Re: virus: Rationality

Tony Hindle (t.hindle@joney.demon.co.uk)
Wed, 12 Mar 1997 17:43:59 +0000


Hello again Martz, Ive been dying to get back to this exchange.
I've just got back from visiting family and I have now
got my copy of Darwin's Dangerous Idea back off my little
sister. I think the perspective Dennet uses throughout the book
of "lifting up in design space" will help unify some of the
threads that are ongoing.
I think consciousness itself undergoes a continuous
process of bootstrapping itself up through design space.
Being "creative" is when we are at the limits of our
knowledge and our rationality misfires giving us an original
thought. Usually the original thought is complete bollox (I
speak as an expert on this matter). But sometimes, by chance the
new thought is a small leap upwards in design space, a brilliant
new way of seeing things or whatever. The fact that the "mind
tools" idea arose independently in your mind and in Dennet's
shows it is a "good move" in design space. (actualy Dennet
scourced the British Psychologist Richard Gregory as the
originator of the mind tools meme). If I was you I'd be feeling
pretty fucking chuffed with myself, you must have a pretty good
set of memes if your only a couple of years behind Dennett in
this part of design space.


>>In this context I suppose a zero distance
>>device would be a text copier, at least it would be zero distance
>>for the text if it had perfect protocol for that text (easily done
>>digitally).
>
>It is??? Do tell.
I think I was refering to text that is coded
unambiguously like when transfering between two machines, this
is a not very interesting form of comunication, in fact it's
just the "sending" part of your 3 point theory I think.
Far more interesting is when two or more of us try to
comunicate. Ambiguity of meaning is rife because we all run a
unique memetic software program in our heads and not two
programs are completely compatible. For me it makes the small
mutual understandings we can come to all the more amazing.
I remember a parable from the Bible about people
starving in hell cos they only had 10 foot chopsticks and nobody
could use them to feed themselves. The difference in heaven was
that people fed one another. This reminds me of how, by talking
to one another we "hold each other's ladders" so we can take
turns in climbing higher in design space.
>
>Alex would say that the meme hasn't been transmitted at all, there's
>still the translation from ear to brain to go but I take your broad
>point. A repeater could reduce the number of errors.
I think replication with mutation (breeding?) would
satisfy Alex surely.
>
>> .SOMETHING HAS JUST OCCURRED TO ME ON RE-READING THIS. THE
>>DISTANCE DIMENSION WE ARE DISCUSSING IS REALLY A DISTANCE IN N
>>DIMENSIONAL THOUGHT SPACE OR BABELS LIBRARY AS DENNETT CALLES IT.
>
>OK. That's put Dennett a couple of steps closer to the READ THIS NOW
>spot.
Actually it may have "kinds of Minds" in which Dennett
talks about mind tools but DDI is his most lucid work in my
opinion. The main criticism I have of DDI it is that the dust
jacket tears easily.
Here are the bits I recomend you read first from
Darwin's Dangerous Idea (these might wet your appetite so you
read the whole book).
Chapter 2 an Idea is born.
Chapter 3 universal acid.
Chapter 6 Threads of actuality in design space.
chapter 12 The cranes of culture
chapter 13 Loosing our minds to Darwin
chapter 18 the future of an idea.

>You've said a mouthful there. I'd shied away from putting 'gossip' and
>'women' in the same paragraph. You're braver than I.
When it comes to women, nobody puts it better than the
Reverend C. Darwin.
"Men and women have different brains. This is
because theyve been subjected to different selection pressures
during thier evolutionary history. There are many subtle
differences but the most important is that women have an inate
advantage in comunication ideas and information. This subtle
difference alone will mean that very soon in the future, women
will become intelectually superior to men in everyway, they
shall indeed inherit the earth.
Compared to women, men will be intelectual retards. The
simple theories that fully explain everything that goes on in a
man's mind will be well understood by all women, early on in
thier lives. --It follows logically of course that men will
never be able to understand women. But they wont need to, for in
the future, for the few men that are spared and kept in
captivity, (about one man for every 100 women) all their time
and energy will be used up in servicing their female master's
biological needs, as playthings at big parties I imagine. With
lots of sexual performance enhancing drugs available to help.
And I prey to all you women out there, as you prepare to
unite and sieze power from the men in order to use it for good
instesd of evil.....WHEN YOU NEED PRISONERS TAKE ME, SPARE MY
BROTHERS, SPARE THEM THE INDIGNITY. LET ME BE YOUR SERVANT.
FOR I KNOW THAT WHERE YOU TAKE ME SHALL BE TO HEAVEN. FOR I HAVE
SEEN THIS PLACE CALLED HEAVEN MANY TIMES IN MY WILDEST AND MOST
WONDERFULL DREAMS. AND OFT YOU HAVE BECONED ME THERE TO SERVE
YOU ALL....AND EVERYTIME I HAVE COME. and then I have slept".
>
>> Point taken. When we agree we both agree with what we think
>>the other is saying. The beauty of further comunication is that we
>>can check our agreement by experiments e.g., use the new meme in a
>>new context and see if the other understands.
>
>But we can never prove perfect understanding to be true, we can only
>prove it false. So even if we get there we won't know for sure.
True. but I believe we can know for sure that our
understanding has improved from what it once was. Strange as
this may sound I believe in closer and closer aproximations to
the truth.
>
>>>> Perfect logic is a zero distance comunication tool.
>>>Hmmm. I don't think so, but you're welcome to try to convince me.
>> I supose I meant perfect protocol with no transmission
>>noise.
>
>It's a theoritical construct which I don't think we'll ever find a match
>for in nature (to my mind it's also verging on tautology but perhaps
>that's just perspective) but yes, it is.
I accept this completely. But even as a theoretical
construct it served as an example to help us comunicate what we
both understood by your concept of distance. I think we both
have similar memetic complexes for your concept of distance now.
We need a name though, heres some suggestions:
Mart'z & Tony's displacement in n dimensional thought
space.
Displacement in n-dimensional thought space.
Movement through Babel's library. (Dennett)
Semantic distance.
your concept of distance
intermeme distance.
that 3 point comunication theory that was the first
thing we spoke about together.

I invite all suggestions, for now Im going with semantic
distance.

I've been thinking about your theory and semantic
distance and mind tools and lifting through design space and
i've been inspired to write some good jokes (I write jokes for a
dope smoking athiestic preacher and sexual deviant called the
Rev. C. Darwin, he's just starting out in stand up comedy or
factory line memetic fabrication as I like to think of it)
The other day, using the new mind tools I have aquired
from our exchange I almost felt I was deliberately designing the
jokes rather than relying on those "creative moments" that come
and go without my consent (free will?, I dont think so).


>I meant depth-wise; spend more time error-correcting...the good bit's in
>there if you can find it. Just a bit of banter.
Yes, its exactly as you say, theres an algorithm that we
can perform recursively which, given enough time, will lift our
endevours higher through design space.
>
>> My real name is Cindy I am 21 and an international
>>supermodel. My wife is expecting our first child on may 15th.
>
>If both those sentences are true then I've just died and gone to heaven
>(assuming you're a *female* supermodel...ah what the hell, I'll give it
>a shot either way)
It's true about my first child. Which reminds me I must
go for now cos I've got some thank you letters to write for the
people who suggested some good memes for me to implant in the
little creature.
I am massively behind with reading this list, also I've
got a terible memory for whose contributed what. Im playing
catch up still.
>Welcome back.
Thank you.
>

Tony hindle A.K.A. The Rev. C. Darwin.
****************************************************
We have all got free will wether we want it or not.
Through circumstances beyond our control,
we are the masters of our own destiny.
****************************************************