Neutrosophic theory and its applications have been expanding in all directions at an astonishing rate especially after of the introduction the journal entitled “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems”. New theories, techniques, algorithms have been rapidly developed. One of the most striking trends in the neutrosophic theory is the hybridization of neutrosophic set with other potential sets such as rough set, bipolar set, soft set, hesitant fuzzy set, etc. The different hybrid structures such as rough neutrosophic set, single valued neutrosophic (...) rough set, bipolar neutrosophic set, single valued neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy set, etc. are proposed in the literature in a short period of time. Neutrosophic set has been an important tool in the application of various areas such as data mining, decision making, e-learning, engineering, medicine, social science, and some more. (shrink)

Neutrosophic set has been derived from a new branch of philosophy, namely Neutrosophy. Neutrosophic set is capable of dealing with uncertainty, indeterminacy and inconsistent information. Neutrosophic set approaches are suitable to modeling problems with uncertainty, indeterminacy and inconsistent information in which human knowledge is necessary, and human evaluation is needed. Neutrosophic set theory firstly proposed in 1998 by Florentin Smarandache, who also developed the concept of single valued neutrosophic set, oriented towards real world scientific and engineering applications. Since then, (...) the single valued neutrosophic set theory has been extensively studied in books and monographs introducing neutrosophic sets and its applications, by many authors around the world. (shrink)

Neutrosophic set has been derived from a new branch of philosophy, namely Neutrosophy. Neutrosophic set is capable of dealing with uncertainty, indeterminacy and inconsistent information. Neutrosophic set approaches are suitable to modeling problems with uncertainty, indeterminacy and inconsistent information in which human knowledge is necessary, and human evaluation is needed. Neutrosophic set theory was firstly proposed in 1998 by Florentin Smarandache, who also developed the concept of single valued neutrosophic set, oriented towards real world scientific and engineering applications. Since (...) then, the single valued neutrosophic set theory has been extensively studied in books and monographs, the properties of neutrosophic sets and their applications, by many authors around the world. Also, an international journal - Neutrosophic Sets and Systems started its journey in 2013. Neutrosophic triplet was first defined in 2016 by Florentin Smarandache and Mumtaz Ali and they also introduced the neutrosophic triplet groups in the same year. For every element “x” in a neutrosophic triplet set A, there exist a neutral of “x” and an opposite of “x”. Also, neutral of “x” must be different from the classical neutral element. Therefore, the NT set is different from the classical set. Furthermore, a NT of “x” is showed by . This first volume collects original research and applications from different perspectives covering different areas of neutrosophic studies, such as decision making, Triplet, topology, and some theoretical papers. This volume contains three sections: NEUTROSOPHIC TRIPLET, DECISION MAKING, AND OTHER PAPERS. (shrink)

Neutrosophic theory and its applications have been expanding in all directions at an astonishing rate especially after of the introduction the journal entitled “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems”. New theories, techniques, algorithms have been rapidly developed. One of the most striking trends in the neutrosophic theory is the hybridization of neutrosophic set with other potential sets such as rough set, bipolar set, soft set, hesitant fuzzy set, etc. The different hybrid structures such as rough neutrosophic set, single valued neutrosophic (...) rough set, bipolar neutrosophic set, single valued neutrosophic hesitant fuzzy set, etc. are proposed in the literature in a short period of time. Neutrosophic set has been an important tool in the application of various areas such as data mining, decision making, e-learning, engineering, medicine, social science, and some more. (shrink)

Lea & Webley's (L&W's) Drug Theory solves many puzzles surrounding money-related behavior. I explore supplementing the Drug Theory with ideas from gene-culture coevolution theory and memetic theory. (Published Online April 5 2006).

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Some Commonalities Can a Memetic Approach to Cultural Change Work? Memetics and Genetics Memetics and Epidemiology The Myth of Self‐replication An Alternative Approach Differential Dependency and Generative Entrenchment as Bases for a Theory of Evolutionary Change Elements of a Developmental Theory of Cultural Evolution New Predictions of This Theory Conclusion Postscript: Counterpoint Notes References.

Although the theory of memetics appeared highly promising at the beginning, it is no longer considered a scientific theory among contemporary evolutionary scholars. This study aims to compare the genealogy of memetics with the historically more successful gene-culture coevolution theory. This comparison is made in order to determine the constraints that emerged during the internal development of the memetics theory that could bias memeticists to work on the ontology of meme units as opposed (...) to hypotheses testing, which was adopted by the gene-culture scholars. I trace this problem back to the diachronic development of memetics to its origin in the gene-centered anti-group-selectionist argument of George C. Williams and Richard Dawkins. The strict adoption of this argument predisposed memeticists with the a priori idea that there is no evolution without discrete units of selection, which in turn, made them dependent on the principal separation of biological and memetic fitness. This separation thus prevented memeticists from accepting an adaptationist view of culture which, on the contrary, allowed gene-culture theorists to attract more scientists to test the hypotheses, creating the historical success of the gene-culture coevolution theory. (shrink)

The term embodiment identifies a theory that meaning and semantics cannot be captured by abstract, logical systems, but are dependent on an agent’s experience derived from being situated in an environment. This theory has recently received a great deal of support in the cognitive science literature and is having significant impact in artificial intelligence. Memetics refers to the theory that knowledge and ideas can evolve more or less independently of their human-agent substrates. While humans provide the (...) medium for this evolution, memetics holds that ideas can be developed without human comprehension or deliberate interference. Both theories have profound implications for the study of language—its potential use by machines, its acquisition by children and of particular relevance to this special issue, its evolution. This article links the theory of memetics to the established literature on semantic space, then examines the extent to which these memetic mechanisms might account for language independently of embodiment. It then seeks to explain the evolution of language through uniquely human cognitive capacities which facilitate memetic evolution. (shrink)

Memes are not best understood as semantic information stored in brains, but rather, as whatever is imitated or copied in culture. Whereas other theories treat culture as an adaptation, for memetics it is a parasite turned symbiont that evolves for its own sake. Memetics is essential for understanding today's information explosion and the future evolution of culture. (Published Online November 9 2006).

O conceito de memes surgiu em 1976 com Richard Dawkins, como um análogo cultural dos genes. Deveria ser possível estudar a cultura através do processo de evolução por seleção natural de memes, ou seja, de comportamentos, ideias e conceitos. O filósofo Daniel Dennett utilizou tal conceito como central em sua teoria da consciência e pela primeira vez divulgou para o grande público a possibilidade de uma ciência dos memes chamada "memética". A pesquisadora Susan Blackmore (1999) foi quem mais se aproximou (...) de uma defesa completa de tal teoria. No entanto, a memética sofreu pesadas críticas e ainda não se constituiu como uma ciência, com métodos e uma base empírica bem definida. -/- The concept of memes was created by Richard Dawkins in 1976 as a cultural analogue of genes. It suggests the possibility of studying culture through a process of evolution through natural selection of memes, that is, of behaviors, ideas and concepts. The concept became central for the philosopher Daniel Dennett, who employed it in his theory of consciousness and made the possibility of a science of memes, called "memetics", known to the general public. Susan Blackmore (1999) comes closest to giving a complete defense of such a theory. However, memetics has been the target of heavy criticism, and has still not established itself as a science, with specific methods and a well-defined empirical basis. (shrink)

The book examines how Darwinism has been used to explain novelty and change in culture through the Darwinian approach to creativity and the theory of memes. The first claims that creativity is based on a Darwinian process of blind variation and selection, while the latter claims that culture is based on and explained by units - memes - that are similar to genes. Both theories try to describe and explain mind and culture by applying Darwinism by way of analogies. (...) Kronfeldner shows that the analogies involved in these theories lead to claims that give either wrong or at least no new descriptions or explanations of the phenomena at issue. Whereas the two approaches are usually defended or criticized on the basis that they are dangerous for our vision of ourselves, this book takes a different perspective: it questions the acuteness of these approaches. Darwinian theory is not like a dangerous wolf, hunting for our self image. Far from it, in the case of the two analogical applications addressed in this book, Darwinian theory is shown to behave more like a disoriented sheep in wolf's clothing. - A revised and much shortened version of a dissertation (2007, Darwinism, Memes and Creativity: A Critique of Analogical Reasoning from Nature to Culture). (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:VIOLENT MEMES AND SUSPICIOUS MINDS: GIRARD'S SCAPEGOAT MECHANISM IN THE LIGHT OF EVOLUTION AND MEMETICS Guömundur Ingi Markússon Reykjavik, Iceland The present article is an attempt to bring mimetic theory into dialogue with certain evolutionary approaches to human culture, i.e., evolutionarypsychology and memetics. That which immediately suggests a consonance between these approaches is a shared concern for the fundamental aspects ofhuman culture, or "fundamental anthropology." My (...) discussion aims at reconsidering Girard's startling insight concerning the significance of scapegoating in the formation of human culture, ritual and myth—or, in short, his concept of the scapegoat mechanism. Two alternative approaches will be explored: (1) On the basis of evolutionary psychology, scapegoating is considered as a cognitive side-effect; (2) with reference to memetics, it is suggested that the scapegoat mechanism is a memetic parasite. The former account is an interpretation ofPascal Boyer's ideas about group mentality and fundamentalist violence in his recent book ReligionExplained(2001). The latter consideration is inspired byTerrence W. Deacon's concept of language evolution and symbolic reference in his book The Symbolic Species (1997). It should be emphasized at the outset that neither Boyer nor Deacon are concerned with scapegoating and, needless to say, the application and interpretation oftheir ideas is entirely my own. 1. The Scapegoat Mechanism as a Cognitive Side Effect The following is an attempt to formulate a cognitive account of scapegoating based on Pascal Boyer's ideas about fundamentalism (2001, 292ff). Guömundur Ingi Markússon89 1.1. The Coalitional Reasoning ofthe Social Mind Boyer's theory of religion is firmly rooted in evolutionary psychology (2001, 118, passim)} A key concept in evolutionary psychology is the environment ofevolutionary adapteäness (EEA) which is centered around the claim that our cognitive apparatus evolved in response to ecological problems faced by our ancestors in the Pleistocene period (which lasted from ca. 2 million-10,000 years ago). In other words, the cognition of modern humans is geared to the ancestral environments of our huntergatherer past. The key issue in evolutionary psychology is to gain insight into the adaptive problems faced by our ancestors, and figure out the necessary cognitive capabilities needed to solve them. The resulting models of how the mind works can then be tested experimentally. Evolutionary psychologists also emphasize the áomain specificity of our psychological mechanisms, i.e., in simple terms, that our mind is a collection of specialized mechanisms wrought by natural selection to deal with specific features of our environment, such as detecting predators, keeping track of social relations, etc. In Boyer's account, the mixed stock of our evolutionary heritage includes a complex array of psychological mechanisms for keeping track ofa wide spectrum ofsocial relations, the social mina (2001, 122). An essential aspect of our social intelligence is "intuitive psychology" or a "theory of mind," i.e., seeing others as intentional agents, realizing what they are up to, what their beliefs and desires are, being able to predict their behavior, etc. According to evolutionary psychologists we are adapted for social exchange. We easily calculate the costs and benefits of our interactions with others. Experiments have shown that logical problems are much more transparent to people when presented as social exchange problems. In such cases, the logical rule in question is restated as a "check for cheaters" rule, i.e., the problem is to figure out whether people respect social conventions or not. Evolutionary psychologists interpretthese results to the effect that our cognition is geared to evaluate social exchange, and we have evolved a disposition to check for cheaters in social exchange situations (2001, 124f; Cosmides 1989; Cosmides & Tooby 1992).2 1 On evolutionary psychology, see Barkow et al. and Laland and Brown (ch. 5). 2 Cosmides, one of the pioneers of evolutionary psychology, characterizes "check for cheaters" thus: "cheating can be defined as the violation of a rule established, explicitly or implicitly, by acceptance ofa social contract. A social contract relatesperceived benefits to 90Violent Mêmes and Suspicious Minds Evaluation oftrust is essential to human interaction: "That humans depend on cooperation creates strategic problems, where the value (the expected benefit) of a particular move depends on whether someone else makes a particular move...." (2001, 125... (shrink)

Scientific thought is characterized in general as methodical and rational. I would like to present here an opposing view which treats science as a non-systematic activity, where serendipity, tinkering and imitation, rather than so-called rational thought, characterizes it. All these kinds of acts, which are considered to be a-rational, are related to an evolutionary view of science. I will deal here with a version of evolutionary epistemology as applied to science, integrated with the concept uf "meme". Richard Dawkins, who coined (...) the term "meme", treats memes as units of information which propagate in the meme-pool by leaping from brain to brain. The way that memes replicate is through imitation. Examples for this phenomenon in science are illustrated by some historical cases. In particular, I will deal with the evolution of theories of "internal symmetries" in particle physics. Memetics is the counterpart of genetics in the cultural arena. In its application to science, it deals with the manner memes/ideas spread in scientific communities. (shrink)

Among the avalanche of new books on consciousness it would be hard to find two whose authors hold more dramatically different views than these. While Benjamin Libet describes his own famous experiments and concludes that consciousness is a field with powerful effects, Edelman builds his theory on the assumption that the world is causally closed and consciousness is devoid of casual efficacy.

Somewhere in the mists of the past, we somehow picked up the idea of an afterlife from our culture. So, where did this idea come from in the first place? The problem is not that there aren’t any plausible theories to explain it; the problem is that there are too many. Some claim that the belief in an afterlife is wishful thinking; others that it’s a way of encouraging socially desirable behavior; and others still that it represents ancient people’s best (...) effort to explain strange phenomena such as dreams. More recently, it has been suggested that afterlife beliefs are the handiwork of evolution by natural selection, or byproducts of various evolved psychological capacities. According to one approach, afterlife beliefs are products of natural selection, but not natural selection operating on genes or any other biological entities. Instead, afterlife beliefs are products of natural selection operating among ideas or memes. -/- 1. A Plethora of Theories - 1.1 Wishful Thinking - 1.2 Social Glue - 1.3 Social Control - 1.4 Primitive Science -- 2. Evolving an Afterlife - 2.1 A Spandrel in the Works - 2.2 Afterlife Beliefs as Selfish Memes -- 3. Why Go There? (shrink)

Against Memetics Przeciw Memetyce (Against Memetics) Article is a critical analysis of theoretical foundations of memetics from the perspective of 2010. In my study, I mainly discuss assumptions adopted by Polish memeticians (papers published mostly in the magazine „Teksty z Ulicy. Zeszyty memetyczne”). The article concerns “biological foundations” of memetics adopted by the researchers, which causes a transfer of the biology’s conceptual paradigm exactly to the field of memetics, since a) the research methodology of (...) class='Hi'>memetics has been based on achievements of virology (sic!); whereas, b) memetics itself has been called a scientific theory and; therefore, c) the subject of memetics has been determined and that is the evolution of culture. What is more, the article discusses the issue of so-called qualia. Joining the theory of memesreplicators with qualia is risky; nevertheless, it is not completely unjustified; especially, as memeticians attribute features of qualia to memes. Finally, the deliberations on memes and memetics are directed towards semiotics assuming the understanding of a group of memes as a code of a specific semantic deposit SD, which forms ℝ relation in a specific knowledge representation RW. (shrink)

Those who anticipated the demise of religion and the advent of a peaceful, secularized global village have seen the last two decades confound their predictions. René Girard’s mimetic theory is a key to understanding the new challenges posed by our world of resurgent violence and pluralistic cultures and traditions. Girard sought to explain how the Judeo-Christian narrative exposes a founding murder at the origin of human civilization and demystifies the bloody sacrifices of archaic religions. Meanwhile, his book Sacrifice, a (...) reading of conflict and sacrificial resolution in the Vedic Brahmanas, suggests that mimetic theory’s insights also resonate with several non-Western religious and spiritual traditions. This volume collects engagements with Girard by scholars of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism and situates them within contemporary theology, philosophy, and religious studies. (shrink)

Pain is not a primitive sensory event but rather a complexperception and a process by which a person interacts with theinternal and external environments, constructs meaning, andengages in action. Because folk beliefs are central to meaning,folk concepts of pain play multiple causal roles in a painpatient's interaction with health care providers and others.In every case, the notion of pain is linked to a goal-directedbehavior that is useful to the person. The wide variation inconcepts of pain across individuals suffering with painunderscores (...) the richness and complexity of the pain experience.In some cases involving chronic pain, the patient may form amaladaptive cluster of behaviors around the concept of pain.Patient beliefs and expectations are an important part of manychronic pain syndromes, and patients can benefit fromintervention directed at revising the individual's folk model of pain. Memetics offers a framework for identifying the memesthat patients hold and determining whether patient memes fitor clash with provider memes. (shrink)

Evolutionary psychology comprises a wide area of theories and researches. One area focuses on the universal and comprehensive mechanisms of selection which can be utilized to interpret cultural phenomena. Memetic selection, epidemiology of representations, naturalistic approach to culture, and evolutionary epistemology use various principles and methods to explain the origin and spread of the cultural traits. Csaba Pléh, one of the representatives of Darwinian approach to social sciences, has made an effort to integrate these theoretical frameworks. He emphasizes the continuity (...) among biological evolution, hominid development, and cultural differentiation and change. Indeed, understanding mental, behavioral, and material commonalities shared across individuals or groups of individuals requires a multi-level explanation at different types and levels of evolutionary processes that are based on the same organizational principles but also imply quite distinctive procedures for acquiring, interpreting and using information derived from the social world. (shrink)

The evolutionary synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s integrated the study of biological microevolution and biological macroevolution into the theoretically consistent and hugely productive field of evolutionary biology. A similar synthesis has yet to occur for the study of culture, and the social sciences remain fragmented and theoretically incompatible. Here, it is suggested that a Darwinian theory of cultural evolution can promote such a synthesis. Earlier non-Darwinian theories of cultural evolution, such as progress theories, lacked key elements of a (...) Darwinian theory of cultural evolution that are necessary to promote a synthesis, while other contemporary theories of cultural evolution, such as memetics, make too stringent neo-Darwinian assumptions that are inconsistent with evidence regarding cultural transmission. Several examples are given which indicate the beginnings of an evolutionary synthesis for culture, where patterns of cultural macroevolution have been explained in terms of underlying cultural microevolutionary forces. Finally, it is argued that experimental simulations of cultural evolution can play an important role in this emerging synthesis. (shrink)

This book critiques the postmodernism and Continental philosophy of Heidegger and Nietzche through the lens of the mimetic theory of Rene Girard.

Natural myside bias is the tendency to evaluate propositions from within one's own perspective when given no instructions or cues (such as within-participants conditions) to avoid doing so. We defined the participant's perspective as their previously existing status on four variables: their sex, whether they smoked, their alcohol consumption, and the strength of their religious beliefs. Participants then evaluated a contentious but ultimately factual proposition relevant to each of these demographic factors. Myside bias is defined between-participants as the mean difference (...) in the evaluation of the proposition between groups with differing prior status on the variable. Whether an individual difference variable (such as cognitive ability) is related to the magnitude of the myside bias is indicated by whether the individual difference variable interacts with the between-participants status variable. In two experiments involving a total of over 1400 university students ( n = 1484) and eight different comparisons, we found very little evidence that participants of higher cognitive ability displayed less natural myside bias. The degree of myside bias was also relatively independent of individual differences in thinking dispositions. We speculate that ideas from memetic theory and dual-process theory might help to explain why natural myside bias is quite dissociated from individual difference variables. (shrink)

The culture of honour hypothesis offers a compelling example of how human psychology differentially adapts to pastoral and horticultural environments. However, there is disagreement over whether this pattern is best explained by a memetic, evolutionary psychological, dual inheritance, or niche construction model. I argue that this disagreement stems from two shortcomings: lack of clarity about the theoretical commitments of these models and inadequate comparative data for testing them. To resolve the first problem, I offer a theoretical framework for deriving competing (...) predictions from each of the four models. In particular, this involves a novel interpretation of the difference between dual inheritance theory and cultural niche construction. I then illustrate a strategy for testing their predictions using data from the Human Relations Area File. Empirical results suggest that the aggressive psychological phenotype typically associated with honour culture is more common among pastoral societies than among horticultural societies. Theoretical considerations suggest that this pattern is best explained as a case of cultural niche construction. (shrink)

En este artículo se hace una crítica de los enfoques teóricos, aquí llamados por analogía o analógicos, que pretenden abstraer conceptos darwinistas del sustrato biológico para aplicarlos a dominios ontológicos (parcialmente) distintos, estrategia adoptada por versiones de la epistemología evolutiva y, sobre todo, por la teoría memética. Para ello se utiliza el argumento de la exclusión causal, tomado en préstamo de la filosofía de la mente; se hace evidente la existencia de un paralelismo entre causalidad mental y memética, y se (...) muestra cómo cualquier posible caracterización de la segunda a partir de la primera conduce a graves problemas metafísicos y epistemológicos. En las conclusiones se esbozan, sin intención de exhaustividad, algunas ideas sobre cómo evitar posiciones reduccionistas sin adoptar una postura teórica analógica. The main purpose of this paper is criticize theoretical approaches -here called by analogy, or analogical- which aim to extract Darwinian concepts from a biological substrate to apply them to (partially) different ontological domains. This strategy is adopted by some versions of evolutionary epistemology and, especially, by memetics theory. An argument borrowed from philosophy of mind, namely, the argument of causal exclusion, is used to carry out the critique. The existence of a parallelism between memetics and mental causation will be shown, and it will be argued that any possible characterization of the first in terms of the second implies serious metaphysical and epistemological problems. In the conclusions, with no intention of completeness, some ideas on how to avoid reductionist positions, without taking an analogical posture, will be outlined. (shrink)

I was thrilled when I learned of Iacoboni’s discovery that when a chimpanzee's brain is morphed onto a human brain the areas of greatest expansion are those that are used in imitation. "Yes!" I thought "This is exactly what I predicted on the basis of memetic theory. Whoopee - memetics is right!" but then I had to pause because this is how to make the worst mistake in the book. Construct a wacky theory, derive a prediction from (...) that theory, discover the prediction is correct and then (illegitimately) conclude that the theory must be true. So I would like to describe the prediction and consider whether these findings do have any implications for memetics or not. (shrink)

Recent years have seen a transformation in thinking about the nature of culture. Rather than viewing culture in opposition to biology, a growing number of researchers now regard culture as subject to evolutionary processes. Recent developments in this field have shifted some of the traditional academic fault lines. Alliances are forming between researchers trained in anthropology, evolutionary biology, psychology and philosophy. Meanwhile, several distinct schools of thought have appeared which differ in their vision of what an evolutionary approach to culture (...) should look like. This volume contains some of the most influential publications on these subjects from the past few decades. A theoretical background chapter and critical introduction identify the core issues at stake in the new study of cultural evolution. These chapters are followed by sections on each of the four dominant approaches: the phylogenetic approach, memetics, dual inheritance theory and niche construction. Following these are two chapters on closely related topics: the psychological mechanisms of culture and the existence of culture in non-human animals. Overall, this volume provides an up to date overview of some of the most exciting trends in contemporary evolutionary thought. (shrink)

The dissertation criticizes two analogical applications of Darwinism to the spheres of mind and culture: the Darwinian approach to creativity and memetics. These theories rely on three basic analogies: the ontological analogy states that the basic ontological units of culture are so-called memes, which are replicators like genes; the origination analogy states that novelty in human creativity emerges in a "blind" Darwinian manner; and the explanatory units of selection analogy states that memes are "egoistic" and that they can spread (...) independently of our mind. The detailed philosophical analysis offered in the dissertation shows that these three analogies rely on either wrong or trivial statements: they provide either wrong or no new descriptions or explanations of the phenomena at hand. In Chapter One, I introduce the diverse ways, in which contemporary Darwinism is used today outside of evolutionary biology. Chapter Two explains what it means to claim that something evolves in a Darwinian manner. Chapter Three to Five address each of the three analogies separately. Darwinism applied to culture and mind, at least in the way discussed in this study, is not a dangerous idea. It leads either to wrong claims or to a re-telling in Darwinian terms of what we have already known. (shrink)

In the present study a historiographical review is performed according to the main hypotheses have been proposed from a Darwinian point of view to analyse religion. First, the basic pillars of Darwinian theory are analysed: variation, inheritance and selection. Keeping in mind these previous ideas, Darwinists theorists have analysed the religion well as neutral phenomenon while exaptation, as a non-adaptive phenomenon from a memetic perspective while anachronism and as an adaptive phenomenon from a single and multilevel standpoint. Finally, a (...) critical review is realised about problems and solutions of each perspective. (shrink)

After showing the semiotic and social nature of cultural sciences, this paper addresses the efforts to naturalize them following the so-called “Universal Darwinism”. This being settled, three initiatives of different depth and scope are analyzed. First, the proposal displayed by Mesoudi, Whiten, and Laland for the unification of the cultural sciences in parallel with the unification of biological sciences on the basis of the principles of variation, inheritance, and selection. Second, memetics as a theory of cultural selection with (...) memes as its basic units and imitation as the process of cultural transmission. Third, Hodgson’s and Knudsen’s program for an evolutionary economics brought forth by the interpretation of an abstract Darwinian ontology in terms of economic theory. The conclusion drawn is that the issue is still to a good extent open to ongoing research. (shrink)

Recent debates about memetics have revealed some widespread misunderstandings about Darwinian approaches to cultural evolution. Drawing from these debates, this paper disputes five common claims: (1) mental representations are rarely discrete, and therefore models that assume discrete, gene-like particles (i.e., replicators) are useless; (2) replicators are necessary for cumulative, adaptive evolution; (3) content-dependent psychological biases are the only important processes that affect the spread of cultural representations; (4) the “cultural fitness” of a mental representation can be inferred from its (...) successful transmission; and (5) selective forces only matter if the sources of variation are random. We close by sketching the outlines of a unified evolutionary science of culture. (shrink)

The science of memetics faces a serious problem. The concept of the meme emerged from evolutionary biology and the theory of replicators, and within this context it is well understood, if highly controversial. But out on the web, and in popular discourse, the word ‘meme’ is horribly abused. It is confused with ‘idea’ or ‘concept’ or treated as something ethereal or non-material floating about quite separate from behaviours and artefacts.

René Girard, Theology, and Pop Culture provides a fresh and engaging introduction to and the application of René Girard’s mimetic theory. From movies to social media, television to graphic novels, the contributors explore popular culture’s theological depths and challenge readers to consider what culture reveals about them.

René Girard, Theology, and Pop Culture provides a fresh and engaging introduction to and the application of René Girard's mimetic theory. From movies to social media, television to graphic novels, the contributors explore popular culture's theological depths and challenge readers to consider what culture reveals about them.

Culture is a unique and fascinating aspect of the human species. How did it emerge and how does it develop? Richard Dawkins suggested culture evolves and that memes are cultural replicators, subject to variation and selection in the same way as genes are in the biological world. Thus human culture is the product of a mindless evolutionary algorithm. Does this imply, as some have argued, that we are mere meme machines and that the conscious self is an illusion? This highly (...) readable and accessible book extends Dawkins's theory, presenting for the first time a fully developed concept of cultural DNA. Distin argues that culture's development can be seen as the result of memetic evolution and as the product of human creativity. Memetic evolution is perfectly compatible with the view of humans as conscious and intelligent. This book should find a wide readership amongst philosophers, psychologists, sociologists and non-academic readers. (shrink)

In this paper I discuss a widespread cultural phenomenon, superstition, from an adaptive point of view. At first, I propose a general interpretative framework, based on the concept of abduction. Then, I analyze two reductionist theories. The first one, Sociobiology, considers superstition as a strategy to control the population growth, an extension of an adaptive biological behavior. The second one, Memetics, transfers the adaptive role of superstition to an evolutionary mechanism separated from the biological one. I criticize both proposals (...) and I suggest an alternative non-reductionist interpretation: superstitions can be considered as strategies aimed at the cohesion of a population. (shrink)

O conceito de memes surgiu em 1976 com Richard Dawkins, como um análogo cultural dos genes. Deveria ser possível estudar a cultura através do processo de evolução por seleção natural de memes, ou seja, de comportamentos, ideias e conceitos. O filósofo Daniel Dennett utilizou tal conceito como central em sua teoria da consciência e pela primeira vez divulgou para o grande público a possibilidade de uma ciência dos memes chamada "memética". A pesquisadora Susan Blackmore (1999) foi quem mais se aproximou (...) de uma defesa completa de tal teoria. No entanto, a memética sofreu pesadas críticas e ainda não se constituiu como uma ciência, com métodos e uma base empírica bem definida. The concept of memes was created by Richard Dawkins in 1976 as a cultural analogue of genes. It suggests the possibility of studying culture through a process of evolution through natural selection of memes, that is, of behaviors, ideas and concepts. The concept became central for the philosopher Daniel Dennett, who employed it in his theory of consciousness and made the possibility of a science of memes, called "memetics", known to the general public. Susan Blackmore (1999) comes closest to giving a complete defense of such a theory. However, memetics has been the target of heavy criticism, and has still not established itself as a science, with specific methods and a well-defined empirical basis. (shrink)

La memética es una disciplina joven que se inscribe en el campo de las teorías de la evolución cultural y que busca extrapolar hipótesis darwinianas de selección natural al campo de las ideas, proponiendo la existencia de replicadores culturales llamados memes. En el presente artículo se hace una revisión histórica de dicha disciplina, se examina la contribución que puede ofrecer a las teorías del cambio científico de Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos y Edgar Morin y se hace una evaluación de la (...) memética desde una perspectiva epistemológica basada en categorías ofrecidas por Karl Popper, Mario Bunge e Imre Lakatos, presentándola de esta manera, en un proceso recursivo, como elemento explicativo e interpretativo a la vez que como objeto de estudio y análisis. -/- 'Science in light of memes. Memes in light of science.' -/- Memetics is a young discipline that is inserted in the field of theories of cultural evolution and seeks to extrapolate Darwinian hypotheses of natural selection to the field of ideas by proposing the existence of cultural replicators called memes. In this article, we present a historical overview of the discipline, examining the contribution it can offer to theories of scientific change by Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and Edgar Morin. Lastly, we provide an assessment of memetics from an epistemological perspective based on categories suggested by Karl Popper, Mario Bunge and Imre Lakatos, thereby presenting that discipline in a recursive process as an explanatory and interpretative element, while at the same time as an object of study and analysis. (shrink)

The first issue raised by this paper is whether semiotics can bring any added value to ecology. A brief examination of the epistemological status of semiotics in its current forms suggests that semiotics' phenomenological macroconcepts (which are inherited from various theological and philosophical traditions) are incommensurate with the complexity of the sciences comprising ecology and are too reductive to usefully map the microprocesses through which organisms evolve and interact. However, there are at least two grounds on which interfacing semiotics with (...) ecology may prove to be scientifically productive: (a) the very looseness of semiotic discourse can be an important catalyser for multidisciplinary interactions, an important condition for the emergence of truly holistic ecology; (b) the present semiotic conceptual apparatus is not carved in stone. All its notions, frames of reference and types of reasoning can evolve in contact with the problems encountered in evolutionary ecological research. Semiotics, as an open-ended epistemological project, remains a proactive intellectual resource. The second issue raised by this paper is precisely to call attention to the opportunity provided by recent developments for rethinking and furthering semiotic inquiry. An attempt is made to show that counterintuitive theories such as memetics and new frontiers in teclmology such as nanotechnology, could help recast ecosentioticsalong more intellectually exciting lines of inquiry than the mere rewriting of ecological discourse in terms of the traditional semiotic macroconcepts. It goes without saying that memetics and nanotechology are not presented here as definitive solutions but simply as indicative of possible directions toward acomprehensive evolutionary ecosentiotics that would radically transform the basis of the 20th century sentiotic discourse and its ideological agenda. (shrink)

In the field of cultural evolution it is generally assumed that the study of culture and cultural change would benefit enormously from being informed by evolutionary thinking. Recently, however, there has been much debate about what this “being informed” means. According to the standard view, an interesting analogy obtains between cultural and biological evolution. In the literature, however, the analogy is interpreted and used in at least three distinct, but interrelated ways. We provide a taxonomy in order to clarify these (...) different meanings. Subsequently, we discuss the alternatives model of cultural attraction theory and memetics, which both challenge basic assumptions of the standard view. Finally, we briefly summarize the contributions to the special issue on Darwin in the Humanities and the Social Sciences, which is the result of a collaborative project between scholars and scientists from the universities of Lille and Ghent. Furthermore, we explain how they add to the discussions about the integration of evolutionary thinking and the study of culture. (shrink)

The past two decades have seen a growing interest in evolutionary and scientific approaches to religion. The Routledge Handbook of Evolutionary Approaches to Religion is an outstanding reference source to the key topics, problems and debates in this exciting and emerging field. Comprising over thirty chapters by a team of international contributors the handbook pulls together scholarship in the following areas: evolutionary psychology and the cognitive science of religion (CSR), cultural evolution and the complementarity of evolutionary psychology, cognitive science and (...) cultural evolution. Within these sections central issues, debates and problems are examined, including: Cliodynamics, cultural group selection, costly signalling, dual inheritance theory, literacy, transmitting narratives, prosociality, supernatural punishment, cognition and ritual, meme theory, fusion theory, sexual selection, agency detection, evoked culture, social brain hypothesis, theory of mind, developmental psychology, emergence theory, social learning, cultural cybernetics, cultural epidemiology, evolutionary and cultural psychology, memetics, by-product and adaptationist theories of religion, systems and information theory, and computer modelling. This is essential reading for students and researchers in religious studies and anthropology, the Handbook will also be very useful to those in related fields, such as psychology, sociology of religion, cognitive biology, and evolutionary biology. (shrink)

The Chinese concept of wen is examined here in the context of contemporary gene theory and the "cultural branch" of gene theory called "memetics." The Chinese notion of wen is an untranslatable term meaning "pattern," "structure," "writing," and "literature." Wen hua—generally translated as "culture"—signifies the process through which one adopts wen. However, this process is not simply one of civilizational mimesis or imitation but the "creation" of a new pattern. Within a gene-wen debate we are able to (...) read genes neither in terms of nature or culture but, in a Chinese way, in terms of "nature-culture." "Posthuman" or "transhuman" models that celebrate the creation of techno-biobodies (cyborgs) as the continuation of the human by nonhuman means are still dependent on a clear distinction between nature and technology (culture) that is rooted in the Greek and Christian traditions. bioengineering does not do more than gradually replacing the "given" by the "made" until the body is seen as a commodity malleable in the hands of modern technology. A wen-based genetics offers a new perspective on nature-culture continuity because it is not trapped in nature but involved in a concept of wen that a Western mind tends to identify too quickly with natural necessity. (shrink)

Charles Darwin und seine Erben wendeten die Theorie der Evolution biologischer Arten auch auf Kultur an. Kultur evolviere wie die Natur auf Darwinistische Weise. Die sog. Memtheorie, vertreten von verschiedenen Autoren auf der Basis des Darwinistischen Genselektionismus, ist eine Spielart einer solchen analogen Anwendung. Dieser Artikel kritisiert drei zentrale Aussagen der Memtheorie: (i) dass es Einheiten der Kultur – Meme – gibt, die analog zu Genen zu verstehen sind, (ii) dass Meme, in Analogie zu Genen, Replikatoren sind, und (iii) dass (...) Meme als Einheiten der kulturellen Selektion auf die gleiche Art wie Gene 'egoistisch' sein können. Nach einer Einführung in die Memtheorie in Teil 1, werden diese drei Thesen in Teil 2 als entweder falsch oder trivial entlarvt. Dieser kritische Teil soll vor allem zeigen, dass die Memtheorie keine 'gefährliche Idee' ist, die das bisher in den Geistes- Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften tradierte Verständnis von Geist und Kultur herausfordern kann. Im Gegenteil, im besten Fall re-formuliert die Memtheorie lediglich Bekanntes in evolutionärer Sprache und ist in diesem Sinne trivial. In Teil 3 wird die Perspektive gewechselt: Nicht mehr der Gehalt, sondern die Funktion der Memtheorie, v.a. im Kontext interdisziplinärer Verständigung, soll betrachtet werden. Denn trotz der Kritik der drei Kernthesen kann die Memtheorie eine kommunikative und somit produktive Rolle zwischen den 'zwei Kulturen' der Wissenschaften spielen. (shrink)

The paper starts with a distinction between kinds of description that can be proposed for a populational dynamics, including a ‘Darwinian’ description, in terms of variation, inheritance and differential fitness, engaging the entities that make up the relevant population. It follows with a categorization of different kinds of cultural populations and an investigation of the most general conditions that have to be fulfilled for an evolutionary and Darwinian dynamics to take place in those populations, especially in the population comprised by (...) the cultural traits themselves. We make salient some approaches to the evolution in the human lineage, such as dual inheritance theory and memetics, that place cultural evolution at the center of their scenarios. In this way, those approaches contribute to the development of a general theory of cultural evolution, and we compare them, in this respect, with other approaches. Those confrontations grant also illustrations of the analogies between biological evolution and cultural evolution, as well as failures in the analogy. (shrink)

To be human is to imitate. This is a strong claim, and a contentious one. It implies that the turning point in hominid evolution was when our ancestors first began to copy each other’s sounds and actions, and that this new ability was responsible for transforming an ordinary ape into one with a big brain, language, a curious penchant for music and art, and complex cumulative culture. The argument, briefly, is this. All evolutionary processes depend on information being copied with (...) variation and selection. Most living things on earth are the product of evolution based on the copying, varying and selection of genes. However, once humans began to imitate they provided a new kind of copying and so let loose an evolutionary process based on the copying, varying and selection of memes. This new evolutionary system co-evolved with the old to turn us into more than gene machines. We, alone on this planet, are also meme machines. We are selective imitation devices in an evolutionary arms race with a new replicator. This is why we are so different from other creatures; this is why we alone have big brains, language and complex culture. There are many contentious issues here; the nature and status of memes, the validity of the concept of a replicator, the difference between this and other theories of gene-culture co-evolution, and whether memetics really is necessary, as I believe it is, to explain human nature. I shall outline the basic principles of memetics, show how memes could have driven human evolution, and consider some of these questions along the way. (shrink)

The very idea of promulgation has been given little to no treatment in the philosophy of law. In this exploratory essay, I introduce three possible theories of promulgation: the ‘no-theory theory’ (which treats promulgation as a matter of particular contexts), the ‘conveyance theory’ (which treats promulgation as a function of intellectual good faith interpreters), and ‘agonistic theory’ (which treats promulgation as indistinguishable from propaganda). I suggest that (at least) three kinds of models are consistent with the (...) theories, and can potentially help us understand when law is successfully promulgated in particular legal contexts: the spread model, the chain model, and the memetic model. I end the paper by comparing the two theories with respect to a case study. Throughout I will show that the conveyance and agonistic theories have a serious advantage over the no-theory theory, in that they allow us to comparatively examine the epistemic weaknesses of diverse theories about the grounding of law on the basis of their contents. (shrink)

NATURALIZATION OF THE ABSOLUTE. The application of evolution’s explanatory mechanism to the study of religion The question which has troubled scholars for many decades (or even centuries) is the origin and function of religion. In this article, the author tries to sketch an outline of a new and promising paradigm in the study of religion, i.e. the evolutionary theories of religion. It is widely held belief that this enterprise should further provide an explanatory framework for an enormous amount of data (...) about human religiosity. Such an aim requires giving an overview of the three fundamental Darwinian theories which pertain to this extremely multifaceted phenomenon. The sequence in the overview is like this: (a) a historical and conceptual background, (b) a sociobiological account, (c) a cognitive account, (d) a memetic account. The paper also comprises a short presentation of so-called co-evolutionary perspective, which integrates the above-mentioned outlooks, and some shortcomings of the whole evolutionary program of the study of religion. (shrink)

The paper discusses the lingual genesis of consciousness. The author reconstructs Daniel C. Dennett’s naturalization strategy, showing how, according to Dennett, language enables the emergence of consciousness in the evolution of humankind. This naturalization assumes a behavioristic view according to which consciousness is a covert verbal behavior. The author shows that Dennett adopts and transforms Mead’s, Skinner’s, and Jaynes’s original behavioristic approaches inscribing them into a course of human evolution. This inscription leads to specific problems discussed in the final part (...) of the paper: There are actually two definitions of consciousness in Dennett’s philosophy—first says that consciousness is a kind of verbal behavior, second says that it is a virtual memetic machine. There is no explanation of the execution rule that could show how given mind content becomes conscious; Dennett introduces the competition metaphor instead. Some contentful events in the brain (mind contents) simply win with others. Inscription of the possible scenario of consciousness development in the evolutionary landscape does not mean that one can testify the theory yet. (shrink)

Christiansen & Chater's (C&C's) arguments share with memetics the ideas that language is an evolving organism and that brain capacities shape language by influencing the fitness of memes, although memetics also claims that memes in turn shape brains. Their rejection of meme theory is based on falsely claiming that memes must be consciously selected by sighted watchmakers.

Charles Darwin famously argued that that life on earth was not the product of intelligent design, and that it instead had arisen through the entirely natural of process of evolution via natural selection. Darwin’s theory of evolution (together with Mendel’s theory of genetics) now forms the foundation of all the biological sciences. Jurassic Park, however, raises an interesting question: just how does Darwin’s theory apply to lifeforms that are the products of explicit, intelligent design? In this essay, (...) I examine cluster of issues in the philosophy of biology that turn out to be central in figuring out the answer to this question. Among other things, I discuss the difficulties in drawing sharp boundaries biological systems and non-biological systems, and between the products of natural selection and those of artificial selection. I also consider more generally how the process of evolution via natural selection is changed when intelligent agents begin to directly manipulate genetic material. (shrink)