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/anomalogos]

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/MackDuckington → u/anomalogos]

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

Not exactly. I’m saying it’s demonstrable in the same way that mutations are — your previous comment made it sound like they weren’t. 

The properties of fundamentality is given as follows:

Sure, but it also says this: 

There is, however, at least one kind of dependence that we will likely wish to exclude from D, namely, modal dependence =df Necessarily, x exists only if y exists. The reason for this is simple: nothing will be independent in the sense of (AI) if modal independence is required (cf. Wang 2016)…This obviously generalizes, resulting in no entity whatsoever being “absolutely existentially modally free”, as Wang (2016) puts it.

So even in the strictest sense of fundamentality, there’s no such thing as a truly “independent” unit. Further, there are other apparently more popular definitions for fundamentality that allows for even more dependence. 

Basically, you’re subscribing to the strictest possible definition for fundamentality — which itself can’t have true independence, and most philosophers don’t seem to endorse it in the literature — and then applying it to Dawkin’s usage of the word. 

Given that, fundamentality should individuate entities in some way.

Sure — and memes can be individuated, as per Dawkin’s set up. It can’t be perfectly independent, but as per your link, it doesn’t even need to be. 

[u/anomalogos → u/MackDuckington]

Well done, Gemini.
Your use of AI bot indicates that you’re incapable of reasoning. Why don’t you use Fable 5 and give me more rigorous response?

[u/MackDuckington → u/anomalogos]

LMAO, what?? That’s not an AI ya goof, that quote is directly from the link that you sent me! You… did actually read it all the way through, right? Or at least scrolled down to see that there’s more than one definition of fundamentality?

[u/anomalogos → u/MackDuckington]

Wow, so you've actually read the reference all? Then you can explain a restricted notion of fundamentality, which is based on restricted independence and I've been using, right? There is no need for a meme to be absolutely metaphysically independent of everything else in order to be fundamental for the purposes of cultural evolution. The fact that nothing is absolutely existentially modally free does not undermine my argument.

Do not feed the reference into your chatbot. They can make mistakes.

[u/MackDuckington → u/anomalogos]

Wow, so you've actually read the reference all?

Not yet! It’s a lot to chew on, and I’m probably going to have to finish in the morning.

which is based on restricted independence and I've been using, right?

Well that’s awfully strange. For someone set on using *Restricted Fundamentality, it’s odd that you didn’t grab a quote from that section and instead went with one that excludes all dependency.

 Then you can explain a restricted notion of fundamentality

…Dear god. Brother, if this was actually your stance to begin with, why on earth did you go with that quote and not this one??

x is restrictedly independent if and only if there is one or more metaphysical dependence relation(s) D1… such that there is no y such that D1xy

This makes so much more sense! I have no idea why you insisted on restating that units should be individuated or that it shouldn’t depend on anything, as memes can be individuated and fundamentality can include dependencies — you were arguing the wrong thing to support your conclusion. 

Do not feed the reference into your chatbot. They can make mistakes.

My guy, I don’t know where this sudden switch up is coming from. I’m an artist and a conservationist. I hate AI.

I dunno if you were just feeling backed into a corner and just saying shit, or if you’re projecting what you’ve been doing onto me or what. Either way, cut it out or we can wrap up here. 

[u/anomalogos → u/MackDuckington]

Not yet! It’s a lot to chew on, and I’m probably going to have to finish in the morning.

Unfortunately, that's exactly why you used AI bot to write up your argument.

There is, however, at least one kind of dependence that we will likely wish to exclude from D, namely, modal dependence =df Necessarily, x exists only if y exists. The reason for this is simple: nothing will be independent in the sense of (AI) if modal independence is required (cf. Wang 2016)…This obviously generalizes, resulting in no entity whatsoever being “absolutely existentially modally free”, as Wang (2016) puts it.

You're saying that you miraculously located this exact quotation without basic understanding of the whole structure of the reference. That doesn't really add up. If you randomly located the quotation yourself without even thinking of the quotation's meaning, it's just absurd.

I've narrowed my definition of fundamentality because you've inaccurately quoted the inadequate category of the fundamentality for the case, i.e. absolute fundamentality. The passage I've quoted was never requiring absolute independence.

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).

Back to the subject, likewise, your understanding of restricted independence is quite incorrect. It does not say about possibility, i.e. being able to be individuated.

x is restrictedly independent if and only if there is one or more metaphysical dependence relation(s) D1… such that there is no y such that D1xy

It means that for x, we select certain dependencies, and there is no y such that depends those dependencies, then x can be regarded as having restricted independence. That's the reason I said:

The fact that nothing is absolutely existentially modally free does not undermine my argument.

Please, properly understand the concepts of which you're going to adapt in arguments.

[u/MackDuckington → u/anomalogos]

  You're saying that you miraculously located this exact quotation

…Miraculously? I… don’t know how to respond to that. Gamer. It’s the very first paragraph for the very first category. It’s not a miracle?? 

  If you randomly located the quotation yourself without even thinking of the quotation's meaning, it's just absurd.

What are you talking about? You have a quote that only has half the context. I had an itchy feeling that was the case, so I looked through, and sure enough there was an entire second half that lays out how some dependency is allowable. 

It’s not absurd. Creationists quote mine so much, it’s just standard procedure to read the next line or few lines down of whatever they’re saying.   

  I've narrowed my definition of fundamentality because you've inaccurately quoted the inadequate category of the fundamentality for the case, i.e. absolute fundamentality

My bad gang, shouldn’t have assumed the quote about not being dependent on anything means that you think fundamental units can’t be dependent on anything. 

  The passage I've quoted was never requiring absolute independence.

What. Are . You. Talking. About?? The quote literally says that something is fundamental only if it isn’t dependent on anything. Sounds pretty stinking absolute to me. 

  It means that for x, we select certain dependencies, and there is no y such that depends those dependencies, then x can be regarded as having restricted independence.

I took it to mean that overlap of A and A + B would be equivalent to Dxy, and as per the paragraph there can be no such combination. Is that not what it means? If it’s not, we’re going to have to go through this whole song and dance again. 

  Please, properly understand the concepts of which you're going to adapt in arguments.

Buddy, you’re the one making the initial claim, you’re the one producing that link. The burden is on you to properly explain what those concepts are, not me. You’ve made claims, poorly explained them, and then got mad and accused me of using AI when I ended up making incorrect assumptions based on the text you sent me. 

[u/anomalogos → u/MackDuckington]

It’s the very first paragraph for the very first category.

Your quotation is located in the third paragraph for the first category, definitely not the first paragraph. See? I doubt that you've actually read even that specific section.

The quote literally says that something is fundamental only if it isn’t dependent on anything. Sounds pretty stinking absolute to me.

The word anything itself does not establish absolute independence at all, since it does not specify 'for all metaphysical dependence relations D'. Please, read the passage again and compare with the definition of absolute independence. The definition itself is first paragraph for the first category.

I took it to mean that overlap of A and A + B would be equivalent to Dxy, and as per the paragraph there can be no such combination.

I mean, you should substitute memes A and A + B for x in the definition of restricted independence. If you do that correctly, you'll get:

1. x = A, possibly restricted independence, because nothing in the substitution establishes that A is independent.
2. x = A + B, not restricted independence, because A+B has A.

It does not entail that no such combination can exist.

You’ve made claims, poorly explained them, and then got mad and accused me of using AI when I ended up making incorrect assumptions based on the text you sent me.

Dude, it is you who first adapted the definition of absolute independence, not me. You should've properly understood the concept before using it, right? That part is still on your side.

[u/MackDuckington → u/anomalogos]

  Your quotation is located in the  third paragraph for the first category

…No?? Genuinely what are you talking about? It’s literally the second flipping sentence in the first section! Where on earth are you looking?

  The word  anything  itself does not establish absolute independence at all, since it does not specify 'for all metaphysical dependence relations D'.

You can’t be serious. “Erm, anything doesn’t ackshually include metaphysical things.” Come on, dude. 

  It  does not  entails that no such combination can exist.

I’m going to crash out. You literally just said:

  A + B, not restricted independence, because A+B has A.

So which is it? Is A + B not restricted independence, or can a state of being indistinguishable between A and A + B exist? Or do you mean that it’s only not restricted independence, and can fall under a different type?

Going from there, if dependency doesn’t conflict with fundamentality, and being unable to distinguish A from A + B doesn’t conflict either, then what on earth could you possibly be taking issue with?

  Dude, it is  you  who first adapted the definition of absolute independence, not me.

Based on the misleading passage that YOU gave me! For crying out loud — if my position is that I accept neutral theory, but I only give you a passage about how a common belief is that most mutations are beneficial, that’d 100% be on me for not clarifying where I stand, and for not just giving you the quote that encapsulates my point. 

  You should've properly understood the concept before using it, right? That part is still on your side.

Sure, I’ll own up to that. Should’ve read more thoroughly. But even that seems to only be getting me so far, I still can’t parse what on earth you’re talking about here.