Well we knew that our genes were the primary key for mapping us into human beings. Every one of us have this unique gene sequencing that dictates how we are, and to some extent how we behave. We don't quite change the way we are as we grow up, but we evolve in the way we behave.
This is learning, and is influenced by what we see, we hear and we retain. It also depends at the level of granularity in our learning. When we first learn to count, we are told to associate "1" with "One". And we are made to count apples, and oranges, and horses, and buttons, and whole lot of things; to make us understand that counting is an universal idea which doesn't depend on what we are counting. And then if we are shown "1.00000", we might not relate to "One", unless someone tells us about the "concept" of decimals.
Consider the following situation.
We have a new born baby, Calvin. He is just opening his eyes, so we assume that he hasn't learned anything so far, other than the fact that the world is indeed a hostile place to live in.
He is shown three balls of the same parameters (size, color, shape or any other parameter that Calvin can read in). Then we take them away from him, one by one. At this point of learning, he sees just the difference in the "number of objects" that he sees. He would not have any idea about the color, size or shape of the object he is shown, because we are not varying that parameter. He hasn't so far learned the "concept" of color, shape or size.
Now if we repeat the same experiment using three pyramids, which have the same color as the balls we used. Then Calvin, gets to understand that shape is a parameter he can read through his eyes, but the prime learning still remains the same. He still counts down from three to zero. He might take a bit longer to actually count 3, 2 and 1 this time. But he is beginning to understand that counting shouldn't depend on 'what' he is counting, if the 'what' is "shape".
If we change one attribute at a time, and provide him with enough sample; Calvin would slowly begin to understand that counting shouldn't depend on the shape, color, or size.
Note of warning. If we showed him 4 pyramids instead of 3, that would mess his mind. Because then he might think that pyramids come in bunches 4 first, and then they go away one by one, so they are different from balls because of the initial count being different. And he might not learn to differentiate based on the shape, size or color. So lets not mess with his mind, you love Calvin don't you?
But the point to note here is; if you wanted, you could mess with Calvin's mind!
You just could have changed two parameters at a time (your grand mom did that to you, so you had to unlearn and then learn counting again? and now you want revenge!?); or you could change the order of the counting, zero to three instead of three to zero (we anyway started with a weird way of counting backwards; so Calvin would have a hard time if someone told him to count and separate 50 apples from a pile! Calvin would start from an arbitrary heap of apples assuming it has 50 apples, and then he'd count to zero. If he had excess to start with he'd be okay, or else he'd have to redo with a bigger pile. This is assuming that he hasn't yet learned how to add, and thus cannot break his problem down into sub problems).
Anyway, so the conclusion is that you could devise N number of ways to mess up Calvin's mind. But you chose not to, instead you carefully selected what Calvin is learning, so that he learns it right.
When we grow up, there is no one who filters what we learn. So we take in a whole lot of wrong things along with a whole lot of right things. "Concepts" or "Units of Learning" are what we call "memes".
Wiki: A meme (pronounced /mi:m/) consists of any idea or behavior that can pass from one person to another by learning or imitation. Examples include thoughts, ideas, theories, gestures, practices, fashions, habits, songs, and dances. Memes propagate themselves and can move through the cultural sociosphere in a manner similar to the contagious behavior of a virus.
Like our genes dictate "how we are", our memes dictate "who we are". So it is very important to protect our memes, and not let viral memes propagate through us.
Memes can be good or bad, weak or strong. Strong memes capture our minds easily, and are easier to retain in our memory and to replicate. Weaker memes, like weaker genes die out in the competition if not protected. We have to be careful about not letting our minds being taken over by 'strong bad memes'. And we have to be extra careful to protect our 'weak good memes'. Memes might be dependent on each other, and then they are called memeplexes. Memeplexes are a group of memes which are mutually supportive, and thus together become evolutionarily successful, but not independently.
To give an example, "honesty" is a weak good meme. But "greed" is a strong bad meme. Marketing is all about creating strong good memes about your product, or about creating strong bad memes about your competitors. Now there can always be a debate on which memes are good, and which are bad. We can only hope that our decision on good and bad memes are not dictated by the bad memes which are already replicating through our masses.
What we see in the media, what we read in our newspapers; everything is custom made to make us think in a particular way. Sometimes these memes that are promoted through the media are strong enough to hack into our meme-pools and create strong bad memes. Sometimes its the other way around; we could watch a movie and it then imbibes a strong good meme which might totally change the view we have about a certain thing, for good! Religious ideas are good examples of memeplexes. Religions are really strong memeplexes, and thus generate strong beliefs and emotions.
The truth is, every aspect of our lives are dictated by the memes that we harbor in our minds, and by the memes that we take in every moment. So we have to be extra cautious in maintaining our meme pool, because its much tougher than maintaining our gene pool!
Here is some background info:
Richard Dawkins coined the word "meme" as a neologism in his book The Selfish Gene (1976) to describe how one might extend evolutionary principles to explain the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena.
Meme-theorists contend that memes evolve by natural selection (similar to Darwinian biological evolution) through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance influencing an individual entity's reproductive success. Thus one can expect that some memes will propagate less successfully and become extinct, while others will survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate.
"Memeticists argue that the memes most beneficial to their hosts will not necessarily survive; rather, those memes that replicate the most effectively spread best, which allows for the possibility that successful memes may prove detrimental to their hosts."
Philosopher and scientist Dan Dennett argues that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes and are not what we traditionally think they are. Something worth pondering upon!
Protect your little Calvin.
This is learning, and is influenced by what we see, we hear and we retain. It also depends at the level of granularity in our learning. When we first learn to count, we are told to associate "1" with "One". And we are made to count apples, and oranges, and horses, and buttons, and whole lot of things; to make us understand that counting is an universal idea which doesn't depend on what we are counting. And then if we are shown "1.00000", we might not relate to "One", unless someone tells us about the "concept" of decimals.
Consider the following situation.
We have a new born baby, Calvin. He is just opening his eyes, so we assume that he hasn't learned anything so far, other than the fact that the world is indeed a hostile place to live in.
He is shown three balls of the same parameters (size, color, shape or any other parameter that Calvin can read in). Then we take them away from him, one by one. At this point of learning, he sees just the difference in the "number of objects" that he sees. He would not have any idea about the color, size or shape of the object he is shown, because we are not varying that parameter. He hasn't so far learned the "concept" of color, shape or size.
Now if we repeat the same experiment using three pyramids, which have the same color as the balls we used. Then Calvin, gets to understand that shape is a parameter he can read through his eyes, but the prime learning still remains the same. He still counts down from three to zero. He might take a bit longer to actually count 3, 2 and 1 this time. But he is beginning to understand that counting shouldn't depend on 'what' he is counting, if the 'what' is "shape".
If we change one attribute at a time, and provide him with enough sample; Calvin would slowly begin to understand that counting shouldn't depend on the shape, color, or size.
Note of warning. If we showed him 4 pyramids instead of 3, that would mess his mind. Because then he might think that pyramids come in bunches 4 first, and then they go away one by one, so they are different from balls because of the initial count being different. And he might not learn to differentiate based on the shape, size or color. So lets not mess with his mind, you love Calvin don't you?
But the point to note here is; if you wanted, you could mess with Calvin's mind!
You just could have changed two parameters at a time (your grand mom did that to you, so you had to unlearn and then learn counting again? and now you want revenge!?); or you could change the order of the counting, zero to three instead of three to zero (we anyway started with a weird way of counting backwards; so Calvin would have a hard time if someone told him to count and separate 50 apples from a pile! Calvin would start from an arbitrary heap of apples assuming it has 50 apples, and then he'd count to zero. If he had excess to start with he'd be okay, or else he'd have to redo with a bigger pile. This is assuming that he hasn't yet learned how to add, and thus cannot break his problem down into sub problems).
Anyway, so the conclusion is that you could devise N number of ways to mess up Calvin's mind. But you chose not to, instead you carefully selected what Calvin is learning, so that he learns it right.
When we grow up, there is no one who filters what we learn. So we take in a whole lot of wrong things along with a whole lot of right things. "Concepts" or "Units of Learning" are what we call "memes".
Wiki: A meme (pronounced /mi:m/) consists of any idea or behavior that can pass from one person to another by learning or imitation. Examples include thoughts, ideas, theories, gestures, practices, fashions, habits, songs, and dances. Memes propagate themselves and can move through the cultural sociosphere in a manner similar to the contagious behavior of a virus.
Like our genes dictate "how we are", our memes dictate "who we are". So it is very important to protect our memes, and not let viral memes propagate through us.
Memes can be good or bad, weak or strong. Strong memes capture our minds easily, and are easier to retain in our memory and to replicate. Weaker memes, like weaker genes die out in the competition if not protected. We have to be careful about not letting our minds being taken over by 'strong bad memes'. And we have to be extra careful to protect our 'weak good memes'. Memes might be dependent on each other, and then they are called memeplexes. Memeplexes are a group of memes which are mutually supportive, and thus together become evolutionarily successful, but not independently.
To give an example, "honesty" is a weak good meme. But "greed" is a strong bad meme. Marketing is all about creating strong good memes about your product, or about creating strong bad memes about your competitors. Now there can always be a debate on which memes are good, and which are bad. We can only hope that our decision on good and bad memes are not dictated by the bad memes which are already replicating through our masses.
What we see in the media, what we read in our newspapers; everything is custom made to make us think in a particular way. Sometimes these memes that are promoted through the media are strong enough to hack into our meme-pools and create strong bad memes. Sometimes its the other way around; we could watch a movie and it then imbibes a strong good meme which might totally change the view we have about a certain thing, for good! Religious ideas are good examples of memeplexes. Religions are really strong memeplexes, and thus generate strong beliefs and emotions.
The truth is, every aspect of our lives are dictated by the memes that we harbor in our minds, and by the memes that we take in every moment. So we have to be extra cautious in maintaining our meme pool, because its much tougher than maintaining our gene pool!
Here is some background info:
Richard Dawkins coined the word "meme" as a neologism in his book The Selfish Gene (1976) to describe how one might extend evolutionary principles to explain the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena.
Meme-theorists contend that memes evolve by natural selection (similar to Darwinian biological evolution) through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance influencing an individual entity's reproductive success. Thus one can expect that some memes will propagate less successfully and become extinct, while others will survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate.
"Memeticists argue that the memes most beneficial to their hosts will not necessarily survive; rather, those memes that replicate the most effectively spread best, which allows for the possibility that successful memes may prove detrimental to their hosts."
Philosopher and scientist Dan Dennett argues that human consciousness and free will are the result of physical processes and are not what we traditionally think they are. Something worth pondering upon!
Protect your little Calvin.
