Reddit reviews The Meme Machine (Popular Science)
We found 14 Reddit comments about The Meme Machine (Popular Science). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Oxford University Press USA
Not an entirely incorrect statement according to this book written over a decade ago. https://www.amazon.ca/Meme-Machine-Susan-Blackmore/dp/019286212X
Herd this was a good read: https://www.amazon.com/Meme-Machine-Popular-Science/dp/019286212X
​
Haaa ha sen dalga geç anca...
Bunları okuyup gelde, bi boyunun ölçüsünü alıyım meme lordu seni
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetic_engineering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
"The Meme Machine" - Susan Blackmore. Nonfiction.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Meme-Machine-Popular-Science/dp/019286212X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1341405027&sr=1-1&keywords=memes
There is a word for that: “memes”.
Humans evolved to imitate the behavior of others, and to pass along useful information, which is how we build social units and communal behaviors. These word fads are probably part of that socialization impulse, usually harmless. The identification and study of memes is an area that some have explored. Here is a book that might be interesting., https://www.amazon.com/Meme-Machine-Popular-Science/dp/019286212X
For more reading, try Karl Popper's Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. 1, and vol. 2.
Try Jacob Bronowski's Science and Human Values.
Also, try Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine. While this isn't strictly about fallibilism, it describes how memes are an example of the problem-solving method.
Originally, the term meme was for concept of an idea being its own entity. For example "fire hurts" is probably one of the earliest viral ideas, or meme, in human history.
This book is quite an interesting read, also look for a book called The Selfish Gene.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/019286212X/
Edit: link to book added.
To me religions are an idea that has helped civilizations thrive through protection in numbers under the banner of that common idea(meme).
I cannot think of one society today that is not based on some sort of religious ethos and that has a remarkably strong way of banding people together and of even greater importance, the need to document ones idea.
Religion is one of the main influences and causes for art, music and language throughout our history and there is no denying its influence on us today no matter who you are.
I think there is a basic need for us to feel that there is a reason for us to belong to this super-organism that is the human race and religion is a very appealing idea to get behind, especially given the fact that they almost all offer passage to some sort of everlasting bliss and in most cases suffering or damnation to all non-believers. They also offer a social group that supports one another within the religious group that aids in their survival.
We have evolved enough now to develop these ideas into more complex ideals which has allowed the ideas or lack thereof behind atheism and other non-religions to flourish and to be documented for others to reference without fear of conviction for heresy. We now can oppose, study and/or question religious views without fear of persecution (although still not openly in some parts of the world). On the flip side this has also allowed mainstream religions to split into many variations of the same belief system some of them to the extreme.
I urge you to read The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore
http://www.amazon.com/The-Meme-Machine-Popular-Science/dp/019286212X/ref=pd_sim_b_1
or even the Lucifer Principle or The Global Brain by Howard Bloom are books that offer insights into this evolution of ideas.
It's funny, Susan Blackmore's Meme Machine is among my favorite books. I think this view of Life is entirely consistent with the Objectivist perspective.
Rand defined Good and Bad in terms of what that means for individual life forms, not "life itself"-whatever that means. What that life form is is irrelevant. What is good for memes is often also good for humans, sometimes it is not. We are two separate life forms competing for/sharing the same resources. Just like what is good for you is sometimes good for me, and sometimes not. What is good for a virus might be good for me, but probably not.
The interests of competing organisms are often at odds, this does not disprove the objective nature of values, it only supports the claim.
Rand is saying that the nature of an organism determines it's values. What it is determines what it ought to do. To me this is a tautology. It seems ridiculous to even need to point that out. Apparently some philosophers think otherwise. Btw, I'll read your article after I cook dinner.
>To make this point fully clear, try to imagine an immortal, indestructible robot, an entity which moves and acts, but which cannot be affected by anything, which cannot be changed in any respect, which cannot be damaged, injured or destroyed. Such an entity would not be able to have any values; it would have nothing to gain or to lose; it could not regard anything as for or against it, as serving or threatening its welfare, as fulfilling or frustrating its interests. It could have no interests and no goals.
Ayn Rand
Do Not Listen to This; You Will Sound Ridiculous
The proper pronunciation is: "May-May"
You're probably even more correct than you think you are.
https://www.amazon.com/Meme-Machine-Popular-Science/dp/019286212X
lol Yeah that is what memes seem to be labeled as. I, again not trying to be a dick, read Meme Machine By Susan Blackmore before memes were a hit on the internet. So I think of a meme as a cultural "gene" that is spread through a given population. It could ber verbal or visual. There are so many memes!! It has been very interesting to see the use of the word over time!