Download The Mean Between Meme and Gene Comparison

The Mean Between Meme and Gene Comparison
J. Jordyne Wu '03
“People ache to believe that we human beings are vastly different from all other species—and they are right! We are different. We are the only species that has an extra medium of design preservation and design communication: culture.”
(Dennett, 1995)
“There is no denying that there is cultural evolution, in the Darwin-neutral sense that cultures change over time, accumulating and losing features, while also maintaining features from earlier ages… But whether such evolution is weakly or
strongly analogous to, or parallel to, genetic evolution,the process that Darwinian theory explains so well, is an open question.” (Dennett, 1995)
In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Daniel
Dennett attributes the difference between
Homo sapiens and all other known species to
the development of culture. To compare the
evolution of culture to biology, he focuses on
the discussion of memes and genes. Expanding
on Richard Dawkin’s definition of a meme” as
referring to any item of cultural evolution,
Dennett considers, modifies, and presents his
own account of memes as “complex ideas that
form themselves into distinct memorable
units,” and their comparison to genes, the
DNA-composed hereditary unit that determines the characteristics of organisms
(Dennett, 1995).
Dennett begins by citing similarities in
their origins and development of memes and
genes through the process of natural selection,
focusing on the notion that both serve to
transmit information. While memes transmit
cultural information, genes transmit hereditary information. However, noting differences
in replication, media, vehicles, and rates of
evolution, Dennett rejects extreme views of
memes as either a strict analogue of genes, as
advocated by Dawkins, or as entirely different
from the principles governing evolution, as
supported by Stephen Jay Gould. Instead, he
advocates a middle ground, perceiving the
advantage of a biological perspective of culture, while acknowledging that memetics is a
Darwinian phenomenon, rather than a
Darwinian science. As such, memes fail to be
strict analogues of genes, since their adherence
to the laws of natural selection is inexact. Yet,
meme evolution is analogous to, and
metaphorically related to, biological evolution.
Though this moderate view is sound in
principle, Dennett too generously leans
towards Dawkin’s support of gene-meme
equivalence, and ultimately fails to capture
much of the disparity between memes and
genes. Not only are there significant differences concerning origins and the expression of
genes and memes, especially in the absence of
phenotype for the latter, but most importantly,
memes ultimately arise from genes themselves
and are completely dependent on their hosts.
Once again, the general appeal of Darwinism
is both its forte and danger, readily applicable
to various phenomena, and yet easily stretched
and overemphasized to fit Dennett’s notion
that it is the universal acid that will eventually
eat away everything. In what follows, I shall
present Dennett’s stated similarities and differences between memes and genes while offering my own analysis when his position seems
to overstate the resemblance between memes
and genes.
courtesy Simon & Schuster
ORIGINS OF MEMES & GENES
Dennett begins with a story describing the
origin of memes paralleling the creation of
eukaryotic cells, which paved the way for multicellular life. However, not only are both stories vague and that of the meme’s pure speculation, but memes appear to have evolved from
genes themselves rather than being an analogue. In Dennett’s view, memes invaded primates and turned them into witting posts or
persons, just as parasites invaded reproducing
prokaryotes, thus forming eukaryotes
(Dennett, 1995).Genes were then able to develop from the disorganized, primitive, volatile
chemical components in prokaryotes into the
complex, varied, yet stable structures in first
single-stranded RNA, and later in double-helix
DNA in the nucleus of multicellular organisms. Dennett suggests that after thousands of
years of evolution, memes, which began as the
most simple of cultural ideas such as the taming of fire, the invention of the wheel, or the
creation of the alphabet, became complex
ideas like chess, existentialism, Darwinism’
natural selection, or even meme theory.
Although both stories of origin involve handwaving, the parallel that memes also invaded
and have developed to allow their hosts to
“leap through Design Space as nothing had
ever done before” is much more vague and
ignores that memes themselves come from
minds in a mindless, algorithmic process
(Dennett, 1995).
While Dennett notes that memes were well
adapted to finding homes in their hosts since
they were themselves created by their hosts as
the minds of primates evolved, he ignores the
conclusion which follows: that memes seem to
be a consequence, rather than an analogue, of
genes (Dennett, 1995). Instead, he seems to
support Richard Dawkin’s claim that just as
genes for plants paved the way for genes of
animals by providing an oxygen-rich atmosphere and ready supply of convertible nutri-
23
ents, Homo sapeins genes paved the road for
memes with “brains that could provide shelter,
and habits or communication that could provide transmission media for memes” (Dennett,
1995).Yet despite his support of Dawkin’s view,
Dennett falters and ultimately fails to embrace
the extreme view that memes are actually
evolved genes as much as animal genes are
evolved plant genes.
REPLICATION OF MEMES & GENES
Dennett claims a further similarity
between memes and genes inasmuch as both
are types of replicating entities; thus, memes fit
in with the picture of evolution drawn from
biology. Although Dennett recognizes some
differences, the connections are weak since the
fundamental differences between memes and
genes , such as their defining units, relationship to one another, and expression, is ultimately too difficult to reconcile.. Dennett cites
variation, heredity or replication, and “differential fitness” as the conditions of evolution
and supports Dawkin’s claim that “all life
evolves by the differentiation of replicating
entities” (Dennett, 1995). Taking this stance,
even though genes and memes may differ in
method, media, and rate of transmission, he
maintains that they are still similar in passing
information by mutation, variation, and selection. Genes travel from one generation to the
next in bodies via sperm and egg while memes
propagate themselves in brains by imitation, as
when a student learns calculus from a teacher
(Dennett, 1995).
Yet Dennett rightly rejects the strong
memetics notions that the meme counterpart
to the complex structures of DNA as the vehicle for genes is complex brain structures or a
homeobox. He recognizes that while genes
have a “strong alignment of semantic and syntactical identity,” giving rise to a “genetic language, in which meaning is (roughly) preserved across all species,” memes are primarily
semantically, and not syntactically, significant
(Dennett, 1995). The “brain language” which
preserves and conveys cultural information is
not in any particular language or media but
can be passed by speech, written word, or even
artifacts. Still, there is a yet greater discrepancy
that Dennett does not consider between genes
and memes in the issue of units, relationship to
one another, and phenotypic expression.
EXPRESSION OF MEMES & GENES
Whereas genes are comprised of smaller
units —nucleic acids — and express themselves in larger units —phenotypes —memes
seem to have nothing analogous. Unlike genes,
which have clear beginning and end points on
a strand of DNA, memes have no distinct
starting and stopping points because ideas are
amorphous. The English language as a meme
illustrates the difficulty of fitting it into a gene
concept. There is disagreement over the exact
definition of a meme. It could be symbolic in
the alphabet, or syntactical in the rules of
grammar or semantic in formed sentences.
Moreover, unlike a gene, which is coded and
contained within an individual, the meme of
the English language seems spread among the
entire English-speaking population. No one
brain contains the meme of the entire English
language. Distinct from a gene, a meme can
neither be broken down nor processed to be
phenotypically expressed since it stands by
itself as an idea. The smallest unit of an idea
seems simply to be the idea itself since there is
no universal language to parse, and memes are
semantic rather than syntactical in nature as
Dennett recognizes.
Memes also have no distinct phenotype in
that the ideas they express are just that— the
ideas themselves. Genes instruct cells to generate proteins, which determine the phenotype
the genes express, such as eye color or hair
type. Dennett attempts to argue that a meme’s
phenotype is the way it affects the environment, with the things in the environment
being minds and other memes (Dennett,
1995). He argues that instead of instructing
protein synthesis as genes do, memes instruct
behavior. Dennett’s explanation is vague primarily because the bridge linking their analogy is tenuous as best. The example of the first
four notes from Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony
as the genotype, and the phenotypic effect of
keeping intact a certain identity of effect, fails
in drawing the parallel.
Perhaps Dennett could appeal to the complex relationship between genotype and phenotype to illustrate its likeliness to meme
expression. A phenotype is rarely expressed by
one gene alone. Instead, it is usually a combination of different genes giving different directions to build different proteins, which then
combine and interact to give the phenotypic
effect of blue eyes. A combination of memes
then also gives rise to a certain set of beliefs or
mode of behavior. However, this view more
typifies the value of examining people’s actions
and beliefs from a biological perspective,
stretching the Darwinian analogy, rather than
giving an accurate account of how memes and
meme expression operate. After all, there is an
abundance of junk DNA that codes for nothing at all but is copied and passed along. In
contrast, a meme is not capable of being junk
because it is an idea. Moreover, if there were a
meme consisting of meaningless gibberish
sentences, it would fail to be passed along
unlike the gibberish genes of the junk DNA.
Whereas a gene must be expressed to be of any
meaning, a meme is an idea all in itself.
Although It can combine with other memes to
form behavior, it does not need to combine to
modify behavior or give any other effect. It
stands on its own as both the smallest unit and
also the larger expression. ■
MEMES & GENES IN TRANSMITTING
INFORMATION
Another similarity between genes and
memes is in transmitting information. Again,
Dennett carries a surface similarity too far .
While both mutate, memes mutate far more
frequently and in a directed fashion. While
genes and memes may both be immortal in
that the transmission of information may continue forever, they both need hosts from which
they express themselves. Dennett describes the
dependence of genes on human organisms and
memes on human conservators for a continuous chain of physical vehicles (Dennett, 1995).
Dennett astutely notes that for both, brute
replication does not necessarily guarantee survival since forces of selection are at work to
preserve the “fittest” from the pool. Dennett
25
recognizes that the development of the gene
and meme pool differ in the method and rate
of mutation. Most genetic mutations occur
during the process of reading and transposing
DNA and sexual reproduction. Genes are generally quite stable, which is one of the key reasons for the successful formulation and evolution of life. In contrast, memes seem to constantly mutate since “brains seem to be
designed to do just the opposite: to transform,
invent, interpolate, censor, and generally mix
up the ‘input’ before yielding any ‘output’”
(Dennett, 1995). This directed mutation and
blending of memes also differs from the randomness of genetic mutations.
Although human beings are constantly
synthesizing new ideas and rarely pass on
information in the pristine condition in which
they receive it , many memes are in fact passed
with little critical contemplation or additives
such as the alphabet, rules of grammar, or the
method for telling time. Moreover, many
memes must be taken on faith as part of the
learning process before a person can be critical, seemingly debunking the “survival of the
fittest” theory. Some bad ideas, such as the
example of bad philosophical arguments for a
first year class, are passed on in a linked-loci
fashion where a meme is attached to a fit
meme, a comparison to a good philosophical
argument. However, these examples do not
imply an automatic or mindless passing along
of information. Rather they show the “fitness”
of a meme to being so strong as to withstand
the questioning and probing in most minds.
For instance, the method of telling time has
been altered through the ages only to be in its
present form right now. If a person were to
come up with a better method, the legitimacy
of that meme would be challenged. However,
Dennett recognizes that human beings have
filters for memes, including a tendency to keep
existing memes in a habit.
MEMES’ DEPENDENCE ON HOSTS
The overarching difference between
genes and memes is the memes’ dependence
on hosts, which far surpasses any interaction
between that of gene and host. Organisms
are certainly a product of both genes and
memes. Yet, genetic composition is somewhat independent of the host in that the
host inherits its genes and there are little
changes, especially ones induced by the host,
that occur after the initial combination from
the parents and random mutations. In contrast, the mutation and replication of memes
is directly facilitated by the host. Moreover,
the environment is a much larger contributing factor to the changes of memes than of
genes. Some exceptions to host or environmentally directed changes may be the accidental mistake in copying, translating, or
repeating an idea. Even the instances of
automatic passage such as the alphabet discussed before are not mindless. Ideas are
formed and altered in the minds of human
beings, even if the minds themselves are
governed by algorithmic processes. Once
again, memes can be seen as arising in part
from genes and not, as what some rhetoric
would suggest, an actual analogue or a supe-
rior transmitter of information. Its vehicle of
“brain language” is a result of the complex
processes of the mind, the medium of
memes which itself is formed by genes. Its
rapid rate, a rate that overtakes the slow evolutionary process of genes, can also be attributed to the minds of human beings. Even the
memes of high technologycan be traced to
those very genes, which gave rise to the
mind, which gave rise to the ideas, or
memes, of modifying genes. To state that
memes are now surpassing genes as some
claim would be to say that genes are outdoing themselves. It is simply a matter of more,
rather than different, evolution.
THE MEAN BETWEEN MEME & GENE
COMPARISON
However, slipping down the path of greedy
reductionism, reducing all phenomena to the
most basic, is just as easy and just as misguided as sliding down the path of greedy
Darwinism where everything is viewed in
Darwinian terms. Although memes may have
originated from minds or from genes themselves, to view it in this reductionist sense
would be neither descriptive nor useful. Just as
Dennett’s examples of “A Comparison of Keats
and Shelley from the Molecular Point of View”
or “Explaining the Decisions of the Rehnquist
Court in Terms of Entropy Fluctuations” are
absurd and provide no explanatory powers
whatsoever, taking a memes reduced to genes
view is likewise a mistake (Dennett, 1995).
Explaining memes as analogous to instead of
purely arising from, genes can provide insight
in the way culture operates. Dennett himself
believes that “memes could transform the
operating system or computational architecture of a human brain,” stating that culturally
transmitted habits transform the genetically
designed hardware of the human brain into
something more powerful (Dennett, 1995).
While he over-emphasizes the independence
and power of genes in his rhetoric, he does
ultimately believe that the evolution of memes
is a Darwinian phenomenon rather than a
Darwinian science. Dennett must simply take
caution that he does not attribute too much
significance to the analogy since memes differ
from genes in origin (having arisen from genes
themselves), in expression, and in degree of
host dependency. Indeed, human beings with
values, beliefs, and goals are products of their
genes and culture. Dennett notes that “what
makes us special is that we, alone among
species, can rise above the imperative of our
genes—thanks to the lifting cranes of our
memes” (Dennett, 1995). That memes arise out
of genes does not make the position of human
beings less special or the analogy less insightful.
REFERENCES
Dennett, Daniel. (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous
Idea. New York: Simon and Schuster.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
J. Jordyne Wu '03 is a double-major in philosophy
and economics from Newton, Massachusetts. She
is particularly interested in the philosophy of science and technology, including artificial intelligence and artificial life.
27