Theory of consciousness and self
Suggested reading: The Meme Machine, by Susan Blackmore
An excellent, fascinating and thought-provoking book that starts with the most basic point, defining a meme: pointing out that it is a replicator, just as a gene is. It then works on from there, exploring all the logical, inevitable consequences of that, doing a good job of melding biology, genetics, sociology, neuropsychology and philosophy. There are some pretty radical implications for neurobiology, consciousness, AI and religion (among others).
Her conclusion on the self:
"One of the problems with the idea of memes is that it strikes at our deepest assumptions about who we are and why we are here... if memetics is valid, we will have to make another vast leap in accepting a similar evolutionary mechanism for the origin of our minds and our selves."1
"Each illusory self is a construct of the memetic world in which it successfully competes. Each selfplex gives rise to ordinary human consciousness based on the false idea that there is someone inside who is in charge.
The ways we behave, the choices we make, and the things we say are all a result of this complex structure: a set of memeplexes (including the powerful selfplex) running on a biologically constructed system. The driving force behind everything that happens is replicator power. Genes fight it out to get into the next generation, and in the process biological design comes about. Memes fight it out to get passed on into another brain or book or object, and in the process cultural and mental design comes about. There is no need for any other sort of design power. There is no need to call upon the creative 'power of consciousness', for consciousness has no power. There is no need to invent the idea of free will. Free will, like the self who 'has' it, is an illusion. Terrifying as this thought seems, I suggest it is true."2
And on the theme of creativity:
"I am not saying that there is no creativity. New books are written, new technologies invented, new gardens laid out, and new films produced. But the generative power behind this creativity is the competition between replicators, not a magical, out-of-nowhere power such as consciousness is often said to be. The creative achievements of human culture are the products of memetic evolution, just as the creative achievements of the biological world are the products of genetic evolution. Replicator power is the only design process we know of that can do the job, and it does it. We do not need conscious human selves messing about in there as well.
Of course selves are not irrelevant. Far from it. By virtue of their organisation and persistence, selfplexes are powerful memetic entities that affect the behaviour of the people who sustain them, and of all those who come into contact with them. But as far as creativity is concerned selves can often do more harm than good, for creative acts often come about in a state of selflessness, or loss of self-consciousness, when the self seems to be out of the way. Artists, writers and runners often say they are at their best when acting spontaneously and without self-consciousness. So selves have effects but not as the originators of conscious creativity."3
She also covers the differences between memetic and genetic evolution (for instance, memetic transmission can be Lamarckian as opposed to Darwinian), and suggests answers to two major puzzles of evolution, the size of the human brain, and the origin of language, based on memetics. Everything is well-referenced, and it's a relatively easy book to read, though worth stepping away from and musing on every so often to let the ideas percolate. (Note, though, that it's not one to dip in and out of randomly - read in order, it's carefully constructed.)
Ironically, its success is largely going to be determined by how popular the meme of memetic theory is, not whether or not it's true... Which in a way proves its point. QED. And given how frequently the principles of natural selection are misunderstood as applied to biology, I suspect they will be even less accepted as applied to cultural and informational evolution. Sigh.
If you like this sort of thing, I also recommend Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer, which is just wow, and How The Mind Works by Steven Pinker, which is pretty cool although I don't always agree with him.
1The Meme Machine, Susan Blackmore, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp 8-9.
2Ibid, p 236.
3Ibid, p 240.
An excellent, fascinating and thought-provoking book that starts with the most basic point, defining a meme: pointing out that it is a replicator, just as a gene is. It then works on from there, exploring all the logical, inevitable consequences of that, doing a good job of melding biology, genetics, sociology, neuropsychology and philosophy. There are some pretty radical implications for neurobiology, consciousness, AI and religion (among others).
Her conclusion on the self:
"One of the problems with the idea of memes is that it strikes at our deepest assumptions about who we are and why we are here... if memetics is valid, we will have to make another vast leap in accepting a similar evolutionary mechanism for the origin of our minds and our selves."1
"Each illusory self is a construct of the memetic world in which it successfully competes. Each selfplex gives rise to ordinary human consciousness based on the false idea that there is someone inside who is in charge.
The ways we behave, the choices we make, and the things we say are all a result of this complex structure: a set of memeplexes (including the powerful selfplex) running on a biologically constructed system. The driving force behind everything that happens is replicator power. Genes fight it out to get into the next generation, and in the process biological design comes about. Memes fight it out to get passed on into another brain or book or object, and in the process cultural and mental design comes about. There is no need for any other sort of design power. There is no need to call upon the creative 'power of consciousness', for consciousness has no power. There is no need to invent the idea of free will. Free will, like the self who 'has' it, is an illusion. Terrifying as this thought seems, I suggest it is true."2
And on the theme of creativity:
"I am not saying that there is no creativity. New books are written, new technologies invented, new gardens laid out, and new films produced. But the generative power behind this creativity is the competition between replicators, not a magical, out-of-nowhere power such as consciousness is often said to be. The creative achievements of human culture are the products of memetic evolution, just as the creative achievements of the biological world are the products of genetic evolution. Replicator power is the only design process we know of that can do the job, and it does it. We do not need conscious human selves messing about in there as well.
Of course selves are not irrelevant. Far from it. By virtue of their organisation and persistence, selfplexes are powerful memetic entities that affect the behaviour of the people who sustain them, and of all those who come into contact with them. But as far as creativity is concerned selves can often do more harm than good, for creative acts often come about in a state of selflessness, or loss of self-consciousness, when the self seems to be out of the way. Artists, writers and runners often say they are at their best when acting spontaneously and without self-consciousness. So selves have effects but not as the originators of conscious creativity."3
She also covers the differences between memetic and genetic evolution (for instance, memetic transmission can be Lamarckian as opposed to Darwinian), and suggests answers to two major puzzles of evolution, the size of the human brain, and the origin of language, based on memetics. Everything is well-referenced, and it's a relatively easy book to read, though worth stepping away from and musing on every so often to let the ideas percolate. (Note, though, that it's not one to dip in and out of randomly - read in order, it's carefully constructed.)
Ironically, its success is largely going to be determined by how popular the meme of memetic theory is, not whether or not it's true... Which in a way proves its point. QED. And given how frequently the principles of natural selection are misunderstood as applied to biology, I suspect they will be even less accepted as applied to cultural and informational evolution. Sigh.
If you like this sort of thing, I also recommend Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer, which is just wow, and How The Mind Works by Steven Pinker, which is pretty cool although I don't always agree with him.
1The Meme Machine, Susan Blackmore, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp 8-9.
2Ibid, p 236.
3Ibid, p 240.