Hi Platt and Squad
> Suggesting that computer viruses may be the precursor of a
> possible 5th level reminded me of memes. So I looked up a
> definition of a meme:
>
> “A contagious idea that replicates like a virus, passed on from mind
> to mind. Memes function the same way genes and viruses do,
> propagating through communication networks and face-to-face
> contact between people. The root of the word is "memetics," a field
> of study which postulates that the meme is the basic unit of cultural
> evolution. Examples of memes include melodies, icons, fashion
> statements and phrases.”
>
> Next I replaced “computer virus” with “meme” in the following
> description furnished by Horse on 9/9/98:
>
> "As I see it the meme fulfills all the pre-requisites to class it as a true
> life form. They are ubiquitous They reproduce and propagate,
> moving from person to person. They produce a representation of
> themselves in various codes - similar to DNA. They hijack the
> metabolism of their host to carry out their functions. They respond to
> stimuli in the environment. They mutate. They evolve."
I believe that the originator (or discoverer) of the concept of a meme was Richard
Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene". If you read Chapter 11 - The New
Replicators - about 4 pages in you'll see the following:
"As my colleague N.K.Humphrey neatly summed up in an earlier draft of this
chapter:'...memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically
but technically".
And in the same way that a meme is considered as a living entity, so is a
computer virus. The main difference being the level at which they exist. Reading
through some more of Dawkins in the above and others of his books, it is fairly
obvious that he considers the meme to exist at a social and mental level - or to
put it another way it is accommodated by both social and intellectual patterns of
value. Even though the meme is postulated as having some (great?) responsibility
for social evolution it is also a major part of the intellect. There are also issues of
additional phenotypic effects but these would probably confuse rather than clarify
the subject.
Computer viruses have a different starting point to memes - the intellectual level -
so by comparison to the meme they would have existence at the intellectual level
and level 5.
> So to my way of thinking there’s nothing very special about
> computer viruses other than the electrical environment in which they
> do their thing. It’s understandable, of course, that those who make
> their living in the computer business will tend to be biased towards
> the marvels, both real and imaginary, of computer code, robots, the
> Internet, etc. -:)
It's more a case of getting involved in computers BECAUSE of what's going on
there. The potential social and intellectual upheavals 'caused' by this technology
are of great fascination. ALife and AI are what fascinate me in this particular
medium - the technology to create them is peripheral, which is not to say that the
technology itself isn't fascinating just in terms of the speed of its evolution.
> Still, in historical perspective what we see with the
> advent of computers is a just another technological development
> along the lines of the automobile, telephone and television. Like
> those developments, the primary effects of advancing computer
> technology will be felt at the social level.
I think you greatly misunderstand the potential of computers. The level of
complexity involved in current computers (I'm not talking crappy PC's and Mac's
and their pathetic operating systems) is phenomenal. I also disagree that the
primary effects of computers will be at a social level. The ability of computers to
greatly enhance the intellectual level are already being felt and are likely to
increase.
> Before Horse joined the Squad most of us agreed that the Internet
> belonged to the social level since its essence was a communications
> tool facilitating exchanges between individuals, businesses and
> communities. As the Internet grows it increasingly resembles society
> in all its dimensions, from enlightenment to maliciousness.
So in less than twenty years the Internet has gone from nothing to the social level
- how long did it take for the organic level to emerge from the inorganic level and
then for the social level to emerge from biology on this planet? Draw your own
conclusions. But again I think that you underestimate this technological
evolutionaary process. You also seem to consider these things in isolation. It is
the interactivity of patterns of value that acccounts for more than the patterns
themselves.
>
> Since the Internet and computer viruses are both creations of level
> 4, they cannot surpass level 4. So far as I know, the rule of GIGO
> still holds in computerland.
But isn't this a bit like saying that since intellect is a creation of level 3 then it
cannot surpass level 3. As I've said in a number of posts it is the interaction
between patterns of value which gives rise to an emergent level. The more
complex the interaction between patterns of value then the more likely it is that a
new level could emerge. Alternatively, as has been stated by Magnus and which I
consider as equally plausible, these complex interactions may give rise to a
parallel evolutionary system. Both possibilities need to be considered. What has
worried me about some of the posts in this thread is the knee-jerk reaction in
defense of the Intellectual level - a sort of intellectual protectionist attitude. The
MoQ needs to be able to grow where necessary, not stagnate due to timidity.
> As for level 5 I tend to follow Bo's train of thought that "the Quality
> idea is Dynamic Quality’s attempt to seek freedom from static
> patterns.” What this suggests to me is that any verbal, logical,
> philosophical or metaphysical attempt to describe a 5th level is
> doomed since it would be the 4th level trying to fulfill its Q-Intellect
> purpose from which the 5th level is trying to escape.
>
> No, the 5th level will be recognized as pure, direct experience of the
> Good. And I submit that most, if not all of us, have had such an
> experience. Indeed that was precisely my experience as I read the
> Metaphysics of Quality.
Time will tell.
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST