Here’s the idea at the heart of this book in a nutshell. For the best part of a century now we’ve become used to the picture (or many of us have anyway) of the four-billion-year history of life on this planet having been driven by a single kind of self-replicating entity, the gene. The result has been biological evolution. But in fact, all this may be only one very specific example of a more general, a more universal, principle—other kinds of self-replicators also being possible. Recently, with the emergence of human beings, a second kind has indeed appeared—the “meme”—and the result in this case is not biological evolution, but cultural: as is the gene to biology, so is the meme to sociology and psychology.
    It’s not a new idea (has been around for decades) but Susan Blackmore’s is a particularly clear summary. It explains what memes actually are: concepts of all kinds, ways of doing things, stories, myths, works of art and music, fashions, advertising slogans…you name it—all the assorted quality and trash which makes up our culture. It explains their method of replication (imitation) and some of the questions they may help answer, such as the puzzling size of the human brain, or the origins of language. There are also the differences between genes and memes: whereas genes need to deal squarely with reality at all times (or the plant, fungus or animal dies) this is not the case with memes; memes can be incorrect beliefs, misconceptions, urban myths, fantasies, pure nonsense or outright lies. Memetics “explains the spread of untrue, bizarre, and even harmful ideas…memes do not need to be true to be successful.”
    Like everything else I’ve read by Blackmore, this is exceptionally well-written—she’s a natural, a superb communicator of even the trickiest details; and although I did finish it as sceptical as I started out (i.e. mildly sceptical, no more) one thought did cross my mind. Many physicists have suggested that the basic “stuff” of the universe isn’t matter, or even energy, but information; and as for biologists, that’s what genes are too—the basic “stuff” of biology is also information. And once you look at the world that way, this “meme” idea doesn’t seem nearly so much of a stretch. ( )

Mixed thoughts on this. I think Ms. Blackmore has some good substance to her memetics theory, but there are points where she gets too fuzzy, and her explanations didn't convince me completely of its merits. She compares the replication of memes to that of genes, requiring fidelity, fecundity and longevity. I haven't bought off on their fecundity, much less the fidelity of memetic replication, but as this is not my field, I'll just keep thinking.

It took me mulling over the whole when near the end to nail what should have been obvious to me earlier: she restricts her memetic theory to humans because, she contends, only humans can imitate. [As an aside, something like that is direly ripe for religious picking (to counter the dreaded evolutionary genetic theory). And I'm surprised it hasn't to my knowledge been picked.] I just read Frans de Waals' The Bonobo and the Atheist and I wonder if he would agree - I suspect not.

I also think she imparts too large an impact to her theory:

Evolutionary theory faced enormous opposition because it provided a view of humans that humans do not like. The same will probably be true of memetics.

Not really. How is any of what is in this book something humans will not like? Moreover, how many people actually know anything about it? Or care? My observation above hints at no conflict with their religious thoughts on human evolution (or non-evolution.) By limiting such a theory to humans only, one shouldn't be comparing to genetics - genes are in every life in our tiny world, but memes are limited to one highly developed primate? ( )

Benzersiz taklit yetenekleriyle insanlar, sıra dışı varlıklardır. Fikirleri, alışkanlıkları, becerileri, davranışları, buluşları, şarkıları ve hikayeleri birbirlerinden kopyalarlar. Bunların hepsi birer "mem"dir. Mimik kelimesinden türeyen mem kavramının temel özelliği bunların gelecek kuşaklara taklitle aktarılmasıdır. Genler kendilerini moleküler düzeyde kopya ederek çoğalırken, memler toplum içinde taklit edilerek hayatta kalırlar. Hoşa giden bir müzik parçasının, bir ressamın tablosunun taklit edilmesi, bütün kültürlerde ortak efsanelerin olması gibi, başarılı olan "kültür parçası" taklit edilir, başarısız olan elenir.

Biyoloji insanın fizyolojik evrimini açıklarken, memetik bilimi insanın kültürel evrimine ışık tutar. Memetik kuram, Richard Dawkins'in 1976 yılında ortaya attığı "mem" kavramına dayanır. Dawkins'in evrim sürecinin son aşaması olarak nitelendirdiği bu 3. eşleyiciler (ilki kristal yapılar, ikincisi ise bu kristal yapıların üzerinde ortaya çıkan DNA moleküllerindeki genler olmak üzere), popüler dilde "kültürel genler" olarak tanımlanmaktadır.

Susan Blackmore, memetik kuramındaki çalışmaları ve memetik araştırmaların halka aktarılmasındaki katkılarından dolayı son yıllarda çok ünlenmiş bir bilim insanıdır. Konuyla ilgili birçok popüler kitabı olan Dr. Susan Blackmore ayrıca bilinç felsefesine yönelik çalışmaları ile de adından söz ettirmektedir.

"Her teori en iyi atışını yapmayı hak eder ve bu, Susan Blackmore'un mem kuramına kazandırdığı şeydir. ... Kitabını tavsiye ettiğim için memnunum."

RIGHARD DAWKINS'in önsözünden ....

"Memetiğin kültürel bir bilim olmasını uman ya da bundan korkan herkes, sağlam temellere dayanan bu keşfi, çok aydınlatıcı bulacaklar." DANIEL DENNETT

"Dawkins, Gen Bencildir'de küçük bir saatli bomba yerleştirmişti. ... Susan Blackmore o bombayı patlattı. "MATT RIDLEY, Times Literary Supplement

"Memetiklc tanışmamızı sağlayan, bugüne kadar yazılmış en iyi kitap..." ( )

The one that started it all for me. I wasn't a big fan of non-fiction before reading this, but afterwards I tried to grapple evolutionary biology, sociobiology, psychology.... I'm so curious about this stuff now; I wish I could go back to school and get guidance from a professor. ( )

I have to admit that when I first started reading this book I was taken aback, but I stuck with it and am ultimately impressed with the case that Blackmore painstakingly makes. I would highly recommend this book, especially if you have an enduring interest in human culture and religion. Even if you don't agree with her conclusions, I think her arguments are worth considering. ( )

This book was worth the read. While in many ways it struggled with the burden of proof and lack of research into the field of memes, and as a result came across as a pseudo-scientific approach at debunking all sorts of current thinking, it is put together well and really walks the reader to the rather shocking conclusion. ( )

(posted on my blog: http://davenichols.net/meme-machine)

Dr. Susan Blackmore was well known for her study of paranormal psychology long before she took her place in the theory of memetics. Briefly, she takes up the idea as presented in The Selfish Gene (Richard Dawkins) and builds upon the work of others, such as Richard Brodie and Daniel Dennett who have sought to define memes and their effects on humanity. Blackmore takes all of this a step further and proposes that memes are not just ideas that pass from brain to brain, but are a true second replicator capable as originally proposed by Dawkins. Her theory puts forth the idea that memes have coevolved with genes in the human species and now are the dominant replicator on the planet.

Early on in this book, I felt the effort was a bit hollow. Most of the first several dozen pages reads more like a topical survey of existing work on the subject and a sort of dry recitation of where thing stand. Certainly, this is normal for any popular science book, but the treatment here was a bit lacking for my taste.

However, once Blackmore is free from her history lesson, she launches into a challenging assertion of how memes became established as replicators, and the even more controversial theory that memes have driven genes to develop physical brains capable of spreading memes.

Dr. Blackmore offers that memes first came about from early humans imitating other humans for advantages (such as better tool use or optimal berry color determination). Once this began, the next step involved memetic selection favoring those who imitated the most successful imitators (since they would be the most likely candidates to have the ability to propagate memes). Next, natural memetic selection favored those who chose to mate with other imitators (meaning that genes favoring the ability to pass on memes were more successful at propagation). Finally, sexual selection for imitations would lead to the arms race Blackmore asserts drove brain size to enormous (and otherwise unnatural) proportions (her analogy is the costly and over-the-top display of male peacock feathers).

Language is presented not simply as an efficiency for communication and coordination but as a means by which memes themselves increase their fecundity (ability to reproduce or be reproduced). Since memes were best able to reproduce through imitation, language spread quickly since it so easily allowed memes to move from brain to brain. Writing, and later inventions such as the printing press, telephone, and internet offered even better efficiencies for meme replication.

Blackmore also offers strong discussion of the power of memes to drive behavior in the modern world despite the best interests of the genes in bodies. She gives a treatment on sex (birth control, smaller family sizes, porn, etc...) and religion (priests and nuns who concentrate on spreading religious memes rather than genes) as proof that such powerful ability makes memetic replication the driving force in our cultural (and therefore genetic) evolution.

Specifically, she proposes that memes are the driver of the contentious altruism phenomenon. Since we have an early desire to imitate successful imitators, and kin selection likely leads toward locally-based altruism, memes which encourage further altruism spread quickly. Blackmore suggests that nice, popular, and successful people 1) are more likely to come into contact with more people than are mean, unpopular, or unsuccessful people, and 2) are more likely to be imitated as a result (the nice guy who throws big parties and gives gifts will most likely have more imitators than those who scowl and remain isolated). Because of this, altruism spreads like a virus (as do all memes), and since altruism encourages more contact and better social behavior, the effect quickly spreads throughout most of the population. Morals and kindness likely find their roots in this process of imitation and memetic natural selection.

Getting deeper into this process, Dr. Blackmore offers her theory that the idea of 'self' and 'I' are the ultimate memeplex (groups of memes which work together in much the same way that chromosomes and genomes do). She asserts that the illusion of self is only in existence due to memetic natural selection and not some inherent and tangible part of humanity (such as a soul).

Finally, she contends that memes (backed up by some psychological research) provide no means of free will (Blackmore explicitely defines memetic replication as the source of human decisions), and that free will itself is simply a false meme that has spread thanks to other memes and memeplexes (such as religion, humanism, etc). Because we have no free will, the author argues that 'self' is not functionally useful in our lives and that we should instead focus on the 'now', letting our sense of individual identity and decision making fall aside as we cast off our illusions and attempt to enjoy what she considers a different type of conciousness.

Having just finished Daniel Dennett's excellent and powerful thoughts on consciousness (Consciousness Explained), I was prepared pretty well for what Blackmore offered. She cites Dennett (and Dawkins) frequently, although she does offer alternative theories on some points.

While I do believe (I can hear Blackmore trying to argue with 'I do believe' as I type it) she has put forth an excellent theory on memetics that goes a long way toward explaining broad areas left unexplainable by current neo-Darwinian evolution, most especially altruism, she admits throughout the book that she is only offering theories based on very early and sparse evidence. She offers testable scenarios and experiments all through the book which she believes might empirically confirm (or deny) her theory's assertions.

Her final chapter decends into a sort of conscious nihilism whereby she suggests the psychological version of Tim Leary's 'Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out'. Most of this chapter's assertions appear to be a much more personal solution, and I can't say that I agree that we should simply 'get out of the way of the memes'. While I think she may have the process down correctly (namely that memes are replicators in power in the modern world, largely responsible for physically large brains and consciousness, and that free will is largely an illusion), this solution of abandoning any pretense of personal intent feels like a cop-out. Blackmore tells us early on that ignorance of the underlying structure of genetics (DNA/RNA) did not prevent enormous progress on theories and practice of natural selection. I feel she gives her own theory different treatment under similar circumstances. We don't yet know exactly what, if anything, would be the underlying structure of memetics, but that shouldn't push us to 'get out of the way' at all. I see two options: the one she proposes (accepting that we have no power to control memes or any free will or personal intent) and letting go of the struggle over memes (anxiety, worry, doubt, etc), or an alternative view which is willing to accept many of the same proposals without disengaging. We never thought we would have the power to manipulate natural selection through genetics, and yet now we do. Memetics might offer a similar opportunity, and I feel ignoring this possibility feels a bit cheap, especially from someone who has been used so successfully by some outstanding and insightful memeplexes just to publish this book and work on this theory.

I would recommend that anyone wishing to read this book should first read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (and probably Extended Phenotype). Dan Dennett's Consciousness Explained is frequently cited in Meme Machine and reading it will help greatly in processing the theory Blackmore presents (though note that it is a deep philosophical book). Four stars and highly recommended to those whose have some ground knowledge of genes and memes going in. ( )

I may not believe in memes as defined by Blackmore, but this book is a fascinating and thought-provoking examination of... thought provocation. ( )

What is "The Selfish Gene" to genes is "The Meme Machine" to memes. Although I buy the author's view, she fails at giving compelling examples and arguments to support her hypothesis. Several times, she has admits that she did not conduct the tests to support her hypothesis. A skeptical reader may not be convinced by the author's view.

Read "The Selfish Gene" before reading this book. ( )

We humans are strange creatures. Our bodies evolved by natural selection, just as other animals' did, yet we differ from all other creatures in very many ways. We use language to communicate. We wage wars, believe in religions, bury our dead and get embarrassed about sex. We watch television, drive cars and eat ice cream. Why are we so different? Uniquely among animals, humans are capable of imitation and so can copy from one another ideas, habits, skills, behaviours, inventions, songs and stories. These are all memes, a term first coined by Richard Dawkins in 1976 at the end of his book The Selfish Gene. Like genes, memes are replicators, competing to get into as many brains as possible, and this memetic competition has fashioned our minds and culture, just as natural selection has designed our bodies. We are what the memes have made us: we are all of us meme machines.
Can the analogy between memes and genes do useful work? Can it lead us to powerful new theories that actually explain anything important? These are questions posed by Richard Dawkins in his Foreword and this, he continues, is where Susan Blackmore really comes into her own. ""She warms us up with some fascinating vignettes which get us used to the memetic style of reasoning. Why do we talk so much? Why can't we stop thinking? Why do silly tunes buzz round our heads and torment us into insomnia? In every case she begins her response in the same way: ""Imagine a world full of brains, and far more memes than can possibly find homes. Which memes are more likely to find a safe home and get passed on again?"" The answer comes back readily enough, and our understanding of ourselves is enriched. She pushes on, with patience and skill applying the same method to deeper and more exacting problems: What is language for? What attracts us to our mates? Why are we so good to each other? Did memes drive the rapid, massive, and peculiary evolutionary expansion of the human brain?
This extraordinary and engrossing book ends by confronting the deepest questions of all about ourselves: the nature of the inner self, the part of us that is the centre of our consciousness, that feels emotions, has memories, holds beliefs and makes decisions. Susan Blackmore makes a compelling case that this inner self, the "inner me", is an illusion, a creation of the memes for the sake of their own replication.

A fascinating read. Would this be a meme? Blackmore makes u think about yourself and this world in ways you had not previously entertained! ( )

An interesting look at the behavior of memes: how they replicate and propagate and make use of their human hosts.

Also amusing in that it's the only book I've ever read where there's a clear authorial bias toward Zen Buddhism: Blackmore is obviously happy to conclude that memetics shows that identity is indeed an illusion. ( )

At the start of the book Blackmore quotes Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene", saying, "All life evolves from the differential survival of replicating entities." Dawkins went on to ask if there was any other replicator that underwent selection apart from genes and suggested that there was, calling his new concept a "meme".
In a general way a meme is an idea that can be written, broadcast, spoken etc. and which at some point reproduces (ie. enters someone elses mind).

Similarly,as a gene can fail to reproduce and dies (eg. in a dinosaur), a meme can fail to reproduce and fades out (eg. the idea of a flat earth ).

Blackmore starts from here, and explores this second replicator at some length. It soon becomes clear that memes rely on imitation and communication with a great landmark being the growth of the human ability for speech, probably followed by the printed word, and culminating in the amazing modern massive and accurate transfer of information.

The effect of the spread of memes is also clear. As she says, "When the environment changes, a species that can speak, and pass on new ways of copying, can adapt faster than one that can adapt only by genetic change." In other words in an Ice Age you could make a coat rather than waiting to evolve one or you could light a fire to survive the new conditions having seen it done or having heard about it.

Memetic reproduction is helping genetic reproduction in this case and it is no surprise that humanity as "advanced meme manipulators" dominate all other creatures.

What is not so obvious, and which she takes some pains to point out, is that memes are replicators in their own right and are not simply a tool to facilitate genetic reproduction.

Some memes reproduce better than others, and as you would expect we are surrounded by memes that have been tested successfully (eg. our technology) although she shows that a successfully reproducing meme does not necessarily have to be a truthful one.

The worlds religions are memeplexes (collections of self supporting memes) that contradict each other but which have been enormously successful in establishing themselves in the human mind.

Blackmore suggests that they have evolved to reproduce successfully rather like a virus and she gives a set of rules for a successful memeplex: take something unexplained, provide a myth, include a powerful force that can't be tested, add in optional coercion for non-believers, provide a future reward (also untestable) and say that all good people believe in it and that it is the TRUTH.

She looks at the sociobiological view of human behaviour and concludes that "without the concept of the second replicator sociobiology must always remain impoverished". New memes fundamentally alter human behaviour as can be seen in the contrast between modern meme rich societies and the more traditional world.

A further question that she only touches on but that deserved to be looked at more carefully is where this memetic reproduction and selection takes place.
At present it is in the human mind but it is possible to imagine that machines could transmit and select memes themselves.

We would then have a new substrate for memetic evolution with different objectives from our own, and as she says, "we might be quite excluded from their kind of cultural evolution." - a worrying prospect. ( )

Bloom's convictions about the importance of memes has pushed this book higher up on the reading list.

TBR