virus: Virus Invades Cybernetics Conference
David Rosdeitcher (76473.3041@compuserve.com)
Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:44:59 -0400
I just got back from Europe, where I attended part of the 15th
annual International Cybernetics Conference, held at the University of
Namur, in Belgium. At this event, there was a variety of talks on subjects
related to cybernetics (any subject dealing with complex systems). There
was also a Memetics Symposium--a series of lectures devoted particularly to
memetics.
This conference was different than I expected. I thought it would be
something like a layman-friendly convention where there would be different
presentations of new and bizarre ideas on the edge of evolution and that
the environment would be loosely structured and designed for spontaneous
interaction. Instead it was very formal, as speakers were describing
cybernetics in an academic style and setting. So, most of the talks were
presented in a technical format characteristic of college lectures and oral
dissertaions. Many of these talks had little to do with engaging the
audience in an entertaining, easy to follow, presentation that lends itself
to feedback.
There were some very interesting talks about how cybernetics applies to
different subjects such as the weather, computer modelling, the stock
market, mass-transportation. But, there seemed to be an attitude on the
part of many of these speakers (and there were exceptions, BTW) that we
can take for granted that we already have an objective frame of reference
from which to study evolution without acknowledging that our minds, memes,
and institutions are part of evolution.
I wasn't scheduled to speak, but I thought that it would be appropriate
to give a provocative presentation about how our own minds and culture are
not separate from evolution and that we might not be as objective as we
think we are. I asked the facilitator if I could replace a speaker who
didn't show up and the facilitator agreed. So, that night I outlined a
talk, which I gave the next day. Here is a brief paraphrase of both my talk
and a controversy that emerged. (Remember, this is a paraphrase.)
"There have been many different kinds of talks about memetics, such as
how memes interact, the conflict between genes and memes, what makes memes
successful, etc. but there hasn't been much talk about how our own ideas
and experiences can be used as examples of memetic evolution. Afterall,
when it comes to memetic evolution, we're not just spectators, but
participants.
Has anyone here ever heard of a memetics discussion group on the net
called the 'Church of Virus'?"
About 5 out of the 25 or so people energetically raised their hands
as if they were very familiar with it and a couple of people said something
like, "Oh, yeah, it's that memetically engineered religion--it's
hilarious".
I continued...
"Well, I had a debate with this group of memetics enthusiasts that went
something like this: My position was that memetics wasn't that important,
because if we simply focus on understanding reality, there's no point in
worrying about which memes we use, since all that matters is that we
understand reality. And besides, we have free-will to control our
memes--we're not like computers that get programmed.
The Church of Virus people countered that my memes like "understanding
reality", "free-will", etc. were not useful, but I accepted them because
they were good replicators. And, that instead of there being only one way
to see reality based on our sense data, that our minds are capable of
constructing multiple models of reality based on the same sense data.
So, it was a conflict between 2 belief systems: 1) *Direct realism*
--the view that we see reality directly and that there's only one honest,
objective and true way to see reality, within the context of our sense data
and 2) *Semiotics* (or indirect realism)--the view that our minds can
create a variety of *representations* of the same part of
reality--representations which can evolve over time"
After acting out a comedy routine about internet arguments, and how
adherents of one meme-complex look crazy to adherents of another, I said,
"So, the question was: 'Can memetics get understood and encompased through
direct realism (and discarded as mostly nonsense), or does it make more
sense that direct realism is a meme that can get understood and encompassed
through memetics?'. The latter seemed obvious--the memetic framework showed
clearly that direct realism was a meme that had attributes that made it a
better replicator than it was a set of useful ideas. For instance direct
realism, under critical examination was not as logically solid as it
labelled itself. And, like a good meme, it was a system that was easy to
grasp and remember and, it gained adherents by slandering its
competition--in this case the semiotic meme-complex. For instance,
according to the adherents of the direct realist meme-complex, philosophers
like Kant, who said that our perceptions are influenced by our subjective
filters, were responsible for Nazi Germany." (At this point, they all
laughed.)
"But I converted to the memetic view, not just because of the flaws in
direct realism, but mainly because I saw that memetics is not an isolated
subject, but part of a larger and interesting meme-complex called the
metameme.
At this point I put up on a screen a hyper-text diagram of the
metameme--a web-like structure that had the names of a variety of
cybernetics oriented memes such as memetics, cybernetics, evolutionary
epistemology, semiotics, pragmatics, a-life, AI, etc.
I explained, "This is a Darwinian world view that is actually a
religion--a religion in the sense that it is a meme-complex that competes
with other meme-complexes. It is a religion that, ironically, is in
Darwinian competion with other religions. It has all attributes of a
religion. For instance, it even has a system of ethics--instead of, say,
the 10 commandments, the metameme has "evolutionary stable strategies".
And, like other religions, the metameme bashes its competition in a drive
for adherents. From a memetic perspective, for instance, other
meme-complexes are simply evolutionary beasts whose adherents aren't aware
of that fact. " (At this point many of them weren't smiling.).
"...Basically, there's this competition between 2 meme-complexes: 1)What
I call the Darwinian meme-complex or metameme which is characterized by the
notion that our ideas evolve, like other things in nature, and 2)what I
call a Platonistic meme-complex or traditional religion, which claims that
certain ideas are eternal unchanging ultimate truths.
Before explaining more about the competition for mind space between
these 2 meme-complexes, I'd like to make a point about the correlation
between the medium and the message--that certain kinds of mediums can
transmit certain kinds of memes better than others. The Platonistic
meme-complexes have a very hierarchical structure in which the eternal
truths are up above the world of ever-changing phenomena. The mediums which
transmit Platonistic memes, have a similar hierarchical structure in which
memes only flow one way--from the "higher source"to the receivers. Examples
of such mediums include TV, radio, Church, and, um...the academia. These
mediums have the same structure as the ideas that are transmitted through
them. Even the marketplace is a kind of hierarchy in the sense that
information mostly flows from producer to consumer.
But, the internet, on the other hand, is a weblike structure--a complex
system in which information flows in many directions. It is a cybernetic
environment which seems to transmit cybernetic memes more easily.
Apparently for people to understand certain ideas, they must embody, or act
out those ideas--sort of like you can't understand a martial art just by
reading about it, you have to practice it. That's why people communicating
with one medium absorb different kinds of ideas than people using another
medium.
At this point, a couple of people interrupted with a statement like,
"Wait, a minute! Are you saying memetics is part of a religion? We are
scientists! We use objective methods for testing reality!"
I said, "Well, science, like other methods of understanding reality is a
meme. And, as such, it might evolve to something else, or a better method
of inquiry might get invented."
After a bit of a commotion, another guy said, "I thought your comedy was
great. But, your talk was inappropriate for this conference. Others
presented serious papers, while you present a cartoon. We are busy! We have
practical work to do! You're wasting our time!"
After telling him that his talk was also a cartoon, I said, "There are
practical applications to what I'm saying, because work in memetics and
other cybernetic sciences would progress faster if more people had a
Darwinian mentality. How else do we spread that mentality but by
replicating the metameme to other hosts? ".
The next comment was, "You know that Church of Virus is a joke, don't
you?" At that point, I wasn't sure what he meant, and I agreed that it was
a joke in the sense that it's not an physical church. Apparently, the idea
of a memetically engineered religion was so foreign to many of these people
that such an idea "had to be a joke".
The argument was interrupted at lunchtime but continued in the
cafeteria where some people got pretty emotional.
This argument raised some questions (in my mind at least) like:
Does the concept that 'memetics is part of a religion' exist purely as a
figment of my imagination?
Some of these people at the conference were clear examples of
memeticists who did not make any such connections between memetics and
religion--for them, memetics was one of the many sciences (or potential
sciences) that could fit just fine within an academic framework. However,
it seemed obvious that at this conference, different aspects of the
metameme were discussed--it appears that the metameme exists "objectively".
Was the guy right for claiming that my talk had no practical applications?
That afternoon, a Japanese guy gave a lecture about a study he did on how
well evolutionary theory spread in both Germany and Japan. He said that
both those cultures are interested in practicality, but they both had a
hard time assimilating the concept of evolution. The speaker hypothesized
that these cultures have a hierarchical structure that would naturally
reject Darwinism. I would conclude that if that speaker's theory is
correct, then practical applications of the Darwinian framework would be
lost if such a framework couldn't be assimilated into the mainstream.
Is Church of Virus a joke?
Well, maybe it is. But, a guy I argued with in the cafeteria who
called it a joke, was obviously misinformed--he thought that CoV was just
a website.
Anyway, maybe next time more Virions will show up and we'll kick their
ass!!! :-) --David R.