Re: virus: Level 3 and more on Autocatalytic sets.

Chitren Nursinghdass (
Fri, 06 Jun 1997 13:57:10 +0000

>>Big memesets like small memeset that are like the big memeset. Sounds like
>>the love meme, no ?
>>And in fact "that are like" could be just the same as "like/love"
>Why do you think people like people that they are like? My theory is,
>because you get an easier meshing of memes, producing more consistent
>metamemes ("new" ideas). So it's more productive, on a kinf od short term
>basis. Even better though, is all this stuff about being able to hold
>alien-to-you memes in your memecology, and see what they produce... gives
>you yet more flexibility... you have to be more thoughtful though...

"Like" and "are like" and "are alike" and "I like" are like "A" and "A AND A"
"A OR A".

And not only that, you get robustness against spatio-temporal hazards as well.

Like, love, life, live, evolve, same roots, self-similarity,
like nets fuse with like nets. Like likes Like.

>All associative links... kind of feel symbiotic to me... tickling meme A
>tickles associated meme B, which tickles A again... I'm trickling this point
>back into the self-tightening autocatalytics argument again, sorry (deep and
>slippery basin of attraction).

Autocatalysis, cyclic paths in the memeset.

>This is like memes looking at other memes separated from them in TIME, in
>contrast to what happens when many heads think together: memes look at other
>memes separated from them by SPACE. The effect's the same: more flexibility
>in how those memes explore the space of possible ideas...

Aha, nice way of looking at it. Information does not die, memes therefore
don't. Maybe the structure of information can "die", but then if there's
antichaos and adaptation, coherent memesets will grow like crystals,
that is in a certain predefinite order, towards the same truth or same
ordered memset configuration.

Like say you build solids out of platonic solids. If there's variation,
then you may find macroscopic order and macroscopic disorder as well.

>I wouldn't say any were better. Presumably they've all evolved to deal with
>their inherited ecological niches... "better"'s one of those value
>judgements that only really holds currency within a mind. So... when I'm
>being thoughtful, I try not to make too many of them...

Let's not say better then, let's just say numerous, but then the argument
goes like this : looking on numbers alone, they are more numerous.

That's why we use different terms to means the same.

numerous, from numbers, multitudinous, multiply, etc...