virus: Re : Complexity was TT and Absolute Truth

Hakeeb A. Nandalal (
Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:41:07 +0000

Alex Williams wrote :-

> I can't argue with the hierarchy of order you posted above, since I've
> already supported that PoV in prior articles here and in this one,
> itself. I, however, don't consider data in the `code' stage you list
> above as memes at all, which it appears from your argument, you do.
> In my mind, communication-patterns are like source-code which gets
> injected into a running system upon recipt and /after/ interpretation.
> Before the interpreter gets its little grubby hands on it, the data is
> just that, data without meaning. Its only after its interpreted,
> after the data is changed to /information/, that memes can be `born,'
> if you will, from other currently running memes.

It seems we may be going in a circle, because I agree with you. I don't
consider "code" to be "memes", if you look again at the table :-

1. Code (pattern : raw ordered data)
2. Meme (information : interpretation of data by similar species
which wrote code)
3. Behavior (emotion : caused by meme, encouraged to replicate

Meme replication takes place by oscillating between 1, 2 & 3.

You'll see that "interpretation" is necessary, as it is necessary for
to invoke "behavior" in the host which ultimately leads to the
replication of
the memes via "code" - the raw material of information exchange.


Okay, now that we've cleared that up, I want to talk about "complexity".

Theory : An individual cannot comprehend complex ideas.

Argument : Complexity is a term of relativity. An idea which is "simple"
to A may be "complex" to B. B can only understand the idea if it is
made simple to him by any number of ways : B's comprehension skills
are improved or the idea is simplified enough for B to understand in
his current level of comprehension. Therefore people should refrain
from saying "This is complex but I understand it". If you understand
it - it is simple to you.

Any comments?

Hakeeb A. Nandalal