> Kenneth Boyd,
>
> > "Self-preservation" attacks "Cowardice"
> > "Courage" uses "Self-preservation"
> > "Courage" attacks "Cowardice"
> >
> > "Cowardice" attacks both "self-preservation" and "courage"
> >
> > [Note that "cowardice" is the memetic analog of a biological mimic: it
> > tries to camouflage itself as useful for "self-preservation", but really
> > attacks it.]
> >
> > [Also, note that "self-preservation" functions at least twice in the
> > proposed new-recruit target psychology, so it is VERY important!]
> >
> > "Martyrdom" attacks "self-preservation"
> >
> > THUS, program the new recruit to REJECT "Martyrdom"
>
> Congratulations! You're the first person other than myself to use Cohesive
> Math! CM has
> graduated from an idea to a meme!
>
> In the previous posting I used Attacks() as a method of defining opposites
> when mapping a
> memespace. This gives:
>
> Martyrdom Attacks(Self-Preservation)
> These memes become opposites, say, 1 and -1.
>
> Courage Attacks(Cowardice)
> Makes these memes opposites, 2 and -2.
>
> Cowardice Attacks(Courage)
> Produces the same effect as the previous function, -2 and 2. However,
>
> Cowardice Attacks(Self-Preservation)
> Says that Cowardice (-2) and Self-Preservation (-1) are opposites, which is
> not true.
>
> Are you using Attacks() in a different context? Perhaps a function other
> than Attacks() is
> appropriate, say, Cowardice Hinders(Self-Preservation)?
I'm probably using a highly mutated form. I claimed an abusive use.
I may work up a webable form for what I did.
My heuristics were as follows:
=====
MutEx(Arg1...ArgN) [N > 1]
This specifies that 2+ memes are Mutually Exclusive and Exhaustive
[we may need None of the Above to handle this, but not necessarily]. In
crisp 2-valued logic, this implies that for any host, the host can only
express one of these memes. [The host may well know the definitions of
the other memes.] For a crisp logic, I prefer a 4-valued logic supporting
True, False, Unknown, and Contradiction [with extreme repulsion from
Contradiction truth values]. This can be used to write a primitive cross
between a neural network and an expert system inference engine.
I would express the +/- duality as an implicit MutEx relation, with
two arguments.
If I wanted to numericize this, we could represent the first k
fully-defined MutEx relations as the rightmost k digits in an a-adic
expansion of a number 0<=x<=1. [this way, we can in principle support
Card(Real Numbers) combinations, which is the absolute maximum we can
specify with an infinite product of finite sets. I could use an a-ary
expansion of integers, but that restricts me to a countable infinity of
meme-combinations, which is an unnecessary restriction.]
Arg1AttacksArg2(Meme1,Meme2)
This specifies that Meme1 tries to eliminate the expression of
Meme2. While all memes in a MutEx relation do this to each other
pairwise, memes can also do this without a MutEx relation. The latter
impose additional constraints on which meme-combinations are allowed.
This is how I abused Attacks() in Cohesive Math. Hinders() is a
good renaming.
Arg1UseableByArg2(Meme1,Meme2)
This specifies that Meme1 can augment the functioning of Meme2.
Reinterpret:
Declare these:
MutEx(Courage,Cowardice,...) // definitions
MutEx(Self-preservation,...)
MutEx(Martyrdom,...)
"Self-preservation attacks Cowardice"
Arg1AttacksArg2(Self-preservation,Cowardice)
"Courage can use Self-preservation"
Arg1UsableByArg2(Self-preservation,Courage)
"Martyrdom attacks Self-preservation"
Arg1AttacksArg2(Martyrdom,Self-preservation)
I do not have to specify the attacks relation between Courage and
Cowardice now, because they are in the same MutEx declaration.
[CLIP]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////