Re: virus: Re : Complexity was TT and Absolute Truth
Matt Waggoner (mael1@ucla.edu)
Fri, 06 Dec 1996 17:51:27 -0800
At 11:52 12/6/96 -0600, you wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, David McFadzean wrote:
>
>> At 06:57 AM 26/11/96 -0500, Alex Williams wrote:
>
>[CLIP]
>
>> OK, here's a new argument that will prove that memes are encoded in
>> writing:
>>
>> 1. Memes aren't encoded in writing.
>> 2. Memes aren't encoded in a recording of a spoken narrative of writing.
>> 3. Memes aren't encoded in a live spoken narrative of writing.
>> 4. Memes aren't encoded in speech.
>> 5. Memes cannot be transmitted by speech.
>> 6. Memes cannot be transmitted.
>>
>> Obviously (I think) 6 is wrong. Each step follows logically
>> from the previous (to the extent that if X is true, it is
>> reasonable to say that X+1 is true), so where does the argument
>> go wrong? I say the first premise is flawed.
>
>Glancing at this:
>#1,2,3,4 are equivalent. The entire process of "encoding a meme" is so
>contraintuitive that I could reasonably claim that #1,2,3,4 are all true.
>
>[Example: running an 8086 program on a IIe doesn't work too well,
>showing that the executable file fails to be self-contained in defining
>its meme. Its meme expresses properly on the target machine it was
>compiled for, and does not express properly on the IIe.]
>
>#5 is *definitely* wrong, empirically.
>
>I would say that the places to attack are:
>1) #1,2,3,4
>2) The implication #4 => #5.
>
>I think the implication is MUCH more vulnerable to being false.
I think #1 is false, which topples the whole tower of cards. Memes aren't
encoded in writing because no one's gotten around to it yet. :)
/------- Matt Waggoner - Maelstrom -------\
| www.seas.ucla.edu/~waggoner - mael1@ucla.edu |
| Real Genius Software: "It isn't really genius if it isn't Real Genius." |
| -- |
\------- I find your lack of faith disturbing. -------/