I have read that book. His first principles explanation of evolution is not bad. Then he just takes that template and moves it over to ideas because analogy. Yo

I have read that book. His first principles explanation of evolution is not bad. Then he just takes that template and moves it over to ideas because analogy. You can't just glibly do that. What he does there is only a few steps above stoners saying space time looks like a big brain maaaaaaaan. Duuuuude... (bubble bubble) it's like a reflection of the mind of god (bubble bubble). To really do that you would have to show that the brain works like a genetic/evolutionary system, and that does not appear to be the case (or at least we do not know enough to say that). There is so much context there. You can't just do superficial pattern recognition and then force fit an entire theoretical model. It's lazy. I am not saying ideas are nothing like genes, just that they are not the same thing. You can't just steal theory from another field without context. Seriously... name one case in science where that has worked. Things are what they are, and not necessarily what they superficially look like when viewed from a certain angle and lots of details are ignored. Also as I said the pop understanding of memes is far less interesting than Dawkins speculation and basically reduces ideas to isolated grunts. It's a form of "conceptual thought denialism."