The virus metaphor

From: 3twc2@qlink.queensu.ca (Cook Thomas W)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: The "virus" metaphore
Date: 18 Mar 1995 08:38:45 GMT

Hi, I'm new to this group and (unlike the "cyberspace homeless" of the
post I just read) I intend to camp out here for a while.  I'm a mathematics/
evolutionary ecology graduate student here at Queen's U. (Kingston, 
Ontario) and hope that I can be a useful participant in your discussions.
So, to begin ...

I've noticed, in the postings of the past week or so here, that there is 
very heavy-handed use of the "virus" metaphore for memes, with all the
negative connotation that implies.  I am curious if this impression is 
the result of merely the current discussion, a misinterpretation of 
your thoughts or is an accurate picture of the view of posters/readers 
here.  Do you see memes as a disease ... as opposed to say, plants in 
field or fish in a string of ponds?

I feel that arguing to ban some/all religions as "mind virus" sounds
disturbingly like a form of intellectual/cultural eugenics. Comments?

Thomas Cook

From: hingh@xs4all.nl (Marc)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: The "virus" metaphore
Date: 18 Mar 1995 11:38:39 GMT

Cook Thomas W <3twc2@qlink.queensu.ca> wrote:

>I've noticed, in the postings of the past week or so here, that there is
>very heavy-handed use of the "virus" metaphore for memes, with all the
>negative connotation that implies.	I am curious if this impression is
>the result of merely the current discussion, a misinterpretation of
>your thoughts or is an accurate picture of the view of posters/readers
>here.  Do you see memes as a disease ... as opposed to say, plants in
>field or fish in a string of ponds?

Ah! Good to see someone else complain about this.
I think it's all to blaim on Hofstadter, who popularized the meme as a 
mere analogy of the computer virus, instead of a 'neutral' analogy to the 
gene.

The idea of 'mind viruses' is based on a fallacy:  there is no 
non-memetic mind to be infected by memes.  Memes use the BRAIN (matter) to 
propagate themselves, not the MIND (information).  So 'brain viruses' is 
the correct metaphor.  By infecting the brain, memes CREATE the mind, which 
is a good thing.  So memes are not our enemies, MEMES ARE US!

When I'm talking about "myself", I do not mean my neurons!  -- I mean
the information they hold, i.e. my memes.  When my brain is infected by 
new memes, "I" do not get infected!  "I" (my present memes) simply get
company!  If I manage to make friends with my new companions, "I" will
"grow", i.e. I will learn new things.

In this perspective, the ideal situation is not a "virus-free mind" (cf.
forthcoming book by Richard Brodie), but a maximal IDEODIVERSITY.
Ideodiversity is the memetic analogy of Biodiversity.  The health of the 
Ideosphere depends on its ideodiversity, or the 'richness' of the 
world's meme pool.

Perhaps we should make a "positive memetics" FAQ, to be posted regularly
to this group, explaining why the virus metaphor ("negative memetics") is
a misunderstanding of memetics.

++Marc de Hingh
http://xs4all.nl/~hingh/

From: tonmaas@xs4all.nl (Ton Maas)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: The "virus" metaphore
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 1995 09:23:39 +0100

In article <3kegnv$18i@news.xs4all.nl>, hingh@xs4all.nl (Marc) wrote:

> In this perspective, the ideal situation is not a "virus-free mind" (cf.
> forthcoming book by Richard Brodie), but a maximal IDEODIVERSITY.
> Ideodiversity is the memetic analogy of Biodiversity.  The health of the
> Ideosphere depends on its ideodiversity, or the 'richness' of the
> world's meme pool.
>
This would correspond nicely with Gregory Bateson's notion of flexibility
or "pre-adaptation" to unpredictable changes. Flexibility would then be
defined as "uncommitted potentiality for change".

Ton Maas, Amsterdam NL

From: scott9609@aol.com (Scott9609)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: The "virus" metaphore
Date: 18 Mar 1995 14:02:57 -0500

I think the metaphor of memes as "cyberviruses" presented by Ms. Campbell
is a valuable one as long as it is understood that the description takes
place at a level different from the level h.s. sapiens normally occupies.

In the context of Mr. Dawkins replicator notion, all memes (and, indeed,
the genes themselves) are selfish entities who attempt to replicate
themselves with a variety of strategies, not necessarily those which are
most beneficial to the *community* of other genes or memes.  In this
sense, the entities all function in a way we would describe as "viral" and
human beings all function in a way that we would describe as "hosts."  In
Mr. Dawkins memorable phrase, macroscopic life is a collection of various
"survival machines" who owe their existence as an (unintended?)
consequence of the competition of the selfish replicators.

The metaphor of a "virus" tends to lose its meaning at our level, since a
gene or meme-complex that might be destructive for a given group could be
highly formative for another.  Consider, for instance, the stunning
success of Islamic meme patterns at self-replication in the 7th and 8th
century.  I am not Islamic nor do I find everything in Islam admirable but
I would be a fool not to see that the memes of Islam have not been highly
formative for millions of human beings.  The extent to which I value that
formation is, of course, shaped by the ability of my own personal
meme-complexes to coexist with Islamic memes.

In the same way, the success of a virus in the long run depends on its
ability to replicate without destroying its hosts.

Scott Hatfield (kennesaw@ccfnet.com)

From: 3twc2@qlink.queensu.ca (Cook Thomas W)
Newsgroups: alt.memetics
Subject: Re: The "virus" metaphore
Date: 19 Mar 1995 05:16:41 GMT

Scott9609 (scott9609@aol.com) wrote:

: In this sense, the entities all function in a way we would describe as 
: "viral" and human beings all function in a way that we would describe
: as "hosts."

I'm not suggesting that the virus metaphore is not useful, just 
that it lends itself to very negative descriptions of memes.  As Marc
pointed out in his post, memes unlike viruses are not really parasites 
(although there are be varieties of memes that some people consider 
pathological). 

One metaphore I've liked to use is to call the brain "an appendix for
ideas". The human brain has obviously(?) evolved its size and structure
to aid the survival of symbiotic memes, just as the appendix of many 
mammals is enlarged to serve as a home for bacteria that aid in digestion.
[Is this a new or existing view? - It is so easy to accidentally plagiarize 
metaphores].

Thomas.

From: hanss@tudelft.nl (Hans-Cees Speel)
Subject: meme as virus
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 09:23:15 GMT

from Hanss@sepa.tudelft.nl
Hans-Cees Speel

I think we should not forget that the word 'selfish' has a negative 
connotation. It means in human-meaning giving a 'bad' thing.
This is probably because humans that are selfish will not help you if you need 
help.
It is a way of expressing the frre-rider problem.
This connotation makes no sense at all for replicative entities.
I mean that you wouldn't call a species that survives 'selfish'. You just 
would say; look he made it, I wonder why he did, and tha others not.
In my opinion memetics [the scientists in the science of] should try to 
understand what factors contribute to the survival of what memes.
In this persuit the use of social-connotated words can attract attention, but 
you can burn your hands if this means that people will not accept your science 
because the very subject of it[the meme] becomes a dirty word for them.

From: hingh@xs4all.nl (Marc)
Subject: Re: meme as virus
Date: 23 Mar 1995 18:26:52 GMT

Hans-Cees Speel <hanss@tudelft.nl> schrijft:
>I think we should not forget that the word 'selfish' has a negative
>connotation. (...)
>This connotation makes no sense at all for replicative entities. (...)
>In this persuit the use of social-connotated words can attract attention, but
>you can burn your hands if this means that people will not accept your science
>because the very subject of it[the meme] becomes a dirty word for them.
>

another problem with the technical term 'selfish' is the personification 
it seems to express.  i remember someone from alt.philosophy.objectivism 
complaining that memes are described as being teleological and even
intentional (!).

there is a tension between a choice of terminology that makes a theory 
popular, and one that makes a theory well-understood.  (fecundity versus 
fidelity)
with its current terminology (virus metaphor, selfishness), memetics will 
probably remain in the realm of pop-science.

for serious research on replicator model of social systems, the 
terminology used in the theory of "autopoiesis" may be more successful
(see h.r.maturana & f.j.varela)

From: ar@zeus.uk.mdis.com (Alastair Rae)
Subject: Re: meme as virus
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 1995 10:35:49 GMT

Marc (hingh@xs4all.nl) wrote:
/ Hans-Cees Speel <hanss@tudelft.nl> schrijft:
\ >I think we should not forget that the word 'selfish' has a negative
/ >connotation. (...)
[...]
/ another problem with the technical term 'selfish' is the personification 
\ it seems to express.  i remember someone from alt.philosophy.objectivism 
/ complaining that memes are described as being teleological and even
\ intentional (!).
[...]

I like 'selfish' as short-hand for a perceived behaviour. An object that
causes things to happen so as replicate itself, preventing, either
passively or actively, the replication of different objects, seems to be
acting in a self-interested manner.

How many times have you heard a chemistry teacher attributing motivation
to molecules? "The such-and-such radical tries to grab the oxygen ..."
It works so long as you don't derive anything more after
anthropomorphising the meme/gene or whatever.