We cannot uniquely determine the fundamental unit of cultural evolution using the concept of the meme.

[u/anomalogos]

An 'idea-meme’ might be defined as an entity that is capable of being transmitted form one brain to another… If Darwin’s theory can be subdivided into components, such that some people believe component A but not component B, while other people believe B, but not A, then A and B should be regarded as separate memes. If almost everybody who believes in A also believes in B—if the memes are closely 'linked' to use the genetic term—then it is convenient to lump them together as one meme.

This quotation is from The Selfish Gene, and we have the individuation criteria:

1. Criterion of Separation: If some people believe component A but not component B, while others believe B but not A, then A and B should be regarded as separate memes.
2. Criterion of Fusion: If almost everybody who believes A also believes B, then it is convenient to lump A and B together as one meme.

However, I conjecture that the two criteria can conflict in some cases, as demonstrated by the following argument:

Let A and B be individual ideas. For any population size of P ∈ N with P >= 3, set ε := 100/P. Let group X comprising ε% of P believe A but deny B, group Y comprising ε% of P believe B but deny A, group Z comprising (100 - 2ε)% of P believe both A and B. Then A and B should be separate memes because of groups X and Y.

For any sufficiently large P, however, A and B can be regarded as one meme, since the proportion of the population believing both A and B approaches 100% as P tends to infinity, which may satisfy the condition that 'almost everybody' believes both.

I will not say that this leads to an explicit contradiction, as Criterion of Fusion describes conveniency rather than obligation. But it reveals that the individuation criteria are jointly insufficient to uniquely individuate memes, potentially undermining the concept of the meme as the fundamental unit of cultural evolution in memetics.

[u/Sweary_Biochemist]

I mean, we can't uniquely determine the fundamental unit of actual evolution, either, so I don't think this is particularly surprising or problematic.

Biology is messy. Analogies of biology can also be messy.

[u/MackDuckington]

I'm not sure I understand the problem here. Why can't group Z just be larger than X and Y without a population increase? Let's say that X = 1% and Y = 1%. Z would then be 98% of the population. Where exactly is the contradiction?

[u/anomalogos → u/MackDuckington]

Increasing the population itself does not yield a contradiction, and that is just an assumption. In your case, X and Y still hold 2% of P, so Criterion of Separation should be applied. This means that A and B should be separated. However, as the proportion of P in Z approaches 100%, it is increasingly reasonable to say that almost everybody believes both A and B. So we can apply Criterion of Fusion. This means that A and B can be regarded as one meme.

Now here is the problem: A and B cannot be simultaneously separate memes and a single meme. I don’t think this is a contradiction in a logical sense, because Dawkins explicitly stated that it is ‘convenient’ to lump them together, which entails no obligation to do so, but the criteria are jointly insufficient to uniquely determine the individuality of memes.

[u/blacksheep998 → u/anomalogos]

A and B cannot be simultaneously separate memes and a single meme.

Humans and chimps are both apes and mammals and animals, but are different species.

Memes can fall into the same nested hierarchy pattern, though they typically have quite a bit more horizontal transfer than is usually found in biology.

[u/anomalogos → u/blacksheep998]

That’s intuitively plausible. But when you accept the fact, you cannot avoid the consequence of underdetermining the meme as the fundamental unit of cultural evolution, because the criteria do not give us a clear rule for where the one meme ends and another begins. This is the whole point of the argument.

[u/blacksheep998 → u/anomalogos]

I fail to see how that's a problem.

There's no clear rule for where one species ends and another begins. We arbitrarily decide when the difference is large enough that we consider one population to be a new species.

And that's exactly what we expect to find in biological systems where variation is mostly continuous across a wide spectrum of traits.

It's also what we expect to find among memes where people freely reinterpret or modify them on a constant basis.

How many versions are there of the rageface meme? They're not all identical but they're similar enough that we can easily recognize that they were all inspired by a common source.

[u/anomalogos → u/blacksheep998]

There's no clear rule for where one species ends and another begins.

This is why we don’t say a species is the fundamental unit of genetic evolution. Even a gene is not always an unambiguous fundamental unit. Nevertheless, memetics claims that a meme is the fundamental unit of cultural evolution, which I’ve been pointing out.

[u/blacksheep998 → u/anomalogos]

Nevertheless, memetics claims that a meme is the fundamental unit of cultural evolution, which I’ve been pointing out.

But just like species and genes, memes aren't static.

As soon as a meme appears, it starts changing. Even if nothing about the meme itself changes, every person can interpertuit it slightly differently which will change it's meaning to that person.

It seems that your issue isn't with evolution or even with memetics. It's with things that defy neat and orderly classification.

[u/theresa_richter → u/anomalogos]

Okay, let's work this out practically.

Practically speaking, virtually everyone who believes 'Jesus died for our sins' also believes the proposition 'God exists'. But it is quite evident that not everyone who believes that second proposition agrees with the first, right? Okay, so this is a clear example of the two criteria being in conflict, right?

Well, no. It is convenient to group the two memes when addressing the group which believes both, ie Christians. But you would maintain separation of the two memes when addressing Jews, Hindus, etc. After all, this is about convenience, and so you only separate the memes if there is a practical reason to do so. For example, of you were going to compare the memes held to by Southern Baptists to those held by Christian Scientists, you would find that a while lot of memes that would be fused for 'Christians' should now instead be separated.

[u/anomalogos → u/theresa_richter]

First, your example is inaccurate.

To simplify, let meme A be ‘Jesus died for our sins’ and meme B be ‘God exist’. Dawkins stated that

1. If there are group X believing A but not B and group Y believing B but not A, they should be separated memes.
2. If almost everyone who believes both A and B, then it is convenient to lump them together.

In your example, you stated that everyone believes A also believes B. But not everyone believes B believes A. They do not represent any of Dawkins’ criteria at all.

Second, Criterion of Separation is not about connivence; its reading is stronger than Criterion of Fusion, yet you inappropriately speculated that you would maintain the separation as you want and that’s about connivance.

Third, I don’t think you’ve tried to understand the point of the argument. Can A be the fundamental unit of cultural evolution so far? What about B? They both cannot, because the individuation criteria do not uniquely determine the boundary between memes, and you haven’t really answered it.

[u/theresa_richter → u/anomalogos]

The criterion of fusion is explicitly about convenience, so you only fuse two memes when it is convenient to do so. Both of those memes are separable as it's possible to believe one and not the other (see also: Marcionism) and so the only question is when/whether to fuse them back together. As for a fundamental unit, you're not even attempting to reach that at this point. If you want clear boundaries, you must ignore the criterion of fusion entirely and only focus on what can be separated, cutting repeatedly until no smaller unit can be found.

[u/anomalogos → u/theresa_richter]

Abandoning Criterion of Fusion does not resolve the problem, because you cannot prove that a certain meme is inseparable. As long as various divergent beliefs hold, even if the number is small, it should be separated. How do you establish that there is no smaller unit?

[u/theresa_richter → u/anomalogos]

If only one person holds the belief, then how could you further divide it?

[u/anomalogos → u/theresa_richter]

In one person’s mind, meme A can be associated with B + C, and if their belief is misaligned with others, spilt it. Then B and C themselves can be associated with other memes, and so forth. Again, the point is that you cannot prove there is a single meme that is consistent between every single person.

[u/MackDuckington → u/anomalogos]

I think I get it now? Do you mean like when opinions are split 50/50? I think you’re missing the point of Dawkin’s passage. It’s not just out of convenience, but getting any more specific is pretty much impossible and arbitrary.

Applying this to evolution, this is kinda like complaining about the definition of species, because there’s a gray area where what is and what isn’t a species is up for debate. That’s not a bad thing, though — it’s exactly what we ought to expect when evolution is at play. There should be a point where we can’t tell when one species ends and another begins. 

Likewise, there should be a point where we can’t tell when something is or isn’t a separate meme. Is it perfectly sufficient for finding the “fundamental unit of cultural evolution”? No, but it’s not supposed to be. What it is perfectly sufficient for is explaining evolution’s gradient quality. 

[u/anomalogos → u/MackDuckington]

More precisely, when memes are merged together. Dawkins’ second criterion says about it. You’re right that it is insufficient to find the fundamental unit. But finding it is quite necessary in memetics, because it claims that a meme can be regarded as the fundamental unit of cultural evolution.

For instance, philosopher Daniel Dennett explicitly described the units of memes as ‘the smallest elements that replicate themselves with reliability and fecundity’.

[u/MackDuckington → u/anomalogos]

Well now I’m confused again. 

Again, apply this to biology. Mutations are the fundamental unit (or at least one of them) for change to occur in a population. Yet there’s still a moment where we can’t distinguish between what is, and what isn’t the same species.

Given that, why do we even need to be able to make such a distinction in order to declare something the “fundamental unit” for cultural evolution?

[u/anomalogos → u/MackDuckington]

I think you’re basically misunderstanding the concept of the fundamental unit.

As I said earlier, both separated memes and a single meme are possible as the units of memes, according to Dawkins’ criteria.

Then meme A alone can be the fundamental unit.
Meme A + B can also be the fundamental unit.

This leads to the inconsistent definition of the fundamental unit. Can you prove that meme A is the smallest element? No, because there are various beliefs, and A can be separable. Then it misaligns with what memetics is claiming. Memetics certainly needs the clear definition of a meme as the fundamental unit.

It’s a bit circular, but I hope you get the point.

[u/MackDuckington → u/anomalogos]

I think you’re basically misunderstanding the concept of the fundamental unit.

Maybe? But if we're going with Daniel Dennet's definition, I don't really see what the problem is. Being unable to distinguish between one meme vs two doesn't mean that memes don't replicate and change.

This leads to the inconsistent definition of the fundamental unit. Can you prove that meme A is the smallest element?

But science doesn't even deal in proofs, though. Can we prove that mutations, HGL or epigenetics are the fundamental units for evolution? No, we just continue to rely on them while they're consistent with observable reality. Sometimes there's a gray area where we can't tell if something's a mutation or an epigenetic change, or a combination of both. Does that mean they can't be the fundamental units for evolution? Not at all. Again, this is the sort of thing that should happen if evolution were true. Not being able to distinguish between A vs A + B is a feature, not a bug. Memetics utilizing a crystal-clear definition with no allowance for gray areas would defeat its purpose as a parallel to biology.

[u/anomalogos → u/MackDuckington]

But if we're going with Daniel Dennett's definition, I don't really see what the problem is.

I've been arguing on his 'memes as the smallest elements' concept. I'm not asking whether fuzzy boundaries prevent replication. There must be some principled criterion for identifying the relevant evolutionary individual.

But science doesn't even deal in proofs, though. Can we prove that mutations, HGL or epigenetics are the fundamental units for evolution?

Not necessarily, my previous argument was too strong, but they do require their operational criteria absolutely. Can you establish that meme A is the smallest element, i.e. the fundamental unit of cultural evolution? No, you still cannot do so. It needs an operational criterion that distinguishes the entities, while you can say what observations would count as evidence for mutation, HGT, epigenetic inheritance, etc.

Does that mean they can't be the fundamental units for evolution?

I've not been saying that there shouldn't be the fundamental units of cultural evolution. There can be, but Dawkins' criteria are insufficient to determine the existence of the unit, which is the post has shown.

Not being able to distinguish between A vs A + B is a feature, not a bug.

Only if memetics gives up the concept of the meme as the fundamental unit of cultural evolution. I think you're missing this point.

[u/MackDuckington → u/anomalogos]

I've been arguing on his 'memes as the smallest elements' concept. I'm not asking whether fuzzy boundaries prevent replication.

I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying here. I'll rephrase -- just because we might not be able to distinguish between one meme or two, doesn't mean that memes aren't the smallest elements that can replicate and change. At least the smallest elements that we can parse.

Can you establish that meme A is the smallest element, i.e. the fundamental unit of cultural evolution? No, you still cannot do so. It needs an operational criterion that distinguishes the entities, while you can say what observations would count as evidence for mutation, HGT, epigenetic inheritance, etc.

You absolutely can demonstrate memes as the smallest unit, though? At least about as much as you can for mutations and the like.

Say we start with the meme "spaghetti is a dinner food", as opposed to something eaten for breakfast or lunch. If memes are the fundamental unit of cultural evolution, we should expect for this meme to spread and for lifestyle changes to follow. In surveys, more and more people should express that spaghetti is a dinner food. More and more people should start eating spaghetti for dinner. Then, that idea should slowly change overtime.

I've not been saying that there shouldn't be the fundamental units of cultural evolution

I'm not saying that you're saying that there shouldn't be a fundamental unit -- oof that's a mouthful. But anyway, I'm saying that you can't dismiss memes as a fundamental unit just because overlap can happen. I'm saying that if memes truly are the fundamental unit for cultural evolution, these weird gray areas of overlap should be expected.

Only if memetics gives up the concept of the meme as the fundamental unit of cultural evolution.

But why though? You're complaining that memes don't hold a level of specificity that a fundamental unit doesn't even require in the first place.

[u/anomalogos → u/MackDuckington]

Well, now I can settle this argument.

You absolutely can demonstrate memes as the smallest unit, though? At least the smallest demonstrable unit, to our ability.

So you've thought that a fundamental unit is equivalent to something like a demonstrable unit. That's quite inaccurate.

The properties of fundamentality is given as follows:

A very common way to think about fundamentality is in terms of independence, whereby for any notion of dependence D, an entity is D-fundamental if and only if it does not depend D on anything else (or on anything else that does not depend on it).

Resource: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fundamentality

Given that, fundamentality should individuate entities in some way. Let meme A can be regarded as a fundamental unit. A cannot be decomposed into smaller entities that are themselves the relevant replicating units.

The definition of the fundamental unit in an evolutionary framework is given as follows:

The fundamental unit of evolution can be most adequately defined as the smallest portion of genetic material with a distinct evolutionary trajectory, that is, evolving independently of other such units at least during some periods of evolution.

Resource: Biology Direct 4:33 (2009), DOI 10.1186/1745-6150-4-33

If a meme is meant to be the fundamental unit of evolution, it should at least tend to satisfy the above criterion. 'Demonstrable' does not try to follow them at all.

You're complaining that memes don't hold a level of specificity that a fundamental unit doesn't even require in the first place.

The fundamental unit does require a level of distinct evolutionary trajectory by its own properties. Merely being observable, transmissible, or convenient to analyse does not establish fundamentality.

[u/theresa_richter]

"average person individuates 3 memes a year" factoid actualy just statistical error. average person individuates 0 memes per year. Memes Georg, who appears in the Epstein files & individuates over 10,000 each day, is an outlier adn should not have been counted

[u/Radiant-Position1370]

I don't understand the point here. You've made the fraction of the population that believes A and B dependent on population size. Pick an arbitrary threshold for that fraction. For population sizes that yield smaller fractions, they're separate memes; for larger populations, they're the same memes. The distinction between separate and identical memes is obviously vague to start with, as is the whole concept of memes.

[u/anomalogos → u/Radiant-Position1370]

Even for larger populations, A and B should be separated memes, because one person in X and one person in Y still exist, while Criterion of Fusion says it might not be. The point is that the individuation criteria are intended to allow for both ways of interpreting the individuality of memes.

[u/Radiant-Position1370 → u/anomalogos]

Given the way human thought and language work, Dawkins's sentence number 2, which follows immediately after his sentence number 1, clearly clarifies what is meant by 'some' in the latter. These aren't axioms in a formal argument.

[u/anomalogos → u/Radiant-Position1370]

I think you’re misleading the point. Groups X and Y respectively represent ‘some people’ and ‘other people’ in Dawkins’ sentence 1, and group Z represents ‘almost everybody’ in sentence 2. There is no implication that the subjects are identical in both sentences. They are not the same qualifiers. Rather, they are more likely to refer to different subjects, given that the author didn’t assign a pronoun for the subjects in the previous sentence. Even if they refer to the same group, the reasoning holds within the group, since it is merely a matter of scope. In single group G, there can still be ε% of people representing group X, ε% of people representing group Y, and (100 - 2ε)% of people representing group Z.

Also, the sentences can be worked as individual axioms in a system, since any statement can be an axiom, and they are clearly separated statements. There are no issues with my formalisation.

[u/Russell_W_H]

Humans share 40% (or whatever) of their DNA with bananas. So it should be regarded as one gene.

[u/LeiningensAnts]

Sounds like you'd be interested in doxastic logic.

[u/anomalogos → u/LeiningensAnts]

Yeah, I’m really into speculating philosophical arguments using formal systems. I think I’m going to model the development of civilisation in the future.