Tuesday, January 03, 2006

Daniel C. Dennett ~ There Aren't Enough Minds to House the Population Explosion of Memes

from Edge.org , in response to The Edge Annual Question — 2006:
What is your dangerous idea?

The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?

Ideas can be dangerous. Darwin had one, for instance. We hold all sorts of inventors and other innovators responsible for assaying, in advance, the environmental impact of their creations, and since ideas can have huge environmental impacts, I see no reason to exempt us thinkers from the responsibility of quarantining any deadly ideas we may happen to come across. So if I found what I took to be such a dangerous idea, I would button my lip until I could find some way of preparing the ground for its safe expression. I expect that others who are replying to this year's Edge question have engaged in similar reflections and arrived at the same policy. If so, then some people may be pulling their punches with their replies. The really dangerous ideas they are keeping to themselves.

But here is an unsettling idea that is bound to be true in one version or another, and so far as I can see, it won't hurt to publicize it more. It might well help.

The human population is still growing, but at nowhere near the rate that the population of memes is growing. There is competition for the limited space in human brains for memes, and something has to give. Thanks to our incessant and often technically brilliant efforts, and our apparently insatiable appetites for novelty, we have created an explosively growing flood of information, in all media, on all topics, in every genre. Now either (1) we will drown in this flood of information, or (2) we won't drown in it. Both alternatives are deeply disturbing. What do I mean by drowning? I mean that we will become psychologically overwhelmed, unable to cope, victimized by the glut and unable to make life-enhancing decisions in the face of an unimaginable surfeit. (I recall the brilliant scene in the film of Evelyn Waugh's dark comedy The Loved One in which embalmer Mr. Joyboy's gluttonous mother is found sprawled on the kitchen floor, helplessly wallowing in the bounty that has spilled from a capsized refrigerator.) We will be lost in the maze, preyed upon by whatever clever forces find ways of pumping money–or simply further memetic replications–out of our situation. (In The War of the Worlds, H. G. Wells sees that it might well be our germs, not our high-tech military contraptions, that subdue our alien invaders. Similarly, might our own minds succumb not to the devious manipulations of evil brainwashers and propagandists, but to nothing more than a swarm of irresistible ditties, Noφs nibbled to death by slogans and one-liners?)

If we don't drown, how will we cope? If we somehow learn to swim in the rising tide of the infosphere, that will entail that we–that is to say, our grandchildren and their grandchildren–become very very different from our recent ancestors. What will "we" be like? (Some years ago, Doug Hofstadter wrote a wonderful piece, " In 2093, Just Who Will Be We?" in which he imagines robots being created to have "human" values, robots that gradually take over the social roles of our biological descendants, who become stupider and less concerned with the things we value. If we could secure the welfare of just one of these groups, our children or our brainchildren, which group would we care about the most, with which group would we identify?)

Whether "we" are mammals or robots in the not so distant future, what will we know and what will we have forgotten forever, as our previously shared intentional objects recede in the churning wake of the great ship that floats on this sea and charges into the future propelled by jets of newly packaged information? What will happen to our cultural landmarks? Presumably our descendants will all still recognize a few reference points (the pyramids of Egypt, arithmetic, the Bible, Paris, Shakespeare, Einstein, Bach . . . ) but as wave after wave of novelty passes over them, what will they lose sight of? The Beatles are truly wonderful, but if their cultural immortality is to be purchased by the loss of such minor 20th century figures as Billie Holiday, Igor Stravinsky, and Georges Brassens [who he?], what will remain of our shared understanding?

The intergenerational mismatches that we all experience in macroscopic versions (great-grandpa's joke falls on deaf ears, because nobody else in the room knows that Nixon's wife was named "Pat") will presumably be multiplied to the point where much of the raw information that we have piled in our digital storehouses is simply incomprehensible to everyone–except that we will have created phalanxes of "smart" Rosetta-stones of one sort or another that can "translate" the alien material into something we (think maybe we) understand. I suspect we hugely underestimate the importance (to our sense of cognitive security) of our regular participation in the four-dimensional human fabric of mutual understanding, with its reassuring moments of shared–and seen to be shared, and seen to be seen to be shared–comprehension.

What will happen to common knowledge in the future? I do think our ancestors had it easy: aside from all the juicy bits of unshared gossip and some proprietary trade secrets and the like, people all knew pretty much the same things, and knew that they knew the same things. There just wasn't that much to know. Won't people be able to create and exploit illusions of common knowledge in the future, virtual worlds in which people only think they are in touch with their cyber-neighbors?

I see small-scale projects that might protect us to some degree, if they are done wisely. Think of all the work published in academic journals before, say, 1990 that is in danger of becoming practically invisible to later researchers because it can't be found on-line with a good search engine. Just scanning it all and hence making it "available" is not the solution. There is too much of it. But we could start projects in which (virtual) communities of retired researchers who still have their wits about them and who know particular literatures well could brainstorm amongst themselves, using their pooled experience to elevate the forgotten gems, rendering them accessible to the next generation of researchers. This sort of activity has in the past been seen to be a stodgy sort of scholarship, fine for classicists and historians, but not fit work for cutting-edge scientists and the like. I think we should try to shift this imagery and help people recognize the importance of providing for each other this sort of pathfinding through the forests of information. It's a drop in the bucket, but perhaps if we all start thinking about conservation of valuable mind-space, we can save ourselves (our descendants) from informational collapse.

Daniel C. Dennett

More here


Jack P Toerson said...

The idea that there aren't enough minds to house the population explosion of 'memes' is rubbish, because by definition it gives equal importance to all 'memes', and ignores the potency of those expressing such 'memes'. Not all 'memes' are born equal, and the expression and intentionality of an idea matter as much as the idea itself. I hate memes. They're wildcards and therefore can mean anything.

eugene ionesco said...

I agree, Dennett's contention is insufficiently elaborated and memes are frustratingly slippery customers. Nevertheless, the proliferation of bad ideas (metastasizing memes) has been a preoccupation of mine for some time, and I think ideas can rapidly increase in potency and assume identities, independent of their originator(s), particularly in the virtual realm, where the nature of communication, and of identity itself, is refracted and distorted.

Virtual personae seem to be different in nature from the "real" personae, which, presumably, underpin them. The internet simulataneously brings people together faster and distances them. It also annihilates convention.

The veil of anyonymity emboldens and empowers, and expression is no longer mediated by the same traditional social and ethical norms and normal consequentialist considerations are, at least to some extent, undermined.

We're still mapping the contours of the information age's mysterious multiverse, but it seems clear that many of the old laws no longer apply.

Jack P Toerson said...

The reason I disagree with your response, is (and I'll us your memes rather than common memes) that I don't see that there are bad memes. Historically bad memes have initially benefitted the people using them, they have to have some initial benefits for the participants.

But, long-term, they have nearly always back-fired for the participant. Rather like the genetic/evolutionary inspiration of memes themselves. Peaks and plateaus, of extreme specification followed by extinction. It could be argued that in that regard they fit into Heglian terms of thesis (the bad meme), antithesis (the good meme), and synthesis (the new bad meme).

Maybe that is a cop-out though.

The people that will adopt the bad memes only adopt them because of their influences before connecting to the Internet. In fact it could be said that the first Internet site you visit is defined by who you are, and what went into you.

So while people think they're adopting memes out of choice, they're not, their choices are usually (but not always) false. You only have to see the similarity between most hip websites. Which is Baudrillard minus the apocalypse.

I think what matters is the potency of the expression of a meme. That is the only way that people can freshly adopt one, replacing those they are already drawn towards without knowing it.

In that regard there is a 'wedge' meme. A meme that isn't widely adopted but enables the adoption of another meme.