Re: virus: MEME UPDATE: To Censor Or Not?
Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:59:26 -0600 (CST)

On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Dave Pape wrote:

> At 00:30 16/12/96 -0600, Zaimoni wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Dave Pape wrote:
> [SNIP]
> >> The big problem for me then is how to explain APPARENTLY rational thinking
> >> in these irrational computing devices which we call people. Well... I reckon
> >> that memes under increasingly severe/rigorous selection pressures (such as
> >> those subject to application of Scientific Method) tend towards appearing to
> >> be processed rationally. I'm struggling to explain this ATM... any ideas
> >> for/against from anyone else?
> >
> >I see. We're going at epistemology from different angles.
> And here's another crap soundbite for you: the left human cerebral
> hemisphere is a parallel processor simulating serial processing! This is
> what I'm trying to get at... although I've got pretty unformed ideas as to
> how... it's the same thing though: I need memetic interaction to simulate
> logical procedures of thought. HELP!

No surprise. While this is often convenient, *documentation* is
difficult. The hypertext metaphor is useful.

> >> >Since I "happen" [sic] to abhor the conclusion, I deny the premise.
> >>
> >> Woah. THAT's not very rational, is it? (Didn't mean that too aggressively).
> >> Yup, it's a complete bastard as far as I can see, and it also means I don't
> >> actually think human beings will EVER know The Truth.
> >
> >Welcome to (virtual) Reality.
> Wahey. So, we need to ban the words True and Truth from our discussions,
> then. I find arguing memetics very difficult; in many ways, because of these
> "no such thing as truth" and "parallel, evolutionary memetic processing
> simulates, but is NOT, logical, serial processing", I'd like to give up the
> pretence of being logical in my arguments. The process would actually be
> quite similar though.... you'd be firing memes at each other, presented in
> as internally consistent a way as you could. It's just that, rather than
> trying to force your arguments into a linear narrative, it would all look a
> bit more hypertextual, like a whole branch of ideas-space delivered in the
> same batch.

No, we *don't* need to ban True and Truth from discussions with me. It
seems to be a good idea with some others, though.


/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/ Kenneth Boyd