h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

That should have been #193. I don't question the general fact of evolution, or the theory that is usually accepted. I do question the concept and whether it can be applied to particular instances. I know that this is a philosophical question which may well be difficult for some - even some philosophers. It's that kind of subject.

If one accepts Darwinian evolution (and it seems to be broadly the case that we all do) then the question actually boils down to "Is there a genetically based structure or process that specifically gives rise to this TYPE of belief, or is this type of belief just a specific content of our mundane capacity for belief in general?"
If there is a genetic base for this specific form of belief, then it is a product of evolution. Otherwise it's a memetic "parasite". (Used without any value judgement attached).

Noggin

Absolutely, Noggin.

But flip the question around. Until we have the full decoding of human DNA we cannot know for sure that this is genetic.

But on the other hand, is it possible for something which is pandemic among all human societies, (albeit not all humans), to be memetic?

If it is possible, then the case for a genetic basis for the propensity for spiritual beliefs is - so far as I can see - 'not-proven' in that it is equally possible but not confirmed.

If it is not possible for something pandemic, etc, etc, to be memetic, then where the dickens did it come from? I can think of only two answers, genetics or divine intervention, and I don't buy the latter. The third is chance, and that is too improbable.

So far as I personally am concerned, the jury is out. I would like it to be genetic, because then we have the interesting possibility that we are not the only species which had a god. I suspect that it may be memetic, on the basis of the highly secularised nature of urban societies.

But, as I said, the jury is out.

B

Hi Noggin.

There is also the question: whatever the origin of such belief, does it have any survival advantage? Presumably a genetic origin suggests an affirmative answer although the characteristic may now be vestigial.

Is there any reason to suppose that memes confer any survival advantage since they spread without the need for reproduction? Some such as fashions seem to be, at most, survival neutral.

Could the individual beliefs be memes, rather than the need to believe? Could both be the case?

How would observations be organised in order to decide between these alternatives? Ben has a fair bit of work to do at some stage if this topic is to be pursued.

I say that it *is* possible for something pandemic to be memetic. Can you really not find a single example? Use of fire, clothing, story-telling, cooking, gossiping, brewing. There are so many potentially pandemic memes. What is your objection to such examples, Ben?

Hi Ben; Hi Toxx.

I'm inclined to the opinion that belief in general is a standard brain function and therefore genetic, and that specific beliefs are memetic. Or to put it another way our capacity to acquire memes is genetic. And our capacity to invent and/or restructure memes is both genetic and memetic. It's the open-endedness of the system in coping with circumstance that has such survival advantage.

Noggin

Am now off to play with Hootoo's new friends capability. You're both in.

Dammit Nogg, I completely agree with you. Doh!

Noggin put it much better than I did when I crafted but was not able to post the following reply:



> There is also the question: whatever the origin of such belief, does it have any survival advantage? Presumably a genetic origin suggests an affirmative answer although the characteristic may now be vestigial.

Ben: *sigh*

The entry - as we all know - argues it the other way round - there is a demonstrable survival benefit both for individuals and for groups in belief (spiritual, inspired, whatever, whatever). This survival benefit - like all survival benefits - is more apparent in extreme circumstances.

I have also said that the pandemic nature belief argues a genetic origin for the need to believe. I had not thought of a pandemic memetic origin at the time when I wrote the entry, which is why that concept is not included in the entry.


> Is there any reason to suppose that memes confer any survival advantage since they spread without the need for reproduction? Some such as fashions seem to be, at most, survival neutral.

Ben: At first sight there is very little reason to suppose that memes confer a survival advantage in western society which supports its weakest members, (after a fashion).

But in marginal societies (and all pre-historic and numerically most historic and contemporary societies are marginal) memes would definitely make the difference between survival and non-survival. If your group has a better meme for treating diaoghrea for example (how DO you spell that?), your group is more likely to survive food poisoning.

Hell, if your group has a better meme for building nuclear weapons you have a better chance of survival. Thinking about it - if memes did nto confer a survival benefit here and now, there would be no need for MI5, MI6, the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, indusdrial espionage and all the other spooks.

> Could the individual beliefs be memes, rather than the need to believe? Could both be the case?

Ben: Well of course the individual beliefs are memes, if by that you mean specific religions.

The question is about the need to believe though. And I am not sure if a need can be memetic.


> How would observations be organised in order to decide between these alternatives?

Ben: I have no idea.

> Ben has a fair bit of work to do at some stage if this topic is to be pursued.

Ben: Since this in not an academic paper, I can and will smile sweetly and duck back out again.


> I say that it *is* possible for something pandemic to be memetic.

Ben: You say tomayto, I say tomato...

>Can you really not find a single example?

Ben: Haven't tried.

> Use of fire,
Ben: Memetic

> clothing,
Ben: Memetic

> story-telling,
Ben: Quite possibly genetic - other animals may have a concept of narrative and the ability to convey it - in fact it is extremely likely that pack hunters do

> cooking,
Ben: Memetic

> gossiping,
Ben: Quite possibly genetic - other primates groom each other, and gossiping extends the communication beyond the physical act of grooming to a mental act of grooming.

> brewing.
Ben: memetic, it is a technology - though the propensity to take mind altering substances is not unique to humans, cats do it, elephants do it, given the chance apes will do it.

> There are so many potentially pandemic memes. What is your objection to such examples, Ben?

Ben: None at all. Why on earth do you presuppose that I would object?

As I have said all along I am a seeker of truth and cheesecake. If the answer to the question 'why do humans etc etc' is 'memetic selection' then that is the answer. If the answer is visitors from jupiter then that is the answer. If the answer is divine intervention then that is the answer.

You are forgetting that I only thought the damn concept up on the day I wrote the entry, and that I have been distracted by other things since then. I had a discussion with Hoovooloo on genetic/memetic two weeks ago, and then dipped back into my own remarkably demanding life. I have not been following the argument in detail becasue I had nothing to contribute over and above what I had already said, and because - to be honest - I had more urgent and important things to do with my time.



B

Here's why I thought you might object to the possibility of pandemic memes:

>But on the other hand, is it possible for something which is pandemic among all human societies, (albeit not all humans), to be memetic?

Surely one acceptable example such as those I offered indicates not only the possibility but the actuality! OK, question answered.

You haven't begun to persuade me that any 'belief gene or meme' would have a survival advantage. Might it not tend to confer gullibility as much as strength of purpose?

*sigh*

The reason I asked the question was because I did not know the answer.

*another sigh*

I have not at any time or in any place suggested that *A* belief confers an advantage. And if what I have already said about inspired/spiritual belief/faith (and therefore about the genetic / or memetic benefits of such a belief or faith) does not persuade you then no paraphrases or glosses or alternative wordings will.

It's ok for you to disagree with me. I may be wrong after all.

I am not evangelising a new religion. I don't evangaelise any religion, including the one that I believe in and intermittantly practice.

Ben

So what? Who are *you* that you need to be persuaded? This isn't about *you*. AIUI, it's a forum where researchers collaborate to improve the quality of the entries submitted. If you have no contribution to make that will achieve this aim: do the decent thing.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Incidentally, one thing that concerns me is that we have lost sight of why Dawkins coined the word 'meme' in the first place, instead of using one that was already available.

A meme is self-replicating, in the way that a gene is. Memes are a form of life, and we are their primordial soup.

Now it is ok to use the word in a way that Dawkins did not, as a shorthand for 'cultural' or 'societal' rather than 'genetic' when discussing inherited factors in human society. But we should remain consciously aware that this is not how Dawkins used the word.

As Toxxin, I think, pointed out a mile and a half up the thread, this is the nature/nurture debate in its sunday-best.



I was trying to think of situations when you can strip human memes from a human being, and came up with the children raised by wolves.

Now these children are not meme-free. They are raised with wolf-memes instead of human-memes.

What is interesting here, is:

a) Wolves clearly function memeticly, (as anyone who has raised a dog from the rescue pound would agree), so even if the need to believe is memetic, it still does not follow that it is therefore uniquely human. (Chimps function memeticly as well for that matter, as the second-generation ameslan speaking chimps demonstrate).

and

b) So far as I know, the only species to successfully raise small humans until they become large humans is the wolf, is anyone aware of a real-life Tarzan raised by chimps or gorillas?

Ben

So now I have been kind and intelligent enough to provide you with the answer, why (for goodness sake) is your response only a couple of sighs? A simple "Thanx Tox" would have done!

In my post I did not mention *A* belief either, so what are you complaining about there?

You are accusing me of bigotry when you assert that nothing will persuade me. I assure you that I am completely open to a soundly argued and justified case about any subject you care to mention.

'Practise' is spelt with an 's' in the verbal sense of the word as used in your final sentence.

OK then. You haven't begun to advance the slightest shred of a plausible case that would persuade the most gullible person on the planet that any 'belief gene or meme' would have a survival advantage.

Is that better?

> So now I have been kind and intelligent enough to provide you with the answer, why (for goodness sake) is your response only a couple of sighs? A simple "Thanx Tox" would have done!

Because you did not provide me with answers, and I am bored of having words put into my mouth, and assumptions made about my motives. I was not asking those questions rhetorically. I was asking them because I did not know the answers. Do you?

>In my post I did not mention *A* belief either, so what are you complaining about there?

I read it too quickly.

> You are accusing me of bigotry when you assert that nothing will persuade me.

No I am not. I am commenting on my own lack of verbal skills, and acknowldging you right to your own opinions. I think you are a lot of things, but not a bigot.

> I assure you that I am completely open to a soundly argued and justified case about any subject you care to mention.

Yes. I know. As I said, I was commenting on my lack of skill.

> 'Practise' is spelt with an 's' in the verbal sense of the word as used in your final sentence.

I saw that as I hit the post button. More haste less speed again.


> OK then. You haven't begun to advance the slightest shred of a plausible case that would persuade the most gullible person on the planet that any 'belief gene or meme' would have a survival advantage.



B

Dammit Ben. I gave you the answer and lots of examples. You yourself agreed with them. So why, if you want to know the answer, and I tell you, do you call it 'putting words in your mouth'?

Oh yep, Ben. That bit about the 'plausible case' was a response to Possum chaser's little barb!

Toxxin, sweetie, you have asked so many questions over the last 217 posts, and given so many answers, that I have lost track.

You may have been responding to Pattern-Chaser, (one of the things I learned here on h2g2 is to prefix remarks made to a person with that person's name), but since I agreed with PC completely, it is not inappropriate that I responded to it.

B

Well Ben. Responding with a doesn't seem to me to indicate complete ageement with Possum Chaser. Do you really think that I intended to be egostitical in the light of my revised answer (not mentioning myself) to Possum Chaser? That was the point of PC's post after all!

> Because you did not provide me with answers,

And when I do, you complain that I have provided too many answers. Doh!