RDFRS US:
The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.
The Magic of Reality
for the iPad
Sean Faircloth:
Attack of the Theocrats!
If an idea doesn't have anything to do with matter, I think anyone trying to prove it would be in trouble, don't you? Even mathematics and logic are about matter sooner or later.
That's my point. If a thing cannot make copies of itself, it doesn't fulfil the criteria needed for a replicator, though it can mimic one superficially just as a leaf insect can mimic a leaf. The copying mechanism, however, might be a benefit to genes if their success depended on relatives or helpful partners holding common ideas. On another thread of mine (which I think you've seen), I suggested some reasons why people sharing the identical ideas could be adaptive: for instance, that it makes it easier to cooperate or to bond (by reducing mutual misunderstandings - after all, you see the world roughly as they do), because of a social contest in which one advertises one's mental prowess by feats of memory for trivia and cultural mores etc.
But this dualism of ideas and physical matter isn't really a dichotomy. My knowledge of football, for instance, doesn't sit apart from the physical technicalities of the sport, actual games I've witnessed, and the workings of one's own mind. I won't go into depth on it here, but in short appealing to an abstract realm like a Platonic cave and claiming it cannot be tested by matter is a cop-out because memetics neither requires it nor suggested it. It's moving the goalposts after I've done my critique.
I do agree that lineages of cultural ideas do look convincing, but I explained above how I think this lineage actually works, and it doesn't need replication.
Permalink Sun, 22 Jul 2012 16:03:45 UTC | #949845