The premature contempt is nauseating, but I'll wade into this mess.

Dead in what sense? Here's a question for your semiotics: How does the theory of semiotics explain the rising prevalence of the meme concept itself? Why are so many people taking it up and discussing it more and more? If memetics is 'dead', why is it so popular? (I'm not claiming this to be a defense of memes, but as a challenge for you to show us how your theory explains the 'meme' sign/symbol.)

I'm a student of information theory, algorithmics, evolution, sociology, psychology, and philosophy. So fucking what? I hope you don't think this makes you some kind of an 'authority' that you can appeal to. Please just stick to straight argumentation and backing up claims with evidence.

I've done a bit of reading on semiotics, and I hope you can back up this claim of 'breadth' that semiotics brings to the table. To me it looks a lot like postmodernism in drag. Is it real breadth, or is it wasted breath?

Besides, if we're going by subjective estimations of breadth, I think memetics brings a great deal of breadth to the discussion. So there.

A lot of unsubstantiated assertions in that one sentence. Let me break it down:

I certainly don't conceive of them as one-dimensional. In my conception they are at minimum composite and generally hierarchical. Bigger memes are built from smaller memes. A single word could be considered a meme, and the Bible a large memeplex. The analysis could potentially uncover a vast and rich landscape of memetic construct. At base, however is the unifying concept that a meme takes part in an evolutionary algorithm. As such, it requires a few basic characteristics to be considered a true meme. It must be communicable, it must be variable, and it must be selectable. By selectable, that means it must have some way of making a difference to its own replication, either positive or negative.

Why are you taking a semiotic perspective in your analysis of memes? Are you saying that memes are a coherent concept within semiotics? The only fair way to analyze memes would be from a neutral scientific perspective, rather than a biased presumptive perspective.

Independent of the information they communicate? What makes you come to this conclusion? First of all, memes themselves *are* information. Second, the 'information they communicate', I presume you mean their 'meaning', can be considered the phenotype, or expression, of the meme, and so is *crucial* to the replication of the meme. A meaningless meme, such as 'snagglewortitus' would have little chance at replication, except if it was somehow tied to other memes, such as in this paragraph, where it happens to occur as an example of a meaningless meme. This is analogous to neutral DNA sequences in genetics which, by their close association with beneficial sequences manage to get copied into the next generation. There are predictive models which can be used to test the mutation rates of DNA sequences to see whether they are harmful, neutral or beneficial. Similar models could be developed to test memes. Again, the point is that the 'information they communicate' is crucial to replication, just as the phenotype of genes are crucial to their replication.

It is not mysterious. The quality is how the meme influences the behaviour of its host mind. For a meme to replicate, it must influence its host to communicate it to another host. Some memes will be lucky enough to ride along with other memes, but again, the overall success of replication will be determined by the strength of the meme's influence over its host's behaviour.

The justification is the idea that evolution is a general algorithm that can be instantiated on any informational processing medium. It is not limited to DNA, but can be performed on a computer (google Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation), and also within and between human minds.

An algorithm is an abstract description of an informational process. Being abstract, you can find the minimum abstract requirements something needs in order to run the algorithm (google Turing Machine). Thus, 'replicator' has been determined to be the minimum abstract quality something (some piece of information) needs to participate in the evolutionary algorithm. Thus, anything that can be identified as a potential replicator can participate in actual evolution. The evolutionary algorithm I'm talking about can be described roughly as follows:

(Start with a population of potential replicators)

1. Select the best adapted replicators to their environment

2. Communicate the parent replicator identity to a child replicator identity.

3. This communication involves significant Variation

4. Generate new replicators based on child replicator identity.

5. Iterate (return to step 1).

For memes, this translates into the real world as follows:

1. I selectively choose which memes I will express (the words and ideas I'm typing now)

2. I communicate these words via my concrete behaviour (actually typing the words on the keyboard)

3. There is significant variation, both because I do not perfectly express my ideas, and also because you will not perfectly acquire my intent/meaning.

4. These words (whether you like it or not ) will generate more-or-less equivalent concepts/memes in your mind.

5. You, as the new host of these child memes, proceed to step 1. (In parallel, I also return to step 1.)

1. (Your side of it.) You selectively choose which memes are worthy of repetition. Important: Your mind is a different memetic environment than mine, and so the selection will be different for you than for me. Just as polar bears aren't 'fit' in the Sahara Desert, my memes might not be fit in your conceptual framework. This does not mean my memes are doomed, however, since there may be other people, other 'meme islands', that provide a suitable environment for my memes.

2. ... Etc.

Again, this may be your semiotic bias filtering in. Memetics as a basic concept, because of its abstract algorithmic/informational nature, does not depend on the detailed specifics of how exactly the information is communicated. It only requires that it *is* communicated. The details of the 'how', and how that influences the outcomes is something for further study. It is not ignored in the long run, it is just not crucial to understanding memetics in the short run.

For example, I'm communicating my concepts of memes and memetics to you (and many others) right now. I'm currently doing it through digital code (ASCII/Unicode) via a website. But the same memes could just as easily be communicated via graphite shavings distributed over a cellulose surface (pencil on paper) handwritten letter sent to you via Canada Post. Or, the same memes could be communicated to you through compressional waves in the air between us as the sound of my voice over beer in a pub. The 'encoding' of the meme, as well as other details, such as the noise of the signal, the language (English/French), etc. may all have their own effects on the communication. But that is not *crucial* to the success of meme theory. What is crucial is that the meme *does* get communicated in some fashion. Another thing that is crucial is that the replication occurs fast enough or often enough that the meme survives competition with other memes. For example, the current memes I'm communicating now have a pretty good chance of catching on in other humans because I'm using a broadcast medium such as this website.

What is 'already known about how information is transferred' may be of crucial importance to semiotics. But that is not a valid critique of memetics, because you are applying semiotic criteria to meme theory. A better approach would be to take a neutral scientific stance and ask the question, "What predictions can meme theory make that are potentially testable and falsifiable?"

Name one idea that is NOT a 'rehashing of old ideas with new names and slightly different conceptions'. That memetics is not 'new', as you define it, is not a criticism of memetics, it's a criticism of every idea in existence. (In fact, I find it rather funny that in your 'rehashing' description you describe memetic mutation almost perfectly.) And your quip that it is better left dead is merely your personal subjective judgment, not a valid criticism.

Who are 'they', and can you cite examples of such oversimplification? What 'complex phenomena' specifically?

??? Nearly everyone I've ever come across who explains memetics explains the 'point' quite simply and clearly: Ideas evolve in a process similar to biological evolution, with parallels that can be drawn for generating new ideas and hypotheses about both biological and cultural evolution. Maybe it's not that 'they' never 'get at' the point, but that 'you' never 'got it'.

I wonder how much of this 'complexity' is actually self-imposed pretentiousness?

I agree that's not a defense of memetics per se, but it certainly may be a valid counter-criticism of an uninformed critique. Saying "you got it wrong" is not worth much. But saying "you got it wrong, and here's why..." is definitely fair game.

Define 'valid'. Your usage of the word doesn't seem to fit mine. If you mean scientifically valid, as in testable and falsifiable, then memetics is valid. I wonder if semiotics is, however.

I think I'm doing a fair job at proving that wrong.

I think you're reading things into what people are writing. I have not seen anyone here claim that memetics is a scientific theory and is rigourous. Hypothesis, yes. Theory, not yet. (I may use 'theory' at times to describe the conceptual framework of ideas, but not in the sense of a scientific theory which is supported by peer reviewed evidence.)

No one here has claimed that, and I challenge you to quote someone who did.

Whoah, whoah, whoah. Tried to slip that one past us, eh? Are you now claiming that semiotics is in the same ballpark as the theory of evolution or gravity? Or maybe you're claiming that semiotics is a scientific theory at all? Is it supported by peer reviewed evidence? Is it testable and falsifiable? I think you're trying to pull a fast one. A quick reading of *pro* semiotics material reveals such gems as:

I'm highly skeptical of 'textual analysis' as being objective science. Show me some testable and falsifiable predictions semiotics has made, and I'll reconsider, but at this point, semiotics is looking as solid as wishy washy postmodernism.

Argument from negative consequences? Don't pursue memetics 'cuz people might misunderstand it! Sorry. That's a lame fallacy.

There is nothing scary about memetics, which make me wonder why you're so scared of it.

Looks like your semiotics is also suffering from this lack of credibility.

You think I'm discussing it because I'm trying to profit in some way from it? That's a bit of a presumption, isn't it? I discuss memetics because it makes sense to me, makes sense of how culture can be at the same time functional and totally fucked up, makes sense of how religion survives to this day, even in the face of 'scientific progress', and inspires me with new ways to combat irrational ideas. I use 'memes' because 'memes' are useful. I'm a pragmatist. If the idea of memetics were so inferior to other ideas I've tried, I'd stick with the other ideas. If you can show me how semiotics explains things that memetics can't, I'll become a semiotician. But so far it's not looking good for your pet theory, from my perspective. It looks as useless as postmodernism to me. It looks like it will turn one's brain to mush.

What makes something true is the predictions it can make. In the case of memetics, I've had more insights from it than from any other theory/hypothesis of cultural evolution. Prove me wrong. Show me how your idea is so much better.

Like what, specifically. Give us a viable alternative. Show us your theory that explains the evolution of religion in its conflict with scientific ideas. Show us your theory of how science is able to generate better ideas faster than other cultural systems. Right now it just sounds like "Jump of that bandwagon and jump on mine!" Show us why we should.

Zowie.  Somebody borrowed a bazooka.

Anyway, my main issue with the analogy of memes and genes is that ideas can change into virtually anything in one transmission, whereas genes have very exact limits.  A frog is not going to give birth to a grasshopper, but I can tell you that "Bing cherries are good to eat," and if you hear me wrong, you can tell some else that "Things buried are food and meat."

Like Thomathy has said, there's no analogous unit of memetics and no theory of memetic selection and no theory of memetic drift.  There's just the fact that ideas change sometimes when they get passed from person to person.  I'm not even completely comfortable with the idea that ideas replicate.  Replication is when something makes a copy of itself.  An idea is not copying itself.  A person is transmitting the idea.  There's a big difference.

I actually have a hard time coming up with much more to say about it.  It's not that I don't know about the genetic side, it's that the two are so unrelated that I can't really think of anything to say about it.  If there were more actual claims on the side of memetics, there'd be more to refute, but as you've well articulated, there just aren't many at all.

It's sort of like when people start speculating about theories of alternate universes.  All you can do is shrug, blink your eyes a couple of times and say, "Ok.....   and....  ???"  Everybody talks about how there might be a way to falsify memetics and there might be a way to define memes that is analogous to genes, and there might be this and might be that.  All you can say is, "Ok, fine.  Bring me the definitions and we'll talk."  There might also be invisible gnomes in my underpants, but until I bring something to the table, it's not really up for discussion.

I think the most important thing about "memetics" isn't its lack of scientific framework (it certainly doesn't make unique or testable predictions), but the concept that evolution is a specific instance of a general principle. In the end, evolution isn't a fluke, or amazing, or a miracle; it's inevitable.

Plus, I've always wanted a word for, "Knowledge gained through misunderstanding."

Ok... just to make sure everybody's on the same page, evolution only applies to replicators with heredity.  On earth, the only replicators with heredity I know of are DNA and RNA.  So, strictly speaking, the concept of evolution as a general principle only applies to life.  

I kind of wish we could take over the word "evolution" and usurp it solely for the purpose of describing the scientific theory.  Not only do people misunderstand evolution, they apply their misunderstanding to places where it doesn't belong, and then muck up the comparison to boot!

Speaking of rants, I wish the following ideas would disappear from the world:  Cultural evolution, social darwinism, and darwinism in general.  Culture does not evolve.  It adapts.  There's a big, big difference.  Scientists do not study Darwin, and evolution is not an "ism."  It's a theory or a fact, depending on whether you're talking about what happens or how it happens.  Since "darwinism" doesn't exist, neither does social darwinism.  Calling it social evolution doesn't help because there's still no analogy.  There's no "unit of social selection."  There's no theory of social drift.  These are all just catch phrases used by people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.

Damn! Now I wish I would've taken Latin in college.

Maybe we can shorten your suggestion to "consagnosk." It's not really catchy, but it's shorter.

I totally agree with both of you.  Evolution as a term doesn't need to be mucked around or used to mean something it never did.  It's only, again, convenient and entirely wrong... but so wide spread it's hard not to use it to refer to certain things, especially when there an understanding that it's not 'evolution' we're refering to.  There needs to be a word for adaptation when evolution is being used in its place.  I look to sociobiology to pan that out.

As for 'effect' and 'affect', I see the two words, in the very near future (and this is already happening thanks to the Northen cities shift) not only sounding identical, but only being distinguished in context and under scrutiny.  It's an interesting thing to observe, but if it does happen to the extent I forsee there's going to be a lot of confusion as with my current inability to tell whether the stack of boxes are stocked or if the stock of boxes are stacked (stack and stock are pronounced identically, as stock, in cities, like Detroit and Chicago, affected by the Northern cities shift).