Sunday, November 01, 2015

Can Memes (not the internet kind) can explain things?

Meme is a replicator proposed by Richard Dawkins and behaves much like a gene. It is selfish and gets copied and replicated by others. The only difference between a gene and a meme is that a meme is a type of idea.

I have heard of gene's being suppressed by using various drugs. I have been thinking what about memes being suppressed. If there is a suppression of memes than technically the memes should vanish maybe they can be discovered later but more importantly new memes would take their place.

What if memes are a part of our identity. Than if they are suppressed or considered to be regressive we will not display them openly but at an opportune moment we will be able to say that I always had this meme. Than will prolonged suppression lead to overt displays of the meme when the environment in conducive?

Well memes are supposed to be selfish replicators. This would imply that all sorts of ideas will be in fashion at one particular time that said would it be possible that less widely accepted ideas that are great at multiplying become the dominant ideas and push the other ideas in oblivion? I guess it is possible.

What is memes are attached to a symbol or an object. I assume that ideas are associated with certain objects and brand names. If the brand or object is in dominance and some incidents take place are we more likely to see causality? What if the object is not dominant would we than associate the incidents with the object or will be establish some other form of correlation?

While it is interesting to talk about this selfish replicator. It is important to understand that it can do harm. It can help in spreading ideas or information that may not have any basis (similar I guess to a rumor). How do we control memes or at least verify them? Well if I go with Dawkins there is no way to do so, because essentially they are selfish replicators.

No comments: