[snip]
> You'll see that "interpretation" is necessary, as it is necessary for
> memes
> to invoke "behavior" in the host which ultimately leads to the
> replication of
> the memes via "code" - the raw material of information exchange.
Except that I have difficulty stating bald-faced that
`books/text/artifacts /encode/ memes' without looking aghast. They only
encode memes if you accept that there is guaranteed a
translation/interpreter extant for that code. For example, there are
still fragments of Sanskrit that haven't been translated nor are likely
to ever be translated. Do they `encode memes'? I'd say no; they carry
patterns that have no interpreter to make use of them to encourage
in-head meme-reproduction from other memes.
That pretty much sums up my contention with you, Hakeeb. I think we
agree more than disagree, which makes it difficult to communicate subtle
differences, sometimes. :)
> 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.
Like my definition of life, my definition of complexity traces a
continuum, not a binary state. I may, in fact, understand several
complex ideas, ideas which for me require(d) significant brain-sweat to
internalize.
--
Alexander Williams {zander@photobooks.com ||Member: Evil Geniuses
thantos@alf.dec.com} ||For a Better Tomorrow
============================================// => Charter Member <=
"Perhaps we should lower our mental trousers and compare the size of
our consciousnesses?"
-- Jan Sands to Marvin Minsky
comp.ai.genetic
====================================================================
<http://www.photobooks.com/~zander/>