BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Consciousness

 
 
The Planet of Sound
13:30 / 18.02.02
In ‘The Meme Machine’, Dr Susan Blackmore argues that consciousness is an illusion, and that our individual minds are in fact no more than an ever-changing pattern of memes, stored temporarily in our wetware brains, and walking around in nicely designed gene-propagation devices. On the other hand, "Cogito ergo sum". Are you really real? Am I?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:44 / 18.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Nick, a long time ago in a thread far far away:
Why is this important?

Is it knowable?


Or, to put it another way, you might want to suggest what some of the implications of Blackmore's theory as you see it might be, in order to best generate a discussion...
 
 
Tom Coates
15:58 / 18.02.02
I think saying 'consciousness is an illusion' is both a singularly big and dumb statement to make. In a sense of COURSE it's an illusion - in that what we THINK it is, it clearly ISN'T. We don't have absolute control over our bodies, our moods are chemical dependent, our decision-making processes are irrational and illogical, but somehow lead to the propogation of our genetic structure, our memetic heritage etc. etc.

Cogito Ergo Sum has never been enough for me - it seems glib, frankly. And considering some of the things that DesCartes manages to come up from that 'basic' premise.

I'm still a freudian in many ways - so much of what motivates us, even if we knew its MECHANISM would still remain essentially obscure to us. Blackmore may have found such a mechanism...
 
 
The Planet of Sound
17:05 / 18.02.02
She sure has, but it seems to me to be perhaps a little too much of a resounding dive into Dawkin's genocentric view of the world, in much the same way that an idiot salesman will start telling you that everything in life is about sales, or a Marxist will tell you 'everything' is about the class struggle. If our minds are nothing but receptacles for memes, where does that leave individuality, except as some odd blips or waves in a great wobbly field of group-mind? Notions of accountability and responsibility are also somewhat submerged if are minds are really nothing but bits and pieces of others'.
 
 
Sleeperservice
18:12 / 18.02.02
But then you are your experiences, modified by your genes. What else is there?

Even if your mind is 'just' an accumulation of memes, your collection will be different from all others (to varying degrees). (/me thinks I'll have to go and read this book) And who's to say that once a meme has entered your mind it doesn't interact/merge/mutate with all the others in there? Heck they could even be breeding for all we know!

While it does seem that the idea of memes
contains some grain of truth it doesn't strike me as the defining functionality of the brain/mind. We're a long way from knowing though (if that's even possible).

If we (finally) manage to make machine intelligence via neural nets or some other method I think it'll teach us a lot more about brain/mind functionality than we're able to determine by studying the brains of living people. Of course it could also be a total red herring
 
 
SMS
22:54 / 18.02.02
My response to Blackmore would just be a rephrasing of the following [replace God with consciousness]:

"'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.'
'Ah,' says man, 'the babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it. It proves you exist, therefore you don't, QED.'
'Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that,' says God, and He promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."

What about individuality? Well, I don't think that disappears because of meme theory. I think we may look at new ways of defining it. I did. And accountability? This is a moral question, and I don't think that the existence or non-existence of a self can have any moral implication without demonstrating some more relevant consequences.

And yes, you should read her book.
 
 
The Planet of Sound
08:33 / 19.02.02
I just re-read it, which provoked the post. I've also read The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
 
 
cusm
18:02 / 19.02.02
And who's to say that once a meme has entered your mind it doesn't interact/merge/mutate with all the others in there? Heck they could even be breeding for all we know!

They are. How do you think new idea are formed, new opinions? See one meme from the perspective of another, propigate that view to other memes for comparison. Children containing elements of their parents (which could be many) vie for consideration, and the most durable of those survive through natural selection.

Also, in the meme system, your consciousness itself is a meme. The idea that you are you is still an idea, and thus a meme. That doesn't mean it is lessened, just because you can give it a label. For example, God is "just a god", you are "just a human".
 
 
Tits win
18:57 / 22.02.02
has anyone got any links to extracts from the book. i would love to read any of it. i feel unworthy to coment without reading at least a bit of The Meme Machine.
 
 
.
19:51 / 22.02.02
quote:Originally posted by The Planet of Sound:
In ‘The Meme Machine’, Dr Susan Blackmore argues that consciousness is an illusion, and that our individual minds are in fact no more than an ever-changing pattern of memes...


Well this is just plain wrong, isn't it? There is a categorical error being made here, in that ideas (or memes, whatever) are not the same as consciousness, and are entirely a different sort of entity. After all, what is it that has those ideas? Surely it is correct to say that I am conscious of ideas that i have, and not that the ideas that present themselves to my consciousness somehow constitute that consciousness? The consciousness is something that is conscious of things, and an idea is a thing. An idea can't itself be conscious... Again and again i see scientists trying to eliminate the consciousness from the metaphysical model of the self, and in virtually all cases it is because they fail to understand what consciousness is (or even what metaphysics is about). Philosophers don't call this "The Hard Problem" for nothing. Neurologists can have the perceptual faculties, memory, behavoural patterns etc, and stick them in the brain, but you're just not going to get consciousness in there.
 
 
Jackie Susann
20:45 / 22.02.02
I don't see the basis for categorically separating consciousness from ideas. Maybe an idea can't be conscious, but it seems reasonable (not saying I support this view, just that it's plausible) that consciousness is a kind of emergent structure generated by the interactions of ideas. And now I want to quote Hume, only I don't have the book but it's something like 'What is identity? Just a habit, the habit of saying "I".'

My main problem with the Blackmore argument(at least as PoS presents it, haven't read the book) is that it's as if the brain was just a hole all the 'memes' went in to. But surely biological processes play a huge role, in terms of body chemistry effecting/producing moods, your body's ability to translate the memes into action, etc. - and consciousness is produced at least as much by those bodily facts as any ideas that get at it.
 
 
captain piss
16:04 / 24.02.02
Yeah, the Meme Machine doesn’t aim to present a theory of consciousness- so steers clear of neurological issues pretty much- PoS’s opening comment is slightly misleading. Blackmore suggests that the ‘self’ may be an illusion, or rather a very enduring meme, or memeplex (a cluster of memes- other examples being a religion or field of science), a hypothesis supported elsewhere by the likes of Hume and Buddha and so on, as well as neurological findings that it's difficult to locate the seat of consciousness as being anywhere in particular.

The central insight I suppose – looking back on some notes I made on the book a couple of yrs ago- is that who/what we are is a result of both genes and memes and looking at things in this way helps to resolve mysteries like how and why language developed and why humans have such large brains (it being very dangerous to give birth to bodies so endowed, not to mention that fact that it uses a huge proportion of the body’s energy supply).

Blackmore’s thinking is that imitation (the picking-up of memes from others) is the skill that would probably have been most critical to the survival of primitive man – most would try to imitate or mate with those who could make the best tools etc. Incremental improvements in imitation ability with each generation would have driven the increase in brain size. As people’s skill at imitation increased, those memes that were good at getting copied would have spread far and wide.

One such meme is the facility for copying sounds for communication purposes- sounds can obviously be transferred from one mind to many at once, and from there language would have developed, as those sounds were grouped into units that permitted a higher fidelity of copying and allowed the expression of a wider range of memes.

An interesting end point of all this discussion is that it allows evolution to be viewed as a series of advances in the way information is transferred. While genes are the information medium that allow physiological changes/advances in the organisms they inhabit, memes drive changes in the mechanisms by which information is transferred, stored etc.
So while these information transfer processes started with self-replicating molecules, memes are the latest stage in the process, which is still ongoing- writing, fax machines, the internet- it’s all headed towards improvements in meme-transfer, for the benefit of the memes (and us, I suppose).
 
 
m. anthony bro
19:26 / 24.02.02
pardon my ignorance, but, what's a meme? I like the idea, but it reads to me like this:
"consciousness is an illusion, and that our individual minds are in fact no more than an ever-changing pattern of lksdfjklsjflksdjflkjsdlkfnsdlkvnclksdcs"
 
 
Mister Snee
20:20 / 24.02.02
Mike:

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=meme

Specifically read the second definition, the first one is a bit terse.

At any rate, I've always been annoyed by arguments over whether or not consciousness, free will and all that are "illusions" or "real", because it doesn't matter one whit.

Either we have free will, or we have the perfect illusion thereof. Either way, it doesn't matter. The question is empty and even if it could be conclusively answered the answer wouldn't have any ramifications on how we act or how we understand the world around us.

Argh. I wish I could put that better but I feel a bit daft right now.
 
 
SMS
01:49 / 25.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Meme Buggerer:
... for the benefit of the memes (and us, I suppose).


I don't think our benefit has anything to do with successful meme-transfer. So long as a meme doesn't kill off its carrier, it can make life hell for people without too much difficulty. A prime example Blackmore uses is farming, which may very well have been quite detrimental to people, but still managed to catch on quite well.
 
 
captain piss
08:53 / 25.02.02
Mike: I think it’s meant to be just anything that can be copied by means of communication or imitation, just as genes can be copied by protein synthesis. Memes and genes are both classed as ‘replicators’, the name given to the piece of information that is acted on and passed from generation to generation in the evolutionary process (variation, selection and heredity).
Strict analogies can’t be drawn between genes and memes because, for instance, a gene is always a fixed size whereas a meme can be anything from a few notes of a tune to an entire symphony.

Mister Snee: I think the idea that the notion of self is just another piece of information that we can take on board or discard, like a knowledge of art history or whatever, is quite interesting and relevant to how we think about ourselves. The idea that the ego or self is something we could choose to survive without is obviously quite challenging in western circles (oops- veering towards magick territory now), although its got a long history in the east and we’ve heard the likes of Terence McKenna make quite a big point of talking about this in recent times, in relation to pre-civilisation man and psychedelic plants, for instance.

SmatthewS: Could be talking out my arse here but I think Blackmore says that memes which do benefit us- or are consistent with survival and successful reproduction - will have a better chance of being transferred, which doesn’t exclude the possibility that ultimately harmful ones will be occassionally.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
12:02 / 25.02.02
Christ. Either there is no I, no consciousness, and we are just a complex bundle of reactions to stimuli, or there is a consciousness (ie something which supercedes simple stimuli/reflex processes) within the entity known as 'human', be it a discrete unit, a collection of memes/genes, a 4 dimensional aspect of an n-dimensional entity, or a bowl of soup wearing a false moustache.

If there is no consciousness, our existence serves no purpose other than to prove stimulus to any conscious entities we may encounter. Which makes it rather self-defeating to try to prove it doesn't exist. If there is consciousness, it must be illogical in it's very nature, ie the ability to act *against* stimuli, and should therefore be pretty much impossible to prove.

Personally, I think that makes it fairly pointless to theorise about the exact nature of consciousness. It certainly makes it pointless to argue against consciousness...

I'll try reading the book, shall I?
 
 
The Planet of Sound
12:31 / 25.02.02
Further to points above about destructive memes, Blackmore (and Dawkins) have talked at some lengths about autodestructive memes (the carriers of which are known, rather hilariously, as membots). An example is the meme that drove the 911 hijackers to pilot planes into buildings, ie a belief in eternal heaven (and virgins...) in exchange for the destruction of their 'gene-machines'; kamikaze-memes? It's interesting to note the same behaviour happening in insect societies (warrior-ants leaping to their dooms, bees dying when they've used their stings), which are presumably (?) meme-less. Mini-memes? (No Austin Power jokes, please.)
 
 
captain piss
19:57 / 25.02.02
Just led to consider whether or not the selfplex or ego is a good example of a destructive meme.
To quote Terence McKenna:

"...the overriding problems are brought on by the existence of the ego, a maladaptive behavioral complex in the psyche that gets going like a tumor. If it's not treated ...it becomes the dominant constellation of the personality."
 
 
cusm
00:30 / 26.02.02
I think the ego is just a meme, one that includes the idea that we are ourselves, the ability to say "hey, that's me!" As this is a central idea to consciousness, it affects a lot of other memes as well, and is generally fore in our minds. But since it is an idea, it is a meme. Its just an important one to the memeplex that we consider consciousness, which is a combination of memes and the ability to process them. You are not what you know, you are what you are thinking.

Anyway, good site on memetics that explains the lot of it, if you don't want to get the book:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/memes.html

As another note, I find the whole idea of memebots a violation against nature, and something to be avoided at all costs. I don't like when ideas are powerful enough to cause a man to let his life be taken for it. It just seems a perversion of nature, for the information we carry to be more important in our decision making process than ourselves. Down that path lies the soulless hive mind of a failed trancend like the Borg, or the Blight from A Fire Upon The Deep.
 
 
SMS
22:22 / 28.02.02
quote:Originally posted by cusm:
... It just seems a perversion of nature, for the information we carry to be more important in our decision making process than ourselves ...


Or, rewording the statement, it just seems a perversion of nature for ourselves to me more important in our decision making process than our life.

I disagree.
 
 
cusm
23:58 / 28.02.02
To clairify, I don't think any meme is worth dying for. There just seems something fundamentally wrong with that to me.
 
 
SMS
22:43 / 01.03.02
I know. That's why I was arguing with you. My point, in twisting your words, was to suggest that, because you are largely your memes, physical death for their sake is not quite so different than meme-death for the sake of your body. There are quite a number of ideas I'd be willing to die for.
 
 
Morlock - groupie for hire
10:09 / 04.03.02
Erm, in fact they are complete opposites. Meme-death sounds like compromise for survival, idea-to-die-for is death rather than compromise. I suppose you could argue that either choice results in a change to who you are, but I don't think that works long term. A lot easier to resurrect a meme.
 
 
cusm
12:56 / 04.03.02
The Ego is a meme. Your sense of self is a meme. What you believe to be your soul is a meme (the belief and perception part, anyway). Your personality is a meme. Everything you believe to be sacred and representable to as you is in fact also just a meme.

My body, on the other hand, is something different. It is something physical. It is the only thing I can be absolutely sure of. It contains the chaotic jumble of memes that make up the me-plex of myself.

That jumble can change. My ego can go away, my personality can change entirely, and has on a number of occasions, sometimes on purpose. The memes that I think represent me can die, yet the meta-me that is contained by the meta-meme of my body remains, and a new me arises from it, continuous with the old.

The continuity of my existance is preserved, even should the meme responsible for keeping track of that fail. As long as this machine I ride continues to operate, I know that whatever passes as me will continue.

Spirituality offers theories on what may happen should this body fail, but I can not be absolutely sure of anything beyond the limits of physical existance. So, I will hold them by any means possible, checked by the complex system of ethics I follow which includes the sacredness of the existance of others to be equal to my own.

What is me may not be easy to describe. However, I know that it is more than any one idea which I may contain. It is important enough that I will not lose the totality of myself to any one idea. Noble that the concept may be, it is still an unbalanced aberation of a system designed to perpetuate itself, and not perish on the whim of the data it contains.
 
 
Lionheart
15:11 / 04.03.02
This is a very funny thread.

Our conciousness is formed by the ideas it observes. That's a funny statement because you have to ask: Who started observing memes in the first place?

And cusm: The ego, the soul, the sense of self are not memes. They are affected by memes but are not a single meme in itself. a meme is supposed to be able to be transferred from one mind to the other. Try transferring your ego to us. Try transfering your soul to us. you can't. It's not transferable.

Those things can't be memes for another reason. They are ever-changing. I mean they're constantly changing. Every moment of your life affects your ego, your self perception, etc. and changes it.

Oh and you can't be sure about your body because... well, how do you define "your" body? At what point does your body end and everything else begin? And how do you know your body? You know it from your mind which you argue is fulll of memes.

Uh.. I just want to say one thing.

Your conciousness is awareness. It is not the thoughts, it is not the sensations or whatever. It is the thing which observes the sensations, which observes the thoughts. That's your conciousness.
 
 
The Planet of Sound
19:47 / 04.03.02
quote:Originally posted by cusm:


My body, on the other hand, is something different.


Your observations are very poignantly put, cusm, and I agree with 99% of what you're saying. The only area I'd question is your point above. Cartesian duality? Mind/body? ("Hey, Grant Morrison tackled this in an issue of Doom Patrol!"). How do we seperate meme and gene? And all those artists and geniuses who hope to live on for all eternity through memes, which seems to me the ultimate human goal enshrined in meme theory (that last chapter of The Selfish Gene?), what does it mean for their sense of identity, to be told that all that they are, all they represent, for all eternity, is a transient snapshot of their whole?
 
 
SMS
03:56 / 05.03.02
Whether or not the body is concrete makes no difference to me. A rock is just as physical and more concrete than a human body, but I would not therefore let my body die for the sake of the rock. You may say, that the rock is not my rock in the same way my body is my body. But as soon as you say that the body is more important than the rock; once you assign any value to anything at all, you must admit that that value is a direct result of some replicator. That replicator may be genes, memes, or something else. If you are able to articulate it, and transfer it into the mind of another, then it is a result of memes. If you sacrifice your life for any reason at all, you are sacrificing it for the sake of that value-meme.

What should we call more sacred? The information we carry in our genes, the information we carry in our memes, or the physical being. Well, aside from our scars, the information from our genes is not really distinguishable from our physical being.

And our memes aren't quite so easily distinguishible from our minds. Yes, there are parts of the mind that cannot be discussed this way. And it is true that the sum of all these memes, the great memeplex of one mind, cannot be transfered to any other place. But put these two parts together. And you have YOU.

I do think that we've pretty much reached a question of our fundamental values. There's nothing illogical about your view. It sounds crazy to me, but there's no reason I couldn't be wrong.
 
  
Add Your Reply