated in The Selfish Gene.

I know the history of the idea. I'm more interested in its veracity.

Quote:

A meme is not an entity. A meme simply represents, in the broadest sense, a unit of cultural information. Tunes, catchphrases, fads, those sorts of things.

Seems pretty fuzzy for a concept that is used regularly to denegrate theism. The extension of memes in to the realm of a mind-virus and such is on pretty shakey ground if this is all it is.

 

Quote:

The evolution analogy comes in where the speculation is that the mutation of memes within a meme pool constitutes adaptive advantage of certain memes, in which case, memetic spread would be deterministic.

But what is it that mutates? In DNA, it is clear what changes. When it comes to cultural issues, we can't even agree upon definitions of primary concepts. Define justice in a universally acceptable manner.

Quote:

On the other hand, memes do exist. They exist in the minds of those things which contemplate them, hence as neurons, and they exist by virtue of that they replicate via their modes of transmission, writings, prints, films, etc. Any media that can transmit memes, which is any media, will do.

This cuts to the core of materialism and such. At least with DNA, the proteins in your DNA match exactly those in mine, even if the sequence is differerent. I can map my genes onto yours and find out exactly how they differ. But for every idea or concept, there is no mapping of my neurons onto yours. We can map regions of my brain to yours, but the neurons and synapses do not have the same physical structure (similar, but not same). So the idea or meme is only loosely tied to a physical structure and can be transmitted across many different structures if you include physical media. But surely the meme doesn't exist on the paper in a book at the library as it sits on the shelf waiting to be read.

Quote:

Of course, the concept of memetic evolution, that memes do evolve by virute of a selection process within a meme pool which alters meme frequency, is speculative, but interesting.

Interesting, yes, but IMHO, not scientific.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Vessel

wavefreak wrote:

Vessel wrote:
As DG said a meme is a unit of information. If information can be said to exist then memes can exist.

So what is a unit of information? How do we measure the information content of a system? Is information quantized?

Actually Dawkins answers these question in "The Blind Watchmaker" but its been some time since I've read it so I can't really provide the answers as he expresses them. Its really not a concept I am that fond of nor one I would care to argue for. I just wanted to point out how a meme can be said to exist.

Quote:
How is calling something a meme any more informative than simply calling it a concept or an abstraction?

I, personally, don't find it very informative at all. If I recall correctly, I believe that Dawkins uses memes to demonstrate how information can mutate as it is passed from host to host similar to the way genes mutate and how some information is unconcerend with anything but survival. When viewed through a solipsistic lens any information could be seen as memetic, but I believe the way Dawkins uses it memetic information does not depend on any correlation to real world referents and therefor survives only through it hosts. 

Quote:
Seems like a lot of work for no gain.

 Perhaps.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: Actually

Vessel wrote:

Actually Dawkins answers these question in "The Blind Watchmaker"

I suppose I might have to add that to my list of things to read. I had trouble with "The Selfish Gene". I just found Dawkins writing style turgid and boring.  It made sense conceptually, but I didn't enjoy the read.

 

Quote:

I, personally, don't find it very informative at all.

I think this is my issue with the meme concept. It has taken on a life of its own, almost like a pop-psychology term. A sort of meme memeYell. I'm not sure that it actually calrifies anything. 


HC Grindon
High Level DonorModerator
Posts: 198
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: A sort

wavefreak wrote:

A sort of meme memeYell.

ROFLMAO!

wavefreak wrote:

I'm not sure that it actually calrifies anything.

I think its an interesting analogous framework to work within when thinking about how cultural ideas propogate. I don't know if employing that framework necessarily clarifies anything, but it does give one another way of looking at how ideas spread.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
"Just do it." "Are we there

"Just do it."

"Are we there yet?"

"I've fallen and I can't reach my (fill in the blank)!"

 

You really didn't need help with this, did you?

How is it not scientific? Starting with a phrase, hypothesizing its effect, observing applications, gathering data, measuring effectiveness. Developing a theory such as 'marketing' to aid in future applications of other hypotheses.

WTF?

I'm going to leave the declaration of 'materialism' alone in your initial post.

"Am I not merciful?" instead of "At my signal, unleash hell." Oops. I forgot. that was the original script. Unfortunately, more often I have seen people use 'On' which follows with a theory of 'memetics' (call it a pseudo-theory if it pleases your oh-so materialistic sensibilities) that a small alteration to the original does not affect the whole of the message. More errors in the transmission could affect it such as: changing 'signal' to 'sign' or 'hell' to 'terror' etc.

How one can sit behind their computer and decry 'memes' under the guise of materialism while maintaining a theistic belief is beyond me.

For the most part, I like you wavefreak, but sometimes I walk away from the pc shaking my head.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


HC Grindon
High Level DonorModerator
Posts: 198
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
The use of the word

The use of the word "materialism" is a great example of a meme.  I've just noticed its use popping up all over the place in the media, usually employed negatively by political figures pandering to the religious vote.  IMHO, they are helping to "mutate" the meaning of the word into something synonomous with "selfishness" or "greed".


daretoknow
Superfan
daretoknow's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-12-09
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Vessel

wavefreak wrote:
Vessel wrote:

Actually Dawkins answers these question in "The Blind Watchmaker"

I suppose I might have to add that to my list of things to read. I had trouble with "The Selfish Gene". I just found Dawkins writing style turgid and boring. It made sense conceptually, but I didn't enjoy the read.

I like "The God Delusion" much more than I did "The Selfish Gene". One is meant to be more dry than the others, although, thats besides the point of this conversation.

wavefreak wrote:
Vessel wrote:
I, personally, don't find it very informative at all.

I think this is my issue with the meme concept. It has taken on a life of its own, almost like a pop-psychology term. A sort of meme memeYell. I'm not sure that it actually calrifies anything.

I think science can delve into some abstractions at the level of a hypothesis. To call it completely unscientific might be unjustified. At least it can be studied on some real level. Also, it seems to offer an interesting view of human linguistics and somewhat social evolution (probably another less than concrete notion). Would you call psychology a science? I would be inclined too.

Thats cute.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: For the

darth_josh wrote:

For the most part, I like you wavefreak, but sometimes I walk away from the pc shaking my head.

 

LOL. Consider the bear poked. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: How is

darth_josh wrote:

How is it not scientific? Starting with a phrase, hypothesizing its effect, observing applications, gathering data, measuring effectiveness. Developing a theory such as 'marketing' to aid in future applications of other hypotheses.

So is there a body of research developing around the concept of memes or is it just a convenient framework for discussing social constructs? Is there a peer reviewed meme journal? To what branch of science does the study of memes belong?


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I have to agree a bit with

I have to agree a bit with you here wave.  I get the concept of hte meme, but am surprised it's so well accepted as an explaination for insticts inparticular.  I'm less concerned about information, but more focused on the 'initial knowledge' that a child has the second it is born.  Obviously things have these instincts, so we can call that a meme, but I don't think that gets us closer to knowing 'why'.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Tarpan wrote: I have to

Tarpan wrote:

I have to agree a bit with you here wave. I get the concept of hte meme, but am surprised it's so well accepted as an explaination for insticts inparticular. I'm less concerned about information, but more focused on the 'initial knowledge' that a child has the second it is born. Obviously things have these instincts, so we can call that a meme, but I don't think that gets us closer to knowing 'why'.

 

I think this gets closer to my lack of satisfaction with the idea. It lacks rigour and hence is easily tossed about. I suspect that Dawkins never meant for it to be more than an analog for how ideas might persist across generations but it has been picked up and enlarged into more than its original intent. 


daretoknow
Superfan
daretoknow's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-12-09
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Tarpan

wavefreak wrote:
Tarpan wrote:

I have to agree a bit with you here wave. I get the concept of hte meme, but am surprised it's so well accepted as an explaination for insticts inparticular. I'm less concerned about information, but more focused on the 'initial knowledge' that a child has the second it is born. Obviously things have these instincts, so we can call that a meme, but I don't think that gets us closer to knowing 'why'.

 

I think this gets closer to my lack of satisfaction with the idea. It lacks rigour and hence is easily tossed about. I suspect that Dawkins never meant for it to be more than an analog for how ideas might persist across generations but it has been picked up and enlarged into more than its original intent.

 The most interesting thing that may have come about by dawkins' observation, though maybe unintentional, is that it opened up a new way of looking at this concept of thought or idea transfer. It seems to be more of an explanatory tool than a complete field of study. This is only my humble opinion though.

Thats cute.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:

wavefreak wrote:

Just WTF is a meme

Correct.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Memes are cool.

Memes are cool.


HC Grindon
High Level DonorModerator
Posts: 198
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
I'm a software engineer, so

I'm a software engineer, so I guess I just see memetics as another analysis methodology for the study of cultural information and cultural evolution.  There are many analysis methodologies one can choose when developing software systems, one may give you better insight into the problem domain than others. 

I can remember back when object oriented analysis/design was poo-poo'd on and now it's arguably the best way to develop software.  Object orientation simply gave us the tools/framework to better understand and model the problem domain of the software system being developed...this is how I see memes/memetics.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Well, I wasn't defending

Well, I wasn't defending the concept of a meme, merely explaining it. The concept of a meme seems to have been taken under the wing of a few people, and Dawkins has gone along for the ride with that, but as you said, it is  not scientific.

Quote:

This cuts to the core of materialism and such.

This is like saying that axioms do not exist in a materialist universe. Memes are not entities. You are confusing materialism with reism.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


daretoknow
Superfan
daretoknow's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-12-09
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Well, I

deludedgod wrote:

Well, I wasn't defending the concept of a meme, merely explaining it. The concept of a meme seems to have been taken under the wing of a few people, and Dawkins has gone along for the ride with that, but as you said, it is not scientific.

Quote:

This cuts to the core of materialism and such.

This is like saying that axioms do not exist in a materialist universe. Memes are not entities. You are confusing materialism with reism.

Isn't the study of memetics, at least, a real observation of how ideas have been passed from person to person to different cultures, as well as the survival of ideas across time? What would you classify it as if it is not scientific?

Thats cute.


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
My question about memes is

My question about memes is a bit different.  Specifically, I (vaguely) recall reading an assertion by a religious writer who was critiquing Dawkins' "The God Delusion" said that the idea of memes was "discredited."  Now, I know for a fact that religious writers are not the most careful with facts (...indeed, quite the opposite, in my view...) but on the offhand chance that I come across someone who knows more about memes than I, can someone tell me: when, if ever, has "meme theory," for want of a better phrase, been discredited?  How could such discrediting, even in theory, take place?  Chances are, this is just more hot air from the religious crowd, but is there something that I need to know, here?

 

Conor

_______________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Just dropping a

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
darth_josh wrote:

For the most part, I like you wavefreak, but sometimes I walk away from the pc shaking my head.

 

LOL. Consider the bear poked.

Are you trying to start a 'bear poking' meme? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh: I've tried that

darth_josh:

I've tried that link a few times, and I can't seem to connect to anywhere.  Could you either tell me what was on it, or at least tell me what site to Google for?

 

Conor

________________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Conor Wilson

Conor Wilson wrote:

darth_josh:

I've tried that link a few times, and I can't seem to connect to anywhere. Could you either tell me what was on it, or at least tell me what site to Google for?

 

Conor

ARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!! Sorry, Conor. I didn't check it on preview.

It will work here and I'll correct it up there. Thanks.

http://users.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/Memetics

It is essentially a collection of 'peer-reviewed' works on memetics.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Subdi Visions
Bronze Member
Subdi Visions's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2007-10-29
User is offlineOffline
I don't care much for the

I don't care much for the term "meme" either. I'm having a little trouble digesting it.

Respectfully,
Lenny

"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh: Thanks for 

darth_josh:

Thanks for  the correction.  As of right now, first impressions are that memetics is *not* a "discredited idea," (...leave it to apologists to get their facts wrong...) but it is only an undeveloped idea.  Apparently, we are awaiting the right person asking the right questions with the right methodology in order to see if memetics has merit.

 

I'm willing to wait.  But thanks for the link, darth_josh.

 

Conor

_________________________________________________________________________________

"Faith does not fear reason."--Pope Pius XII

"But it should!"--Me


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Conor Wilson

Conor Wilson wrote:

darth_josh:

Thanks for the correction. As of right now, first impressions are that memetics is *not* a "discredited idea," (...leave it to apologists to get their facts wrong...) but it is only an undeveloped idea. Apparently, we are awaiting the right person asking the right questions with the right methodology in order to see if memetics has merit. 

I think this is the key point. Memetics has struggled to find its place in science, but the concept has been elevated to the level profound truth in popular culture. What is a mind virus? There is no scientific basis for such a construct and yet it has been latched onto as a pointed and damning description of theism.  The idea of theism as a disease is emotionally satisfying to many atheists, but using memetics to justify that position is no more intellectually sound than the claims made by Christians.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Conor

wavefreak wrote:
Conor Wilson wrote:

darth_josh:

Thanks for the correction. As of right now, first impressions are that memetics is *not* a "discredited idea," (...leave it to apologists to get their facts wrong...) but it is only an undeveloped idea. Apparently, we are awaiting the right person asking the right questions with the right methodology in order to see if memetics has merit.

I think this is the key point. Memetics has struggled to find its place in science, but the concept has been elevated to the level profound truth in popular culture. What is a mind virus? There is no scientific basis for such a construct and yet it has been latched onto as a pointed and damning description of theism. The idea of theism as a disease is emotionally satisfying to many atheists, but using memetics to justify that position is no more intellectually sound than the claims made by Christians.

Haven't you ever wondered 'where' your theism came from in the first place? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


daretoknow
Superfan
daretoknow's picture
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-12-09
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Conor

wavefreak wrote:
Conor Wilson wrote:

darth_josh:

Thanks for the correction. As of right now, first impressions are that memetics is *not* a "discredited idea," (...leave it to apologists to get their facts wrong...) but it is only an undeveloped idea. Apparently, we are awaiting the right person asking the right questions with the right methodology in order to see if memetics has merit.

I think this is the key point. Memetics has struggled to find its place in science, but the concept has been elevated to the level profound truth in popular culture. What is a mind virus? There is no scientific basis for such a construct and yet it has been latched onto as a pointed and damning description of theism. The idea of theism as a disease is emotionally satisfying to many atheists, but using memetics to justify that position is no more intellectually sound than the claims made by Christians.

 touché?

Thats cute.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh

darth_josh wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Conor Wilson wrote:

darth_josh:

Thanks for the correction. As of right now, first impressions are that memetics is *not* a "discredited idea," (...leave it to apologists to get their facts wrong...) but it is only an undeveloped idea. Apparently, we are awaiting the right person asking the right questions with the right methodology in order to see if memetics has merit.

I think this is the key point. Memetics has struggled to find its place in science, but the concept has been elevated to the level profound truth in popular culture. What is a mind virus? There is no scientific basis for such a construct and yet it has been latched onto as a pointed and damning description of theism. The idea of theism as a disease is emotionally satisfying to many atheists, but using memetics to justify that position is no more intellectually sound than the claims made by Christians.

Haven't you ever wondered 'where' your theism came from in the first place?

It might surprise you that I find the concept of memes intruiging. There is an elegance to it that has potential. But abusing an idea isn't very helpful and much of the blather I see about memes is just that - blather. 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
What part of 'testable' and

What part of 'testable' and 'observable' did we miss?

L. Ron made bank on his idea.

Vernon Howell was doing ok until that pesky ATF thing.

Just because your god is different in your mind doesn't exclude him/her/it from the same analyses.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: What

darth_josh wrote:

What part of 'testable' and 'observable' did we miss?

L. Ron made bank on his idea.

Vernon Howell was doing ok until that pesky ATF thing.

Just because your god is different in your mind doesn't exclude him/her/it from the same analyses.

 

Huh? What does this have to do with memes as a scientific theory?  


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
O man I think I

 warning dangerous meme infestation follows!

Meme :


Brain virtual virus exploiting the hosts possessions or interests by attaching to the hosts data structure

You can measure a meme in KB or MB like every data structure however binary data measurement maybe not completely applicable to human brains.

Memes belong to the discipline of informatics and the  book I’m writing on.
Memes are data/information they are a pattern in materials (materialism)

Ok for people who don’t understand  informatics here are some internet memes

My favorite  Cockmongler :

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Cockmongler

LONG CAT :
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Longcat

Lemon Party :
(Na it would be spam and disgusting to)

GT :
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Goofy_Time

Internet Hate machine :
its in my picture image Laughing out loud (must spread the virus , must spread the virus  )
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/INTERNET_HATE_MACHINE

This maybe explains :
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Meme


OK. If humans are machines we are nothing else then part of the operation system so  viruses are the next logical step. To disprove a meme you must prove  :
-The non mechaniti of the human body
-The non existence of information and data
-The non existence of human logic
-The non existence of human memories
-The non existence of learning , word of mouth and internet phenomena

To analyze a meme you need the combined knowledge from informatics , psychology , neuroscience and sociology.

BTW : the acronym WTF is a internet meme

All You memes belong to US .   

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   Just WTF is a

   Just WTF is a meme?

words without music

try this meme with music .... Andy Williams , "Born Free"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZHaQ3C3xQo

Wow it's is so JESUS / BUDDHA !  Laughing

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
    another meme with

    another meme with music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNHkOryXosI

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long long year stolen many a man's soul and faith
I was around Jesus Christ had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game

Stuck around St. Petersburg when I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Tzar and his ministers; Anastaria screamed in vain
I rode a tank held a gen'rals rank when the blitzkrieg
raged and the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you hope your guess my name, oh yeah
Ah what's puzzling you is the nature of my game, oh yeah

I watched the glee while your kings and queens fought for
ten decades for the Gods they made
I shouted out "who killed the Kennedy's?" when after all it was you and me
Let me please introduce myself I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I lay traps for troubadors who get killed before they reach Bombay

Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you is the nature of my game, oh yeah

Pleased to meet you hope you guess my name
But what's confusin you is just the nature of my game

Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint

So if you meet me Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, um yeah

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, um yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, um mean it, get down

Woo, who
Oh yeah, get on down
Oh yeah
Oh yeah!

Tell me baby, what's my name
Tell me honey, can ya guess my name
Tell me baby, what's my name
I tell you one time, you're to blame

oh, who
woo, woo
Woo, who
Woo, woo
Woo, who, who
Woo, who, who
Oh, yeah

What's my name
Tell me, baby, what's my name
Tell me, sweetie, what's my name

Woo, who, who
Woo, who, who


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  another , Peggy Lee,

  another , Peggy Lee, "I'm A Woman"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajdn1OkAn4E

come on Peggy, do that to me, I LOVE YOU

PEGGY, she ends, that's all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Hmm thus songs are nice but

 

I didn’t read the SG but memes supposed to mutate like in the old saying evolve or die ?
BTW the cat in the top of the page is a meme so I decided to create a hybrid meme :
http://img525.imageshack.us/my.php?image=internetharesquadbg8.png

[img=http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/3785/internetharesquadbg8.th.png]

 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote: warning

carx wrote:

warning dangerous meme infestation follows!

Meme :


Brain virtual virus exploiting the hosts possessions or interests by attaching to the hosts data structure

You can measure a meme in KB or MB like every data structure however binary data measurement maybe not completely applicable to human brains.

Memes belong to the discipline of informatics and the book I’m writing on.
Memes are data/information they are a pattern in materials (materialism)

Ok for people who don’t understand informatics here are some internet memes

My favorite Cockmongler :

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Cockmongler

LONG CAT :
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Longcat

Lemon Party :
(Na it would be spam and disgusting to)

GT :
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Goofy_Time

Internet Hate machine :
its in my picture image Laughing out loud (must spread the virus , must spread the virus )
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/INTERNET_HATE_MACHINE

This maybe explains :
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Meme


OK. If humans are machines we are nothing else then part of the operation system so viruses are the next logical step. To disprove a meme you must prove :
-The non mechaniti of the human body
-The non existence of information and data
-The non existence of human logic
-The non existence of human memories
-The non existence of learning , word of mouth and internet phenomena

To analyze a meme you need the combined knowledge from informatics , psychology , neuroscience and sociology.

BTW : the acronym WTF is a internet meme

All You memes belong to US .

I see the concept of a meme has infected your mind.

Humans are only machines?  

 

-The non mechaniti of the human body
-The non existence of information and data
-The non existence of human logic
-The non existence of human memories
-The non existence of learning , word of mouth and internet phenomena

 

This is all circular reasoning. You defined memes using these ideas and then used these ideas to prove memes.

You made the claims. Prove the body is a machine.

What is information? Would it exist if we weren't here to perceive it? You can't prove this one way or the other because you can't remove your perception from the proof.

Logic is nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain. It doesn't exist in some "logic space"

Memories are an illusion. Chemical states in our brains. Physical leftovers from a previous chain of causality.

 


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Well I always asserted

Well I always asserted humans are machines.  Well if were the opposite way then doctors/biology/medication/genetics/DNA is a fabrication and can’t worked. Every system that can be analyzed , categorized , manipulated and understudy supposed to be by definition a machine. This is the argument for the mechanity of humans and NO I don’t derived this from memes because I learned about memes 300 days ago.

To answer you question of data I try hard a data/information are a pattern that is readable by one ( if the only device is the device that has written this information  )or more devices and gives a similar result in the reading device (humans included to). Here you go I just defined data/information you can apply this definition to writings , operating systems and so on. You seam to misunderstand “chemical reactions” are a system or a method of storing patterns.

O and I can prove that information exist when we don’t exist here I simply ask another device that doesn’t have such braises (a computer ).

Check and mat WF.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Surely a meme is just an

Surely a meme is just an idea and I'm not sure why some people want to critize the concept for being non-scientific. Not everything Richard Dawkins writes is science and nor does he claim it is.

 
Democracy is a meme, as is freedom, as is 'star wars was classic science fiction

These ideas change with time, mutate, evolve etc  and cant easily be scientifically studied but thats not a critism of science

 

Science does not have the answer to everything however religion does not have the answer to anything 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
 I see in your sig that

 I see in your sig that English is not your first language so I'm going to assume we will make mistakes in understanding each other. I won't take it personally if you won't.

carx wrote:

Well I always asserted humans are machines.

 

An assertion is not a proof. I can assert that god exists. This does not make it so.

Quote:
 

Well if were the opposite way then doctors/biology/medication/genetics/DNA is a fabrication and can’t worked.

The DNA molecule exists as a physical entity, I don't need to call it DNA for it to exist. 

 

Quote:
 

Every system that can be analyzed , categorized , manipulated and understudy supposed to be by definition a machine.

Theology is system that can be "analyzed , categorized , manipulated and understudy". So is theology a machine?

 

Quote:
 

To answer you question of data I try hard a data/information are a pattern that is readable by one ( if the only device is the device that has written this information )or more devices and gives a similar result in the reading device (humans included to). Here you go I just defined data/information you can apply this definition to writings , operating systems and so on. You seam to misunderstand “chemical reactions” are a system or a method of storing patterns.

But we already have a unit of information - a bit. Why do we need a new word? Good science clarifies. And what ids the "unit" a meme refers to? What is the atomic meme?

 

Quote:

O and I can prove that information exist when we don’t exist here I simply ask another device that doesn’t have such braises (a computer ).

 

Every one of these exist because we built them. Were it not for our perception they would never have come into existence. Again, your "proof" is linked to your perception. You can't separate the two.  And computers don't percieve information. On the lowest level, the are a set of finite operations on a finite set of binary numbers. A computer doesn't know or care that when it adds binary number A to binary number B that it results in a nuclear missle launch or a winning lottery number. 

Quote:
 

Check and mat WF.

Your move. 


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
OK I will try to run my

OK I will try to run my posts with a spell check before posting.

You got me with the theology one  I forgot to mention machines must be made of atoms . Theology however can not be manipulated like a machine my manipulating some values and getting different results. You see a machine is a construct (pattern ) of molecules so  saying you can analyze  a car and state its made of metal doesn’t disprove the fact a car is a machine dose it ? A car works because of the arrangement of metal and non metal molecules in it and I’m referring to this arrangement .
To give you a understanding imagine the human arm if I can manipulate electric impulses in the neurons I can force this arm to move exactly how I wont to.
You see the muscles perform the same exact function and can be understood and manipulated , actually it is possible to use amputated human arms for a motor in a car if they are manipulated in the right direction by impulses.  If the right impute is given the mechanism performs the right protocol/operation do you understand my point now ?

Data/information are stored and the storage depends on the carrier and depending on the carrier you can get different arrangements of molecules (Floppy disc VS CD VS DVD ). You seam to misunderstand that the KB ,  data depends on the compression mechanism of the storing system (zip , rar , )  KB are not a data atom ore something. Besides bits and baits referee to a binary system not a different one where the human brain can use a different system of storage (the near use of a different base number renders bits just a approximation ).

OK I don’t get your argument my point is you get your song played on your Ipod regardless if you believe in data/information or not.  And I don’t think the neurons in your brain are aware of their actions , neurons don’t think they process some action (I cant specify this do to my lack of neurology knowledge however I know enough to now its some process ) and your consciousness is the result of this and a operating system is nothing more then the sum of a lot of calculation similar to you being the sum of neuron reactions.

BTW : bits referee only to binary storage and are not  completely applicable to systems based on the number 3  , 5 ,6 ,7 ,9 10, 1000 or any non- 2 or power of 2  based number system.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote: OK I will try

carx wrote:

OK I will try to run my posts with a spell check before posting.

You got me with the theology one I forgot to mention machines must be made of atoms . Theology however can not be manipulated like a machine my manipulating some values and getting different results. You see a machine is a construct (pattern ) of molecules so saying you can analyze a car and state its made of metal doesn’t disprove the fact a car is a machine dose it ? A car works because of the arrangement of metal and non metal molecules in it and I’m referring to this arrangement .
To give you a understanding imagine the human arm if I can manipulate electric impulses in the neurons I can force this arm to move exactly how I wont to.
You see the muscles perform the same exact function and can be understood and manipulated , actually it is possible to use amputated human arms for a motor in a car if they are manipulated in the right direction by impulses. If the right impute is given the mechanism performs the right protocol/operation do you understand my point now ?

Data/information are stored and the storage depends on the carrier and depending on the carrier you can get different arrangements of molecules (Floppy disc VS CD VS DVD ). You seam to misunderstand that the KB , data depends on the compression mechanism of the storing system (zip , rar , ) KB are not a data atom ore something. Besides bits and baits referee to a binary system not a different one where the human brain can use a different system of storage (the near use of a different base number renders bits just a approximation ).

OK I don’t get your argument my point is you get your song played on your Ipod regardless if you believe in data/information or not. And I don’t think the neurons in your brain are aware of their actions , neurons don’t think they process some action (I cant specify this do to my lack of neurology knowledge however I know enough to now its some process ) and your consciousness is the result of this and a operating system is nothing more then the sum of a lot of calculation similar to you being the sum of neuron reactions.

BTW : bits referee only to binary storage and are not completely applicable to systems based on the number 3 , 5 ,6 ,7 ,9 10, 1000 or any non- 2 or power of 2 based number system.

This could prove to be an interesting conversation  soI want to spend some time making sure we understand each others terminology. Can you give me a concise definition of a machine? 


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
OOOO Well I never tried to

OOOO Well I never tried to define a machine so I try my best however I can screw up and need to fix it (Hey its not dogma it science/engendering ).

Machine :
A construct made of atoms/meter , performing predictable operations depending on the impute where every action is dependent on the impute where the impute or reaction can be changed by the previous impute (a computer downloading a new protocol in order to start a transmission ). The action/ reaction are more complex then normal chemical reactions do to manipulating a entire set of different molecules and atoms organized in a fixed order

(a chain predictable reaction of atoms ).

WF I think this is going to be interesting too Laughing out loud.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote: OOOO Well I

carx wrote:

OOOO Well I never tried to define a machine so I try my best however I can screw up and need to fix it (Hey its not dogma it science/engendering ).

Machine :
A construct made of atoms/meter , performing predictable operations depending on the impute where every action is dependent on the impute where the impute or reaction can be changed by the previous impute (a computer downloading a new protocol in order to start a transmission ). The action/ reaction are more complex then normal chemical reactions do to manipulating a entire set of different molecules and atoms organized in a fixed order

(a chain predictable reaction of atoms ).

WF I think this is going to be interesting too Laughing out loud.

Are variable inputs required? Classical machines like a screw, wheel or lever seem to have singular inputs and outputs. Your definition seems to be emphasizing information processing machines. Is this deliberate?


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
NO screws and wheels are

NO screws and wheels are not machines however levers are. I explain this in this manner : chemical and physical reactions are the cornerstone for any reaction if more of this reactions combine (gravity and mechanical properties for a lever ) so they create a unified output  they create a machine that’s all.

And then we have machines who self change and are information based ,however that a different  story.

Btw: Screws are so much machines like rocks (screws are monolithic structures where without any interactive parts ) are however they can be components of a machine.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote: NO screws and

carx wrote:

NO screws and wheels are not machines however levers are.

See this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_machine

You seem to be using a definition of machine that is your own, or at least restricted to a certain type of machine. Is this your intent?


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Sorry this article is

Sorry this article is seriously wrong and ridicules it fails to keep a coherent concept of machines
by adding elements however not mentioning the in the actual machine.


Look  a " Inclined plane " is nothing but a geometrical construct to haw this little assertion from the article you
need to add more elements like gravity , a actual object on the top and wala you landed back in my definition.
Of curs something must pull the object from the "Inclined plane" up (if not by this definition a fire cracker is a machine too)
and again we are adding extra parts and coming to my definition.

To the weal note the " and axle" part of "The wheel and axle" again we are adding parts no contradiction to my definition.

The lever ,The pulley ,The wedge multiple parts correct according to my definition.


The screw O man this is insane I mean a screw is only a geometric object why is there no sphere and cube mentioned there ?
You see if you add a screw to something and start moving it , it becomes a part of this machine and a human picking up a screw
and moving it is included in this definition. I think the author didn’t specified all of the components like (gravity ,humans)
so no there is no contradiction to my definition.

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Ops  got a little

Ops  got a little frustrated the point is this article fails to mention other extra parts to thus constructs with actually make them machines
(humans , gravity , external forces)

 

EDIT

OK rape time I'm going away for some hours and return tomorrow

To drive my point even more clear I give you a fragment of the article
to show that its not so 100% clear
"Variations to the list of simple machines:

    * Some say there are only five simple machines, arguing that the wedge is a moving inclined plane.
    * Others further simplify the list to four saying that the screw is a helical inclined plane. This position is less accepted because a screw simultaneously converts a rotational force (torque) to a linear force.
    * Some go even further to insist that only two simple machines exist, as a pulley and wheel and axle can be viewed as unique forms of levers, leaving only the lever and the inclined plane.[1][2]"

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download