Here's another video, this time of the Super Kaleidoscopium in Cosmique III at Open Habitat. This one done by Bleu Oleander of the Kira Cafe / Spirit of the Senses. Enjoy!
Monday, July 20, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Mixed Reality & Media-Active Art
In SecondLife, one of my "hobbies" (when I'm not working on educational community stuff or networking) is developing and creating what I call "media-active" sculptures and environments. In August, some of my sculptures will be part of a display to be shown in a gallery in Canada (presumably on some big screen set up "broadcasting" from SecondLife). A friend of mine, Artistide Despres (one of best artist/builders/videographers in SL) decided to film some of the pieces. Here's a test shot. What do you think? (Feedback encouraged!)
(note, it takes about 30 secs to get going - some dead time in the begining for some reason)
(note, it takes about 30 secs to get going - some dead time in the begining for some reason)
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Oh, and while I'm at it...
Boy oh Boy!
Our favortite entertainment, Obamarama, is really picking up steam! After a victory tour through Russia, Europe, and Africa, I wonder what's next? The stimulus package passed earlier this year should have been a message (at least, if you actually READ the bill passed) that it's not only business as usual, but it'll be business usual with a whole lot more 'style' (read: 'smoke and mirrors') than ever before. And, unfortunately, more or less the same old 'substance'.
Watch this guy. Forget you voted for and idolize him for a minute...
If anyone else were to say the things he does, the WAY he does, is there anyone who would not see more than a bit of arrogance? A tad of smug self-satisfaction? Barry O's a smart guy -- let there be no doubt about that at all. But he's also an ambitious guy, and a "pragmatic" one (political-speak for a guy who knows which hands to grease and how to grease 'em to get his own skids greased). He is clearly a "better politician" than most, but in the context of "politicians", what does "better" really mean? Don't kid yourself that it means "nicer" or more "caring" or "compassionate". It means he's smarter, more ruthless, and knows what he has to do to get what he wants -- and is willing to do it.
"Please, take your seats."
Boy, how he just loves to say that..!
But I am not toasting Obama just to toast him. My problem is that we need better PEOPLE to run this country, not better politicians. I was no fan of Obama before the elections, but then, being honest, what choice did we have? McCain disqualified himself at the git-go by his choice for a running mate (was this planned?? I mean geez, if not, whose brain-dead advice was he following then?), so Obama was clearly the only option left by default (and this by virtue of his only slightly less horrible choice for a running mate). Still, I hoped that I would be proven wrong and that we'd see the sort of guy that those who believed in him thought he was.
But he wasn't. And he isn't.
And I don't believe he ever will be.
Come, people, if he loved "organizing communities", he'd still be doing it, don't you think? He did it just long enough, and no longer than needed, to make it a good strategic move and stepping stone for the next level. Here's a smart and ambitious guy whose objective his whole life has been to be president of this country. He looked over the landscape and mapped out the shortest path from A to president. Keep an eye on this guy, folks...
...he bears watching.
And not just for the entertainment value.
There was an old saying about watching out for people who actually WANT to be king...and there was a reason for it, too.
Our favortite entertainment, Obamarama, is really picking up steam! After a victory tour through Russia, Europe, and Africa, I wonder what's next? The stimulus package passed earlier this year should have been a message (at least, if you actually READ the bill passed) that it's not only business as usual, but it'll be business usual with a whole lot more 'style' (read: 'smoke and mirrors') than ever before. And, unfortunately, more or less the same old 'substance'.
Watch this guy. Forget you voted for and idolize him for a minute...
If anyone else were to say the things he does, the WAY he does, is there anyone who would not see more than a bit of arrogance? A tad of smug self-satisfaction? Barry O's a smart guy -- let there be no doubt about that at all. But he's also an ambitious guy, and a "pragmatic" one (political-speak for a guy who knows which hands to grease and how to grease 'em to get his own skids greased). He is clearly a "better politician" than most, but in the context of "politicians", what does "better" really mean? Don't kid yourself that it means "nicer" or more "caring" or "compassionate". It means he's smarter, more ruthless, and knows what he has to do to get what he wants -- and is willing to do it.
"Please, take your seats."
Boy, how he just loves to say that..!
But I am not toasting Obama just to toast him. My problem is that we need better PEOPLE to run this country, not better politicians. I was no fan of Obama before the elections, but then, being honest, what choice did we have? McCain disqualified himself at the git-go by his choice for a running mate (was this planned?? I mean geez, if not, whose brain-dead advice was he following then?), so Obama was clearly the only option left by default (and this by virtue of his only slightly less horrible choice for a running mate). Still, I hoped that I would be proven wrong and that we'd see the sort of guy that those who believed in him thought he was.
But he wasn't. And he isn't.
And I don't believe he ever will be.
Come, people, if he loved "organizing communities", he'd still be doing it, don't you think? He did it just long enough, and no longer than needed, to make it a good strategic move and stepping stone for the next level. Here's a smart and ambitious guy whose objective his whole life has been to be president of this country. He looked over the landscape and mapped out the shortest path from A to president. Keep an eye on this guy, folks...
...he bears watching.
And not just for the entertainment value.
There was an old saying about watching out for people who actually WANT to be king...and there was a reason for it, too.
Oh Gosh, what a year...
Well, I've been pretty remiss in my duties as a 'blogger'. To be honest, I've never really felt like one, but rolling the word around in mind mind, well, it certainly SOUNDS like something that should be applicable to me, so perhaps I should try and actually BE one.
You have been warned!!
First of all, my life's in freefall and I'm out of ideas as to what to do to stop it. I even watched one of those televangelist shows on TV the other night at 2:30 AM, hoping they'd see me and send a miracle or two my way. But noooOOOOOoooo! None for me. Oh well. Was a fool's hope, anyway. I won't get into all the gory details here about the various messes that have plopped my way lately; I just causually mention it and hope the knowledge serves to help blame some of what I'll be saying on a really super-borked state of mind.
Some other things on my mind....
WHAT ARE THEY THINKING??? If the congress goes ahead and passes the healthcare legislation currently being contemplated, we may just as well give up hope of EVER getting a rational, comprehensive, and competent healthcare system in this country. Basically modelled after the system in place in Massachussetts, its main function is to allow the government to SAY they have universal healthcare now, and to help divert more and more money from the folks who can afford it least back up towards the top via the government and insurance companies. I don't care if it's 'cheaper' overall for the government or 'us' collectively - it's another burden - a required one - on people who already can barely afford to get by, forcing them to use money they probably have budgeted for things like FOOD and RENT and other essential expenses they have for paying for healthcare ( * for some other examples, see below ). It's nuts, and as an added bonus, it just creates another category of criminal you can fall into just because you don't have the money. This is not being done to help those who don't have healthcare. It's being done to make money for the insurance and medical industries and to mitigate the cost of that for the government and those who CAN afford insurance. When you strip away all the hype, all the smoke and mirror arguments, and look at the 'process' from bottom to top, it's pretty clear to see.
At least for me, anyway.
I'm no socialist. I'm no conservative. I hate both labels and any sort of polarized politics. Left, right; liberal, conservative -- it's all bullshit. Wouldn't it be nice if people would put the labels away for once, forget about their political platforms, lock their doors to the special interest groups, put on their thinking caps, and actually THINK about things for a change? This country is more than rich enough to afford an EXCELLENT healthcare system that could be a example to the world -- IFF the political will, moral courage, and a modicum of brains (I know we have some sharp ones somewhere!) were applied to revamping the insurance and medical industries, spending our money just a bit more responsibly, and attacking the culture of entitlement and greed that pervades our society, most especially in our business and political arenas. Oh, wait...shit. What was I thinking? This is America....
Just a note:
A while back,I heard Hillary mention something that caught my attention about the 'special relationships' developed by her, Bill, and Al Gore during their glory days in the 1990's with the current Russian leadership crew, and that she's counting on those relationships to help her in guiding relations between Russia and the US in 'better directions', or something along those lines.
"Hmmm", I think to myself...
"She does know that Russia is essentially governed by a "mafiocracy", right?"
Aha! Gotcha! Just kidding!!
Of course she knows that, and she has the "special relations" to prove it.
I just wonder what those "better directions" will be...and for whom they'll really BE better? Think about that question -- next time you fill up at a Lukoil gas station in NY.
--------------------------------------------
* some examples of similarly predatory rip-offs aimed at sucking more money from the bottom to the top, and hence helping to keep those on the bottom ON the bottom by disproportionate spending on the part of those who can least afford it, and 'redistributing wealth' (haha!) from bottom to top...
1. State run lotteries: Who spends the most money on this stuff and why? Where does the money go? Preys on the hopes/desperation of people in tough situations to grasp at even the slightest hope to get out, and moves the money 'up' the chain, spreading it out where it benefits 'everyone' (including the middle and upper classes) disproportionately to those from who most of the money comes.
2. Massachusetts WIC (Women Infants Children) program: Ostensibly to help out families in financial need, this program provides vouchers to families for free milk, etc. etc. to help feed their kids. The catch: vouchers can ONLY be used at large chain supermarkets, and not at convenience stores. One wonders why the the 'cheapest' milk in these stores (the "store-brand") is about $2.00/gallon more expensive than branded milk (Hood(tm), for example) at convenience stores, and branded ones artificially priced higher in the supermarkets, generally speaking? What this effectively does is divert a LOT of taxpayer money directly to those shops in extra profit. Do the math - how many people a day buy milk on this program (conservatove guess: 200k) times difference in price ($2.00) times 365...it's a HUGE number - and we're laying off teachers and cutting arts programs in our schools. Hmmm.
3. Western Union: This company charges about 15 percent or more just to send money from point A to point B. It's used most often by people who don't have the banking sophistication or resources to use wire transfers, and would be considered illegal if done by a regular bank (or at least the bank customers would scream bloody murder and migrate en mass away from them) or by a private person. The name "Vinnie" comes to mind for some reason...
4. "Cheap" Credit Cards:High interest, high misc. fees, etc. etc...this is so obvious I needn't explain it further, and I'm amazed the government allows it. Well, wait a sec -- no I'm not. In light of all the other things going on, it makes perfect sense now, really...doesn't it?
Extrapolate these things (and others not mentioned) and work out the effect of this on the segment of the economy it mostly preys on...and add them to all the other things going on in other contexts. It costs a LOT to be poor in this country!
You don't need to be a tree-hugging, green-bleeding, airy-fairy liberal to see that this stuff is just plain wrong and constitute examples of a society gone wild and rotting from inside up. Where's our sense of fairplay and compassion? We're Americans, right? RIGHT?? We're supposed to be for the underdog, right? Not about ripping people off (especially each other!) and taking unfair advantage, right? Or are we??
Let's decide what it means, then, to be an American, because if our actions to not line up with the principles we claim to uphold, what's that say about our integrity as a nation? As a people? As...individuals??
And heck, if we're gonna screw everyone every chance we get, then let's at least be honest about it...
You have been warned!!
First of all, my life's in freefall and I'm out of ideas as to what to do to stop it. I even watched one of those televangelist shows on TV the other night at 2:30 AM, hoping they'd see me and send a miracle or two my way. But noooOOOOOoooo! None for me. Oh well. Was a fool's hope, anyway. I won't get into all the gory details here about the various messes that have plopped my way lately; I just causually mention it and hope the knowledge serves to help blame some of what I'll be saying on a really super-borked state of mind.
Some other things on my mind....
WHAT ARE THEY THINKING??? If the congress goes ahead and passes the healthcare legislation currently being contemplated, we may just as well give up hope of EVER getting a rational, comprehensive, and competent healthcare system in this country. Basically modelled after the system in place in Massachussetts, its main function is to allow the government to SAY they have universal healthcare now, and to help divert more and more money from the folks who can afford it least back up towards the top via the government and insurance companies. I don't care if it's 'cheaper' overall for the government or 'us' collectively - it's another burden - a required one - on people who already can barely afford to get by, forcing them to use money they probably have budgeted for things like FOOD and RENT and other essential expenses they have for paying for healthcare ( * for some other examples, see below ). It's nuts, and as an added bonus, it just creates another category of criminal you can fall into just because you don't have the money. This is not being done to help those who don't have healthcare. It's being done to make money for the insurance and medical industries and to mitigate the cost of that for the government and those who CAN afford insurance. When you strip away all the hype, all the smoke and mirror arguments, and look at the 'process' from bottom to top, it's pretty clear to see.
At least for me, anyway.
I'm no socialist. I'm no conservative. I hate both labels and any sort of polarized politics. Left, right; liberal, conservative -- it's all bullshit. Wouldn't it be nice if people would put the labels away for once, forget about their political platforms, lock their doors to the special interest groups, put on their thinking caps, and actually THINK about things for a change? This country is more than rich enough to afford an EXCELLENT healthcare system that could be a example to the world -- IFF the political will, moral courage, and a modicum of brains (I know we have some sharp ones somewhere!) were applied to revamping the insurance and medical industries, spending our money just a bit more responsibly, and attacking the culture of entitlement and greed that pervades our society, most especially in our business and political arenas. Oh, wait...shit. What was I thinking? This is America....
Just a note:
A while back,I heard Hillary mention something that caught my attention about the 'special relationships' developed by her, Bill, and Al Gore during their glory days in the 1990's with the current Russian leadership crew, and that she's counting on those relationships to help her in guiding relations between Russia and the US in 'better directions', or something along those lines.
"Hmmm", I think to myself...
"She does know that Russia is essentially governed by a "mafiocracy", right?"
Aha! Gotcha! Just kidding!!
Of course she knows that, and she has the "special relations" to prove it.
I just wonder what those "better directions" will be...and for whom they'll really BE better? Think about that question -- next time you fill up at a Lukoil gas station in NY.
--------------------------------------------
* some examples of similarly predatory rip-offs aimed at sucking more money from the bottom to the top, and hence helping to keep those on the bottom ON the bottom by disproportionate spending on the part of those who can least afford it, and 'redistributing wealth' (haha!) from bottom to top...
1. State run lotteries: Who spends the most money on this stuff and why? Where does the money go? Preys on the hopes/desperation of people in tough situations to grasp at even the slightest hope to get out, and moves the money 'up' the chain, spreading it out where it benefits 'everyone' (including the middle and upper classes) disproportionately to those from who most of the money comes.
2. Massachusetts WIC (Women Infants Children) program: Ostensibly to help out families in financial need, this program provides vouchers to families for free milk, etc. etc. to help feed their kids. The catch: vouchers can ONLY be used at large chain supermarkets, and not at convenience stores. One wonders why the the 'cheapest' milk in these stores (the "store-brand") is about $2.00/gallon more expensive than branded milk (Hood(tm), for example) at convenience stores, and branded ones artificially priced higher in the supermarkets, generally speaking? What this effectively does is divert a LOT of taxpayer money directly to those shops in extra profit. Do the math - how many people a day buy milk on this program (conservatove guess: 200k) times difference in price ($2.00) times 365...it's a HUGE number - and we're laying off teachers and cutting arts programs in our schools. Hmmm.
3. Western Union: This company charges about 15 percent or more just to send money from point A to point B. It's used most often by people who don't have the banking sophistication or resources to use wire transfers, and would be considered illegal if done by a regular bank (or at least the bank customers would scream bloody murder and migrate en mass away from them) or by a private person. The name "Vinnie" comes to mind for some reason...
4. "Cheap" Credit Cards:High interest, high misc. fees, etc. etc...this is so obvious I needn't explain it further, and I'm amazed the government allows it. Well, wait a sec -- no I'm not. In light of all the other things going on, it makes perfect sense now, really...doesn't it?
Extrapolate these things (and others not mentioned) and work out the effect of this on the segment of the economy it mostly preys on...and add them to all the other things going on in other contexts. It costs a LOT to be poor in this country!
You don't need to be a tree-hugging, green-bleeding, airy-fairy liberal to see that this stuff is just plain wrong and constitute examples of a society gone wild and rotting from inside up. Where's our sense of fairplay and compassion? We're Americans, right? RIGHT?? We're supposed to be for the underdog, right? Not about ripping people off (especially each other!) and taking unfair advantage, right? Or are we??
Let's decide what it means, then, to be an American, because if our actions to not line up with the principles we claim to uphold, what's that say about our integrity as a nation? As a people? As...individuals??
And heck, if we're gonna screw everyone every chance we get, then let's at least be honest about it...
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Still recovering...
Holy cow...I got bloggered this week! First time ever.
Here's a video...
I'll edit this more when I get some time.
Here's a video...
I'll edit this more when I get some time.
Monday, September 22, 2008
US Economic Crisis: Is the System Broke? Broken? Or Both?
Like millions - maybe billions - of people around the world, I've been watching the news with a mix growing apprehension, disgust, anger, sadness, and concern for the past few weeks, wondering - in today's parlance - "WTF?" with each new 'emergency' that crops up in this context.
But, after watching the news this morning and listening not only to reporting on the economic issues, but also watching the stuff on the elections and other issues both national and international, a lot of things were mixing around in my head, and suddenly, I had an idea (possibly not a good one) followed immediately by another idea. I toss them out here for the hell of it; hardly anyone reads this blog, so it's likely more for posterity than anything else, but still, I may as well note them...
First Idea: $700b Bailuot..? Who should be bailed out?
When I lived in Finland during the 1990's, I was running a small, struggling company when an economic crisis shook the economy, similar in relative terms in many ways to the one hitting the US now, and it precipitated a government bailout of the banking system. Although the amount (as I recall) was 'only' around $10-$15 billion USD, for a country of 5 million people, it's pretty close to what we're looking at here in scale. Simplifying the situation, what basically happened was that the government 'gave' this money to the banks, which the banks readily accepted, however they did little with the money to help the individuals and companies which were struggling, and there were massive amounts of bankruptcies and defaults on loans. Althought the economy did manage recover after a number of years, the lives and livelihoods of many individuals were ruined, and I never felt that the end really justified the means; I always believed that more could have been done to help the "little people" and more should have, and that it would have not only speeded the recovery, it would have made it stronger.
It is, however, important to note a few things, too. The situation, while similar, has also significant differences. The economy of Finland is structured quite differently than that of the US (this was true more so then than it is now in many ways), with a strong state presence and control in many large enterprises and insitutions, and a largely socialized/subsidized welfare system (along with the expected union influence and tax burdens on individuals and corporations).
Still, an idea that occurred to me then still occurs to me now: Why not bail out the banks through bailing out the "little people"?
The idea is this: instead of giving the cash directly to the banks (in whatever form), why not give some sort of long-term loans in the form of vouchers that can ONLY be used for paying off home mortgages or business loans to the individuals and companies in trouble? This could be done on a monthly basis for as long as actually needed by the individuals and companies until they become self-sufficient or solvent again (let them make this decision voluntarily, so they choose to 'stop' recieving this support before the full amount is drawn, however - if they wish - allow them to draw as long as they decide to, but only up to the total amount of the approved debt).
If the vouchers are given in the form of long-term, low-interest, unsecured loans, the government will eventually get most or all of the money back. Yes, many will still likely default, but that is also still possible with the large entities being considered for bailout now, but the risk, and benefit, is spread out with this scheme, and I would think that many people recieving this help WOULD be more conscientious in paying it back than profit-minded corporate boards and institutionalized (pun intended) shareholders would be. It seems to make sense to me, at least on the surface. I'd be interested to know why it WOULDN'T work - if you're an expert in economics AND able to view the situation objectively (e.g. without coming at it from the point of view of some political-economic framework that you support dogmatically, I mean). Any thoughts, for or against?
Second Idea: The "System" is clearly broken. Broken things need repair - or replacement...
My reasoning goes somewhat like this: "Instead of fearing this crisis and trying to "fix" the institutions and companies that are crumbling, try "embracing" it as an opportunity to fix the systems!"
We have known for a long time that our system has serious problems. Medical and social security insurance are at or near the top of the list, but there are other issues as well, such as corporate and institutional irresponsibility and greed allowing these entities to run roughshod over both our own citizens and also around the world. This crisis is a sign that these things have been allowed to go to far for too long, and the scope and scale of the problem is more or less telling us that something needs to be done - not superficially for the short-term, but fundamentally for the long term.
For years we've been told that among the obstacles to addressing these problems seriously is that there are too many interests involved, too much money at stake, and that any tinkering could result in unexpected problems that could upset the 'balance' of things. (I wonder what 'balance' this is, but I suspect that means the profitability for the companies in trouble now, and the influence and position of the politicians that support them, but I could be wrong....right?) But now the applecart's been upended, and we're up to our ears in apples...and finding many of them rotten already. Since many of the entities involved here are behind many of the systems (and the problems) that have long needed fixing and are now more or less "broke" (in both senses), why not use the situation to begin addressing and reforming things like the insurance and medical industries and social insurance system? It seems to me that this is a unique opportunity to actually do this, and a situation where politicians - if their heart really IS in the place where they want us to believe they are - could sieze upon to do some real good for a change.
I don't have all the answers in detail, and I know it's not a 'simple' thing when you get to implementing it, but one thing IS simple and clear to me: it needs to be done, and this could be a window of opportunity to do it that may not be open again soon.
Another thing that is clear to me is that if we just patch things up by throwing money at it without really addressing the fundamental problems that cause them, we're really only mortaging our future - again - and I would like to think that our government can learn from the mistakes we've made these past 10-20 years, and that is that re-financing and multiple mortgages don't really fix problems; they just push them off to the future, where they wait for us...just bigger, fatter, and that much more tougher to deal with.
I don't know if either of these ideas are really good ones - they seem to make some sense to me though. I do wonder, however, assuming that they ARE, in fact, workable, would any politician have the political courage and personal integrity to adopt one or both?
In my view, by far the biggest problem our country faces is not the complexity of the problems or even the expense fixing them will take; those things can be dealt with. The real issue is do we, as a people, have the will to fix them, and can we force our elected representatives to DO it? Are we willing to begin DEMANDING more of our politicians in terms of competence and integrity instead of accepting less from them...'because they're only human'? It is time, I think, that we accepted the responsibility for the situation and decided to take control of it ourselves, and do it through the only means we have available to us. That also means we have to be honest with ourselves, too.
Have we the courage for that?
-------------------------------------
I should also make clear one point: I do believe free enterprise/capitalism IS an economic system that is workable, and - so far - by far the most effective one in the world. But like with any kind of 'freedom', in order to REALLY work well for the benefit of all involved, everyone who participates in it needs to do so responsibly (preferably voluntarily) with the understanding that how one behaves has an effect on the welfare AND behaviour of all others. This principle, it seems, has been forgotten (or at least winked at), in both our economic and political processes. It's time we decided to do things a bit better.
Two well-known sayings come to mind here:
1. "A people who sacrifice a little liberty for security deserves neither" (paraphrasing B. Franklin).
2. "A thing should be no more, and no less, complicated than it needs to be." (paraphrasing A. Einstein's take on Occam's Razor (my favorite tool!))
I think the meaning and continued relevance today is clear in both, and if you think about it a bit, you can easily see how they apply to our present situation. And - importantly - they are relevant and important no matter which political pole you're oriented to...and correctly understanding these principles would go a long way towards removing the polarization that largely serves only to paralyze us now.
At least, that's what I think. You're mileage, of course, may vary.
But, after watching the news this morning and listening not only to reporting on the economic issues, but also watching the stuff on the elections and other issues both national and international, a lot of things were mixing around in my head, and suddenly, I had an idea (possibly not a good one) followed immediately by another idea. I toss them out here for the hell of it; hardly anyone reads this blog, so it's likely more for posterity than anything else, but still, I may as well note them...
First Idea: $700b Bailuot..? Who should be bailed out?
When I lived in Finland during the 1990's, I was running a small, struggling company when an economic crisis shook the economy, similar in relative terms in many ways to the one hitting the US now, and it precipitated a government bailout of the banking system. Although the amount (as I recall) was 'only' around $10-$15 billion USD, for a country of 5 million people, it's pretty close to what we're looking at here in scale. Simplifying the situation, what basically happened was that the government 'gave' this money to the banks, which the banks readily accepted, however they did little with the money to help the individuals and companies which were struggling, and there were massive amounts of bankruptcies and defaults on loans. Althought the economy did manage recover after a number of years, the lives and livelihoods of many individuals were ruined, and I never felt that the end really justified the means; I always believed that more could have been done to help the "little people" and more should have, and that it would have not only speeded the recovery, it would have made it stronger.
It is, however, important to note a few things, too. The situation, while similar, has also significant differences. The economy of Finland is structured quite differently than that of the US (this was true more so then than it is now in many ways), with a strong state presence and control in many large enterprises and insitutions, and a largely socialized/subsidized welfare system (along with the expected union influence and tax burdens on individuals and corporations).
Still, an idea that occurred to me then still occurs to me now: Why not bail out the banks through bailing out the "little people"?
The idea is this: instead of giving the cash directly to the banks (in whatever form), why not give some sort of long-term loans in the form of vouchers that can ONLY be used for paying off home mortgages or business loans to the individuals and companies in trouble? This could be done on a monthly basis for as long as actually needed by the individuals and companies until they become self-sufficient or solvent again (let them make this decision voluntarily, so they choose to 'stop' recieving this support before the full amount is drawn, however - if they wish - allow them to draw as long as they decide to, but only up to the total amount of the approved debt).
If the vouchers are given in the form of long-term, low-interest, unsecured loans, the government will eventually get most or all of the money back. Yes, many will still likely default, but that is also still possible with the large entities being considered for bailout now, but the risk, and benefit, is spread out with this scheme, and I would think that many people recieving this help WOULD be more conscientious in paying it back than profit-minded corporate boards and institutionalized (pun intended) shareholders would be. It seems to make sense to me, at least on the surface. I'd be interested to know why it WOULDN'T work - if you're an expert in economics AND able to view the situation objectively (e.g. without coming at it from the point of view of some political-economic framework that you support dogmatically, I mean). Any thoughts, for or against?
Second Idea: The "System" is clearly broken. Broken things need repair - or replacement...
My reasoning goes somewhat like this: "Instead of fearing this crisis and trying to "fix" the institutions and companies that are crumbling, try "embracing" it as an opportunity to fix the systems!"
We have known for a long time that our system has serious problems. Medical and social security insurance are at or near the top of the list, but there are other issues as well, such as corporate and institutional irresponsibility and greed allowing these entities to run roughshod over both our own citizens and also around the world. This crisis is a sign that these things have been allowed to go to far for too long, and the scope and scale of the problem is more or less telling us that something needs to be done - not superficially for the short-term, but fundamentally for the long term.
For years we've been told that among the obstacles to addressing these problems seriously is that there are too many interests involved, too much money at stake, and that any tinkering could result in unexpected problems that could upset the 'balance' of things. (I wonder what 'balance' this is, but I suspect that means the profitability for the companies in trouble now, and the influence and position of the politicians that support them, but I could be wrong....right?) But now the applecart's been upended, and we're up to our ears in apples...and finding many of them rotten already. Since many of the entities involved here are behind many of the systems (and the problems) that have long needed fixing and are now more or less "broke" (in both senses), why not use the situation to begin addressing and reforming things like the insurance and medical industries and social insurance system? It seems to me that this is a unique opportunity to actually do this, and a situation where politicians - if their heart really IS in the place where they want us to believe they are - could sieze upon to do some real good for a change.
I don't have all the answers in detail, and I know it's not a 'simple' thing when you get to implementing it, but one thing IS simple and clear to me: it needs to be done, and this could be a window of opportunity to do it that may not be open again soon.
Another thing that is clear to me is that if we just patch things up by throwing money at it without really addressing the fundamental problems that cause them, we're really only mortaging our future - again - and I would like to think that our government can learn from the mistakes we've made these past 10-20 years, and that is that re-financing and multiple mortgages don't really fix problems; they just push them off to the future, where they wait for us...just bigger, fatter, and that much more tougher to deal with.
I don't know if either of these ideas are really good ones - they seem to make some sense to me though. I do wonder, however, assuming that they ARE, in fact, workable, would any politician have the political courage and personal integrity to adopt one or both?
In my view, by far the biggest problem our country faces is not the complexity of the problems or even the expense fixing them will take; those things can be dealt with. The real issue is do we, as a people, have the will to fix them, and can we force our elected representatives to DO it? Are we willing to begin DEMANDING more of our politicians in terms of competence and integrity instead of accepting less from them...'because they're only human'? It is time, I think, that we accepted the responsibility for the situation and decided to take control of it ourselves, and do it through the only means we have available to us. That also means we have to be honest with ourselves, too.
Have we the courage for that?
-------------------------------------
I should also make clear one point: I do believe free enterprise/capitalism IS an economic system that is workable, and - so far - by far the most effective one in the world. But like with any kind of 'freedom', in order to REALLY work well for the benefit of all involved, everyone who participates in it needs to do so responsibly (preferably voluntarily) with the understanding that how one behaves has an effect on the welfare AND behaviour of all others. This principle, it seems, has been forgotten (or at least winked at), in both our economic and political processes. It's time we decided to do things a bit better.
Two well-known sayings come to mind here:
1. "A people who sacrifice a little liberty for security deserves neither" (paraphrasing B. Franklin).
2. "A thing should be no more, and no less, complicated than it needs to be." (paraphrasing A. Einstein's take on Occam's Razor (my favorite tool!))
I think the meaning and continued relevance today is clear in both, and if you think about it a bit, you can easily see how they apply to our present situation. And - importantly - they are relevant and important no matter which political pole you're oriented to...and correctly understanding these principles would go a long way towards removing the polarization that largely serves only to paralyze us now.
At least, that's what I think. You're mileage, of course, may vary.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
NOTES ON MEMES
Below are some notes on memes and memetics that are the result of recent personal exploration of the subject. I believe that although the concept of memetics is very important as currently understood, I think that perhaps it has been looked at too 'narrowly' in some senses, and perhaps 'not quite right' in others. I take the idea of memes a lot further, I think, than most currently do, and I think this approach also makes things in other domains (related and unrelated) much simpler to understand, and affords an avenue to a better understanding of human cognition, while possibly also providing a roadmap (or at least some directional signs) for the path to the creation of more powerful data/information architectures and - possibly - artificial intelligence.
These notes are presented in no particular order (for now) - they are just 'notes' - notes to myself to help aid my own thinking about this topic, and do not reflect a "final" or "complete" expression of the ideas I am considering here. I share them in hopes of getting constructive feedback - and criticism - of the ideas expressed here.
[Please also note: any positive statements or "assertions" I make are either my opinion or the result of my reasoning on the subject; I admit ahead of time I could be wrong and hope for reasoned argument explaining why I am (or could be) wrong. My goal is to understand the issues under consideration here, not to promote the idea as some agenda. That said, it does make sense to me, and you can expect me to defend it until I can be convinced what I am saying is unreasonable. ;o) ]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TENTATIVE DEFINITION: mind (n.) - an entity or system capable of perceiving, creating, manipulating, transmitting, and being effected and influenced by memes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Memes require the presence of 'mind' and are patterns that are created and encoded within a functioning brain.
Much as genes require the presence of molecules/amino acids as a base, or substrate, for the expression, preservation, and transmission of the genetic pattern, a "meme" requires a mind - or more specifically, a functioning brain upon (or within) which the memetic pattern can be imprinted. The reason for this is that memes require a structure (or entity) that can receive the memetic in the form of some perceptual input, process it, store it, and transmit (or express) it via some form of output. Without these capabilities, no meme can replicate. In addition, a meme requires a mind for its very creation; memes do not 'exist' without a mind, but rather come into existence with a mind that is capable of perceiving patterns, and it is only within brains that memes can be said to be 'active'. The physical object of perception is NOT a "meme"; rather, in the case of the initial perception of some entity, the pattern perceived causes a memetic pattern to be created via the brain's cognitive processes. In the case of an object that is a "storage vessel" that contains a memetic pattern, the memetic pattern is taken in with the perception of the physical object. As a child's mind begins to develop, much of what is going on is the creation, initial imprinting, and organization of memetic patterns within the child's brain. In essence, memes provide the mechanisms AND environment through and in which we learn and think.
2. Memes use both physical means and other memes to get transmitted between minds.
Be it via language, manufacture of some object, or some combination of these or other means, all memes need some physical means to be transmitted, perceived, and taken up by other minds. The invention of language, itself a meme, created a ready-made vehicle for other memes to be more readily and efficiently expressed and shared between entities and made it possible for them to more rapidly expand and evolve. Although memes exist in the minds of ALL entities which have a brain, their complexity and abilities to replicate are directly limited by the entities abilities to express or transmit the memetic package. Further, the degree of variability (or ability to mutate) is further affected by the methods of transmission. Imitation and mimicry (modes of expression and transmission that rely mainly on behavior for expression and observation for perception), for example, offer very limited possibilities for transmission, replication, and evolution, while spoken and written language greatly enhances these processes.
3. Memes can be ideas, concepts, behavioral patterns, or representations of physical entities.
In one sense, (some) memes, or at least generalized variants of some memes, could be seen as similar to Plato's 'Forms' and could relate to what Heidegger is striving for in his ideas of "modes of being". Their expressions could be in many forms, and some can consist of numerous related expressive forms. Memes can utilize other memes for their expression and transmission (e.g. as religion uses writing, behavior (tradition/ritual), and social structures (congregations, etc.) to perpetuate itself; songs can be recorded on cd's, paper representations (muscial notation, lyrics, etc.). Memetic patterns can represent things that actually "exist" in their own right, things that could exist if we undertook to facilitate their actualization, and things that cannot possibly exist (be actualized/realized in reality according to known laws of physics).
4. Memes can be simple or complex (combinations of memes).
A "meme" is rarely "naked", or "fundamental" in that it can be expressed as and represents a single "most basic" memetic pattern. In fact, if such are possible, I suspect that such "naked" memes are so fundamental and "abstract" that we would not recognize them nor even have a means to perceive, let alone understand them, given that we ourselves must utilize memes to "think" and they would form the substrate in which we think. That said, it could be possible that we could generally describe some such, however that will require a bit more pondering for me to do it. I bring this up in order to mainly "put it out there" so that it can be kept in mind while we consider memes in other ways. Most often, memes will be combined with other memes in some form. While we can, if we choose, elect to deconstruct a given memetic package into memetic subcomponents (at least to some degree), we will find that such an exercise can often result in a 'fractal-like' structure…with one exception - there is, ultimately, a "bottom" (hence, only fractal-like, and not fractal.), however it's unlikely we'd be able to access that level directly. Memes, in fact, can be extremely complex, and should be looked at from varying degrees of granularity and from different perspectives in order to understand them. Memetic structures are likely "layered" in a sense, with memes able to subsume, and be subsumed by, other memes, and also possibly "intersect" with each other in different ways at different levels.
5. Memes are replicators that are dependent upon expression and transmission to replicate and evolve.
Memes are highly subject to 'mutation' due to imperfections in expression, transmission, and uptake, however that are also highly 'mutation tolerant' - most mutations can survive with significant variations in expression, transmission, and uptake (the simpler the meme, the more unlikely it is that any errors manifested in expression, transmission, and uptake would be "fatal", rendering the meme useless or unworthy of replication. Higher degrees of complexity, on the other hand, would tend to make them (and/or variants of them) 'easier' to spread if 'fit'. I further suspect that the organizational/structural level at which an error is manifested would also have a greater effect on its survival (or selection) fitness than more 'superficial' errors, however it is also possible that the more superficial layers could provide sort of a 'protective wrapping' to some degree, protecting the lower levels from severe mutations (or errors). In any case, a memes are dependent upon 'mind' for their very existence, and upon the processes mentioned above for their survival and evolution. Memes are emergent entities/structures that arise "automatically" with the actualization of a "mind", and do not exist in any meaningful sense in the absence of a mind. That said, memetic patterns can persist outside of mind, and can be re-activated when the vessel containing the memetic pattern is perceived by another mind (example: life on earth is sterilized by some nearby star going supernova, however we leave behind physical objects such as books and computers and the like in more or less undamaged form. After thousands of years, some entity from somewhere stumbles across our artifacts and contemplates them. He sees a book, and deciphers our language….you get the idea! )
6. Memes are highly subject to mutation and memes can evolve quickly, however some meme-variants may prove to be stable or at least mutation-resistant to some degree.
A "meme-variant" is a "variation on a meme" or a "mutated" meme that retains the main/most important qualities of the original meme (or memeplex), but may differ in certain expressive forms or in other, mostly superficial, details. Memes are subject to many conditions and processes that can alter them. They can be poorly, incorrectly, or incompletely, expressed, for one example, with similar problems able to crop up during perception, uptake, and imprinting by another mind. Damage can be done to the vehicles or containers via which they are being transmitted between minds (static in a radio transmission, signs can be defaced, etc.) for another example. These things and others can have effect on the integrity, completeness, and consistency of a given memetic pattern, thereby introducing change in the pattern. Memetic patterns already present in a mind that takes in a similar memetic pattern can have some parts of the meme 'reinforced' in the mind, while weaker parts can be altered. Note also that it will be harder to change 'lower' levels of a memetic entity than the superficial ones for much this reason (the 'inner' or lower levels of a given memetic pattern or memeplex would likely have been reinforced many times and are less 'exposed' to processes that can induce change, and hence be stronger and more resistant to change. On the other hand, the more superficial parts of newer meme-sets will likely not have been reinforced so many times and are also more 'exposed' to change-inducing effects. (This can perhaps help explain why we are so resistant to some types of change and more ready to embrace others. (addendum - could this effect (and using this approach) also help explain why some types of brain injury or illness produce the symptoms they do - and from there, give hints as to how the brain organizes and deals with information - and also help support (or refute) this mode of thinking?)
7. Memes are adaptive
Being entities or structures that survive and evolve over time, then they must be able to adapt, and memes appear able to adapt to a wide variety of conditions in different ways. One way in which they demonstrate "adaptability" is their ability to be successfully replicated and transmitted via a variety of mechanisms and processes. This is more clear when you appreciate that at each step of the process from creation of a meme in a mind to its apprehension in another mind, copies - unique individual expressions - of the meme are created; the meme "itself" does not 'travel' from one person to another, but rather individual new expressions of the memetic pattern are created and transmitted. Since the means and vehicles can vary, and different things can affect how completely or correctly a given memetic pattern is transcribed and transmitted at each step, memes must by highly adaptive and 'fault tolerant' in order to arrive generally intact and be imprinted within a new brain.
Various fitness criteria, such as appeal (to the entities involved, e.g. utility, beauty, etc.), have a significant effect on their replication and evolution. Memes, especially more complex ones, evolve much the same way as biological organisms, however with many more diverse fitness selectors at work. Further, given the way memes appear to be constructed (from other memes), sometimes certain memes can use the positive selection qualities of other memes to enhance their own survival, in a sense hijacking or piggy-backing on them, even if 'their own' qualities could be negative in terms of benefit to the hosts.
8. Meme-bases are memes and meme-variants with, upon, or around which more complex memes are made.
A "handle" or a "wheel" can be examples of memes that are meme-bases. They are normally minimally/generally (but still very strictly and clearly) defined, however their variants are wide-spread and still recognizable for what they are and do. They could be said to be extremely adaptable and highly subject to mutation, but also extremely fit, with their fitness tied inextricably to some deep appeal or utility to the host organisms that remains more or less constant despite changes in the social or physical environment. Some examples could be "spear-points" which have found use in nearly every human society, or "music", a meme which has appealed to humans since pre-historic times, and has demonstrated an ability to utilize a wide variety of mechanisms for its survival and transmission.
9. Memes can be parasitic and can affect how a host mind thinks and behaves in ways that serve to assist the meme in surviving and spreading.
These are likely normally complex memes that use positive selectors to enhance their survival, however they may or may not be generally beneficial to their hosts individually or collectively. Naturally, in order to become widespread, they need to support a large population of hosts, however they can be 'aggressive' in a sense in that they can cause aggression in hosts that to do have that particular "memotype" imprinted, or have a similar, but competing one imprinted. Conflicts between people on the basis of religion, politics, or other seemingly superficial basis in the absence of a direct need based on mainly genetic-based needs (such as territory, resources, etc.) could be examples of this. (note: in biological entities, genetic and memetic "imperatives" likely interact in interesting, and likely conflicting ways, and could help explain why humans exhibit behavior that cannot be well-explained in terms of biological-genetic survival or otherwise appear to not make sense. It would be interesting to note how an electronic entity, devoid of genetic and biochemical drives would behave based solely on memetic influences (or others that could emerge in or with such a mind), or to examine the behaviour of "lower" animals in terms of the memes and memetic processes they are able to deal with relative to their brain structures and sizes).
10. Memes can incorporate host entities as part of their structure, with different host entities contributing (to) 'parts' of a greater superstructure (e.g. social entities/structures).
11. Memes can be expressed in different ways and forms.
For example, memes may be expressed through behavior (e.g. social and economic activity), physically (e.g. "unicorns" can be considered a meme, and they can be expressed via writing or drawing). Memes can use other memes to get themselves expressed and transmitted (writing/language is a powerful example of this, involving behavioral and more 'physical' types of memes and media . (behavior is also a 'physical' expression, however as it mainly involves human action (us doing something) that doesn't always result in a persistent external 'thing' being made, it can be non-obvious to most)).
12. Physical expressions of memes are not the memes themselves, but representations of the memetic patterns.
Strictly speaking, the actual meme is the memetic pattern which defines it, apart from the physical mode of its expression (defining this clearly is a bit dicey for me, however the concept is clear in my mind - it's expressing that's the issue). In my view, the only expression where a meme can be considered as "real" or "operative" is neural structure in a brain upon which it is imprinted, and even this is not 'written in stone', but is subject to change and evolution over time. Other physical expressions are subject to "error" or variation (mutation) in expression, transmission, and perception when taken up by another mind, and is further subject to change based on the nature/qualities of the memetic structures already existing in the mind taking up the meme in question. Memes are not 'active' or 'operant' until/unless its pattern is taken up into and can become effectual within a mind. A memetic expression is sort of like the 'container' or 'vehicle' used by the meme for transmission/uptake between minds.
13. Memes are structures minds use to interact with and 'understand' the world.
They help create, reinforce, and/or define the various types of structures, or context (local/global, etc.), within our minds needed for this interaction and understanding. Everything we see or perceive is represented to us in our minds as a meme or in terms of memes. Although "transparent" to us (because of the memetic substrate upon which we think), memes represent the 'objects' or 'entities' we perceive in the world in a way in which we can think about or understand them. In a sense, reality 'for us' is composed of memes, not the actual entities they represent. Memes are as 'perfect' or 'complete' as our understanding is about them. It is via memes that 'we' (as a species) can obtain, share, and retain information about the world.
14. Memes are NOT metaphysical - they require some form of physical substrate to exist.
Even though it's been stated that memes are not the physical expressions (except perhaps the memetic patterns imprinted in a brain), they are dependent upon physical reality for their existence, whether as neural patterns within a brain or some 'container' used for expression and transmission to/between minds, be it in the form of a type of behavior or some physical object. Absent of brains or the physical expressions containing an imprinted memetic pattern caused by entities with brains, there are no memes or memetic patterns. This point must be better explained, reinforced, and understood lest it become the basis for some form of 'memetic spirituality', which would be, I feel, a serious and dangerous impediment to a deeper, fuller, and more accurate understanding of the subject - and how we go about "using" it to understand ourselves and our world.
15. Memes can be of different types in several senses.
Memes can be simple or complex. Memes can represent things from "real" entities that are/have been actualized in reality to fictional entities and ideas that cannot possibly be actualized, and anything we can 'think of' in between. Classification of memes and memetic structures is a job unto itself, however it's clear that there must be different types and categories of memes. Due to the way memes can combine, however, this can be a difficult task, and I suspect will lend itself to only generalized descriptions and categories. This is something I won't tackle too much in detail here, but make (another) note of it here for future consideration.
16. All memes replicate.
Even if to very limited and/or simple degrees, or in non-obvious contexts; the fact that two entities can communicate with each other effectively demonstrates this. Every time a meme is expressed or an object with a memetic pattern imprinted on it is copied, it is replicated, more or less accurately. A popular CD bring printed and sold by the millions is a form of replication. A recording on a CD being played over a PA system heard by many people at once is another (in the form of the sound waves emitted and heard by the audience). A piece of gossip heard and passed on is another example, as is some action that is watched and mimicked by another (the transmission forms being the action of the first actor and the pattern of light waves that bring the image of this action to the watcher). Each step in every mode of transmission causes another copy of the meme to be reproduced, with varying degrees of accuracy. Memes do not 'move' - only copies of memetic patterns expressed in different forms are created and imprinted at subsequent steps in the transmission process.
COMMENTS
- an understanding of memes is useful in communicating with entities between which there are no common languages; e.g. some memes may be more or less 'universal' or at least common among certain phenotypes. This, I believe, is demonstrated in our abilities to communicate with certain animals, with the ease or difficulty related directly to the complexity of the memes that the entities are able to mutually comprehend or deal with, e.g. the differences in the types (and complexity) of the memes that are 'relevant' to them.
MEMETIC STUCTURES
Memes likely exist in, take on, or can be categorized by various structures. I suspect this in part hierarchical, and with both "horizontal" and "vertical" hierarchies (or categories) created.
Memes can subsume and be subsumed by other memes of lesser or greater complexity and 'size', however there are probably also "rules" which would govern this (the simplest type being that poorly integrated structures would not be very 'fit' as a whole, and hence "die off". This would imply a structure with various "levels", with simpler or more fundamental memes being at or near the center, and more complex structures (even composed of other, simpler memes linked in various ways) being layered over them (perhaps even with some 'parts' (or memes) sharing some common parts). I am not sure if the analogous structure to use here for illustration should be an onion, a ball of twine, a bowl of spaghetti, or even a rainbow - but since we're combining memes, and they lend themselves to it, why not combine all four? I bet we'd be closer with that than any other single description.
Or completely off base. Someone smarter than me will have an answer, I'm sure.
I used a number of terms in the text above - I'll clarify here what I mean by them:
meme - the conceptual entity defined by a memetic pattern - this is NOT identical to a thing a meme may represent (e.g. a family or a given song), but more the conceptualized version of such a thing. Memes are "how we think" - they constitute the patterns in our brains that give rise to mind and thought.
memetic pattern - the pattern itself that gets encoded in a brain, in a vehicle (an action, a book, a grouping of people for some purpose, etc.), or in a transmission medium (e.g. the light reflected from a page in a book to the retina of one's eye and the neural signal transmitted from the retina to the brain).
meme-variant - a variation of a meme that is close, but sufficiently different from an 'original' meme so that it can be perceived as a different meme. Normally it would differ mainly in superficial ways (e.g. the Episcopal Church would be a meme-variant of the Catholic Church) and retain many or most of the qualities of the ancestor meme.
memeplex - a complex meme (or memetic structure) that subsumes other memes. Most memes are also memeplexes, being strictly specific, however for effective usage, I would re-define the term generally as a collection of memes used to define/create a larger meme. A religion could be a "memeplex", for example. Or a science or an art. Essentially, it is a relative term indicating a meme that subsumes or consists of other 'memetic components'.
meme-base - meme-bases are "stable" (highly fit/adaptive) memes and meme-variants with, upon, or around which more complex memes are made.
memetic component - a meme (or set of memes) that is a part of (subsumed by) a memeplex.
vessel/vehicle - a physical expression upon which a memetic pattern is imprinted for transmission between minds.
memetic replication cycle - the process through which a meme goes from creation/imprinting of the memetic pattern in one mind through its expression, transmission, perception, and imprinting in another mind.
These notes are presented in no particular order (for now) - they are just 'notes' - notes to myself to help aid my own thinking about this topic, and do not reflect a "final" or "complete" expression of the ideas I am considering here. I share them in hopes of getting constructive feedback - and criticism - of the ideas expressed here.
[Please also note: any positive statements or "assertions" I make are either my opinion or the result of my reasoning on the subject; I admit ahead of time I could be wrong and hope for reasoned argument explaining why I am (or could be) wrong. My goal is to understand the issues under consideration here, not to promote the idea as some agenda. That said, it does make sense to me, and you can expect me to defend it until I can be convinced what I am saying is unreasonable. ;o) ]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TENTATIVE DEFINITION: mind (n.) - an entity or system capable of perceiving, creating, manipulating, transmitting, and being effected and influenced by memes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Memes require the presence of 'mind' and are patterns that are created and encoded within a functioning brain.
Much as genes require the presence of molecules/amino acids as a base, or substrate, for the expression, preservation, and transmission of the genetic pattern, a "meme" requires a mind - or more specifically, a functioning brain upon (or within) which the memetic pattern can be imprinted. The reason for this is that memes require a structure (or entity) that can receive the memetic in the form of some perceptual input, process it, store it, and transmit (or express) it via some form of output. Without these capabilities, no meme can replicate. In addition, a meme requires a mind for its very creation; memes do not 'exist' without a mind, but rather come into existence with a mind that is capable of perceiving patterns, and it is only within brains that memes can be said to be 'active'. The physical object of perception is NOT a "meme"; rather, in the case of the initial perception of some entity, the pattern perceived causes a memetic pattern to be created via the brain's cognitive processes. In the case of an object that is a "storage vessel" that contains a memetic pattern, the memetic pattern is taken in with the perception of the physical object. As a child's mind begins to develop, much of what is going on is the creation, initial imprinting, and organization of memetic patterns within the child's brain. In essence, memes provide the mechanisms AND environment through and in which we learn and think.
2. Memes use both physical means and other memes to get transmitted between minds.
Be it via language, manufacture of some object, or some combination of these or other means, all memes need some physical means to be transmitted, perceived, and taken up by other minds. The invention of language, itself a meme, created a ready-made vehicle for other memes to be more readily and efficiently expressed and shared between entities and made it possible for them to more rapidly expand and evolve. Although memes exist in the minds of ALL entities which have a brain, their complexity and abilities to replicate are directly limited by the entities abilities to express or transmit the memetic package. Further, the degree of variability (or ability to mutate) is further affected by the methods of transmission. Imitation and mimicry (modes of expression and transmission that rely mainly on behavior for expression and observation for perception), for example, offer very limited possibilities for transmission, replication, and evolution, while spoken and written language greatly enhances these processes.
3. Memes can be ideas, concepts, behavioral patterns, or representations of physical entities.
In one sense, (some) memes, or at least generalized variants of some memes, could be seen as similar to Plato's 'Forms' and could relate to what Heidegger is striving for in his ideas of "modes of being". Their expressions could be in many forms, and some can consist of numerous related expressive forms. Memes can utilize other memes for their expression and transmission (e.g. as religion uses writing, behavior (tradition/ritual), and social structures (congregations, etc.) to perpetuate itself; songs can be recorded on cd's, paper representations (muscial notation, lyrics, etc.). Memetic patterns can represent things that actually "exist" in their own right, things that could exist if we undertook to facilitate their actualization, and things that cannot possibly exist (be actualized/realized in reality according to known laws of physics).
4. Memes can be simple or complex (combinations of memes).
A "meme" is rarely "naked", or "fundamental" in that it can be expressed as and represents a single "most basic" memetic pattern. In fact, if such are possible, I suspect that such "naked" memes are so fundamental and "abstract" that we would not recognize them nor even have a means to perceive, let alone understand them, given that we ourselves must utilize memes to "think" and they would form the substrate in which we think. That said, it could be possible that we could generally describe some such, however that will require a bit more pondering for me to do it. I bring this up in order to mainly "put it out there" so that it can be kept in mind while we consider memes in other ways. Most often, memes will be combined with other memes in some form. While we can, if we choose, elect to deconstruct a given memetic package into memetic subcomponents (at least to some degree), we will find that such an exercise can often result in a 'fractal-like' structure…with one exception - there is, ultimately, a "bottom" (hence, only fractal-like, and not fractal.), however it's unlikely we'd be able to access that level directly. Memes, in fact, can be extremely complex, and should be looked at from varying degrees of granularity and from different perspectives in order to understand them. Memetic structures are likely "layered" in a sense, with memes able to subsume, and be subsumed by, other memes, and also possibly "intersect" with each other in different ways at different levels.
5. Memes are replicators that are dependent upon expression and transmission to replicate and evolve.
Memes are highly subject to 'mutation' due to imperfections in expression, transmission, and uptake, however that are also highly 'mutation tolerant' - most mutations can survive with significant variations in expression, transmission, and uptake (the simpler the meme, the more unlikely it is that any errors manifested in expression, transmission, and uptake would be "fatal", rendering the meme useless or unworthy of replication. Higher degrees of complexity, on the other hand, would tend to make them (and/or variants of them) 'easier' to spread if 'fit'. I further suspect that the organizational/structural level at which an error is manifested would also have a greater effect on its survival (or selection) fitness than more 'superficial' errors, however it is also possible that the more superficial layers could provide sort of a 'protective wrapping' to some degree, protecting the lower levels from severe mutations (or errors). In any case, a memes are dependent upon 'mind' for their very existence, and upon the processes mentioned above for their survival and evolution. Memes are emergent entities/structures that arise "automatically" with the actualization of a "mind", and do not exist in any meaningful sense in the absence of a mind. That said, memetic patterns can persist outside of mind, and can be re-activated when the vessel containing the memetic pattern is perceived by another mind (example: life on earth is sterilized by some nearby star going supernova, however we leave behind physical objects such as books and computers and the like in more or less undamaged form. After thousands of years, some entity from somewhere stumbles across our artifacts and contemplates them. He sees a book, and deciphers our language….you get the idea! )
6. Memes are highly subject to mutation and memes can evolve quickly, however some meme-variants may prove to be stable or at least mutation-resistant to some degree.
A "meme-variant" is a "variation on a meme" or a "mutated" meme that retains the main/most important qualities of the original meme (or memeplex), but may differ in certain expressive forms or in other, mostly superficial, details. Memes are subject to many conditions and processes that can alter them. They can be poorly, incorrectly, or incompletely, expressed, for one example, with similar problems able to crop up during perception, uptake, and imprinting by another mind. Damage can be done to the vehicles or containers via which they are being transmitted between minds (static in a radio transmission, signs can be defaced, etc.) for another example. These things and others can have effect on the integrity, completeness, and consistency of a given memetic pattern, thereby introducing change in the pattern. Memetic patterns already present in a mind that takes in a similar memetic pattern can have some parts of the meme 'reinforced' in the mind, while weaker parts can be altered. Note also that it will be harder to change 'lower' levels of a memetic entity than the superficial ones for much this reason (the 'inner' or lower levels of a given memetic pattern or memeplex would likely have been reinforced many times and are less 'exposed' to processes that can induce change, and hence be stronger and more resistant to change. On the other hand, the more superficial parts of newer meme-sets will likely not have been reinforced so many times and are also more 'exposed' to change-inducing effects. (This can perhaps help explain why we are so resistant to some types of change and more ready to embrace others. (addendum - could this effect (and using this approach) also help explain why some types of brain injury or illness produce the symptoms they do - and from there, give hints as to how the brain organizes and deals with information - and also help support (or refute) this mode of thinking?)
7. Memes are adaptive
Being entities or structures that survive and evolve over time, then they must be able to adapt, and memes appear able to adapt to a wide variety of conditions in different ways. One way in which they demonstrate "adaptability" is their ability to be successfully replicated and transmitted via a variety of mechanisms and processes. This is more clear when you appreciate that at each step of the process from creation of a meme in a mind to its apprehension in another mind, copies - unique individual expressions - of the meme are created; the meme "itself" does not 'travel' from one person to another, but rather individual new expressions of the memetic pattern are created and transmitted. Since the means and vehicles can vary, and different things can affect how completely or correctly a given memetic pattern is transcribed and transmitted at each step, memes must by highly adaptive and 'fault tolerant' in order to arrive generally intact and be imprinted within a new brain.
Various fitness criteria, such as appeal (to the entities involved, e.g. utility, beauty, etc.), have a significant effect on their replication and evolution. Memes, especially more complex ones, evolve much the same way as biological organisms, however with many more diverse fitness selectors at work. Further, given the way memes appear to be constructed (from other memes), sometimes certain memes can use the positive selection qualities of other memes to enhance their own survival, in a sense hijacking or piggy-backing on them, even if 'their own' qualities could be negative in terms of benefit to the hosts.
8. Meme-bases are memes and meme-variants with, upon, or around which more complex memes are made.
A "handle" or a "wheel" can be examples of memes that are meme-bases. They are normally minimally/generally (but still very strictly and clearly) defined, however their variants are wide-spread and still recognizable for what they are and do. They could be said to be extremely adaptable and highly subject to mutation, but also extremely fit, with their fitness tied inextricably to some deep appeal or utility to the host organisms that remains more or less constant despite changes in the social or physical environment. Some examples could be "spear-points" which have found use in nearly every human society, or "music", a meme which has appealed to humans since pre-historic times, and has demonstrated an ability to utilize a wide variety of mechanisms for its survival and transmission.
9. Memes can be parasitic and can affect how a host mind thinks and behaves in ways that serve to assist the meme in surviving and spreading.
These are likely normally complex memes that use positive selectors to enhance their survival, however they may or may not be generally beneficial to their hosts individually or collectively. Naturally, in order to become widespread, they need to support a large population of hosts, however they can be 'aggressive' in a sense in that they can cause aggression in hosts that to do have that particular "memotype" imprinted, or have a similar, but competing one imprinted. Conflicts between people on the basis of religion, politics, or other seemingly superficial basis in the absence of a direct need based on mainly genetic-based needs (such as territory, resources, etc.) could be examples of this. (note: in biological entities, genetic and memetic "imperatives" likely interact in interesting, and likely conflicting ways, and could help explain why humans exhibit behavior that cannot be well-explained in terms of biological-genetic survival or otherwise appear to not make sense. It would be interesting to note how an electronic entity, devoid of genetic and biochemical drives would behave based solely on memetic influences (or others that could emerge in or with such a mind), or to examine the behaviour of "lower" animals in terms of the memes and memetic processes they are able to deal with relative to their brain structures and sizes).
10. Memes can incorporate host entities as part of their structure, with different host entities contributing (to) 'parts' of a greater superstructure (e.g. social entities/structures).
11. Memes can be expressed in different ways and forms.
For example, memes may be expressed through behavior (e.g. social and economic activity), physically (e.g. "unicorns" can be considered a meme, and they can be expressed via writing or drawing). Memes can use other memes to get themselves expressed and transmitted (writing/language is a powerful example of this, involving behavioral and more 'physical' types of memes and media . (behavior is also a 'physical' expression, however as it mainly involves human action (us doing something) that doesn't always result in a persistent external 'thing' being made, it can be non-obvious to most)).
12. Physical expressions of memes are not the memes themselves, but representations of the memetic patterns.
Strictly speaking, the actual meme is the memetic pattern which defines it, apart from the physical mode of its expression (defining this clearly is a bit dicey for me, however the concept is clear in my mind - it's expressing that's the issue). In my view, the only expression where a meme can be considered as "real" or "operative" is neural structure in a brain upon which it is imprinted, and even this is not 'written in stone', but is subject to change and evolution over time. Other physical expressions are subject to "error" or variation (mutation) in expression, transmission, and perception when taken up by another mind, and is further subject to change based on the nature/qualities of the memetic structures already existing in the mind taking up the meme in question. Memes are not 'active' or 'operant' until/unless its pattern is taken up into and can become effectual within a mind. A memetic expression is sort of like the 'container' or 'vehicle' used by the meme for transmission/uptake between minds.
13. Memes are structures minds use to interact with and 'understand' the world.
They help create, reinforce, and/or define the various types of structures, or context (local/global, etc.), within our minds needed for this interaction and understanding. Everything we see or perceive is represented to us in our minds as a meme or in terms of memes. Although "transparent" to us (because of the memetic substrate upon which we think), memes represent the 'objects' or 'entities' we perceive in the world in a way in which we can think about or understand them. In a sense, reality 'for us' is composed of memes, not the actual entities they represent. Memes are as 'perfect' or 'complete' as our understanding is about them. It is via memes that 'we' (as a species) can obtain, share, and retain information about the world.
14. Memes are NOT metaphysical - they require some form of physical substrate to exist.
Even though it's been stated that memes are not the physical expressions (except perhaps the memetic patterns imprinted in a brain), they are dependent upon physical reality for their existence, whether as neural patterns within a brain or some 'container' used for expression and transmission to/between minds, be it in the form of a type of behavior or some physical object. Absent of brains or the physical expressions containing an imprinted memetic pattern caused by entities with brains, there are no memes or memetic patterns. This point must be better explained, reinforced, and understood lest it become the basis for some form of 'memetic spirituality', which would be, I feel, a serious and dangerous impediment to a deeper, fuller, and more accurate understanding of the subject - and how we go about "using" it to understand ourselves and our world.
15. Memes can be of different types in several senses.
Memes can be simple or complex. Memes can represent things from "real" entities that are/have been actualized in reality to fictional entities and ideas that cannot possibly be actualized, and anything we can 'think of' in between. Classification of memes and memetic structures is a job unto itself, however it's clear that there must be different types and categories of memes. Due to the way memes can combine, however, this can be a difficult task, and I suspect will lend itself to only generalized descriptions and categories. This is something I won't tackle too much in detail here, but make (another) note of it here for future consideration.
16. All memes replicate.
Even if to very limited and/or simple degrees, or in non-obvious contexts; the fact that two entities can communicate with each other effectively demonstrates this. Every time a meme is expressed or an object with a memetic pattern imprinted on it is copied, it is replicated, more or less accurately. A popular CD bring printed and sold by the millions is a form of replication. A recording on a CD being played over a PA system heard by many people at once is another (in the form of the sound waves emitted and heard by the audience). A piece of gossip heard and passed on is another example, as is some action that is watched and mimicked by another (the transmission forms being the action of the first actor and the pattern of light waves that bring the image of this action to the watcher). Each step in every mode of transmission causes another copy of the meme to be reproduced, with varying degrees of accuracy. Memes do not 'move' - only copies of memetic patterns expressed in different forms are created and imprinted at subsequent steps in the transmission process.
COMMENTS
- an understanding of memes is useful in communicating with entities between which there are no common languages; e.g. some memes may be more or less 'universal' or at least common among certain phenotypes. This, I believe, is demonstrated in our abilities to communicate with certain animals, with the ease or difficulty related directly to the complexity of the memes that the entities are able to mutually comprehend or deal with, e.g. the differences in the types (and complexity) of the memes that are 'relevant' to them.
MEMETIC STUCTURES
Memes likely exist in, take on, or can be categorized by various structures. I suspect this in part hierarchical, and with both "horizontal" and "vertical" hierarchies (or categories) created.
Memes can subsume and be subsumed by other memes of lesser or greater complexity and 'size', however there are probably also "rules" which would govern this (the simplest type being that poorly integrated structures would not be very 'fit' as a whole, and hence "die off". This would imply a structure with various "levels", with simpler or more fundamental memes being at or near the center, and more complex structures (even composed of other, simpler memes linked in various ways) being layered over them (perhaps even with some 'parts' (or memes) sharing some common parts). I am not sure if the analogous structure to use here for illustration should be an onion, a ball of twine, a bowl of spaghetti, or even a rainbow - but since we're combining memes, and they lend themselves to it, why not combine all four? I bet we'd be closer with that than any other single description.
Or completely off base. Someone smarter than me will have an answer, I'm sure.
I used a number of terms in the text above - I'll clarify here what I mean by them:
meme - the conceptual entity defined by a memetic pattern - this is NOT identical to a thing a meme may represent (e.g. a family or a given song), but more the conceptualized version of such a thing. Memes are "how we think" - they constitute the patterns in our brains that give rise to mind and thought.
memetic pattern - the pattern itself that gets encoded in a brain, in a vehicle (an action, a book, a grouping of people for some purpose, etc.), or in a transmission medium (e.g. the light reflected from a page in a book to the retina of one's eye and the neural signal transmitted from the retina to the brain).
meme-variant - a variation of a meme that is close, but sufficiently different from an 'original' meme so that it can be perceived as a different meme. Normally it would differ mainly in superficial ways (e.g. the Episcopal Church would be a meme-variant of the Catholic Church) and retain many or most of the qualities of the ancestor meme.
memeplex - a complex meme (or memetic structure) that subsumes other memes. Most memes are also memeplexes, being strictly specific, however for effective usage, I would re-define the term generally as a collection of memes used to define/create a larger meme. A religion could be a "memeplex", for example. Or a science or an art. Essentially, it is a relative term indicating a meme that subsumes or consists of other 'memetic components'.
meme-base - meme-bases are "stable" (highly fit/adaptive) memes and meme-variants with, upon, or around which more complex memes are made.
memetic component - a meme (or set of memes) that is a part of (subsumed by) a memeplex.
vessel/vehicle - a physical expression upon which a memetic pattern is imprinted for transmission between minds.
memetic replication cycle - the process through which a meme goes from creation/imprinting of the memetic pattern in one mind through its expression, transmission, perception, and imprinting in another mind.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Commentary: Re-fried Memes
// STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION \\
.
Memes. Memeplex. Memetics.
Fashionable bafflegab to allow pseudo-intellectuals to talk "intelligently" about things they don't really understand, or a useful context to examine complicated, difficult-to-pin-down ideas and concepts related to cognitive functions and social behaviours?
To be honest, I've not yet made up my mind. On one hand, it certainly seems to be bafflegab in the wrong hands, and very dangerous bafflegab if the baffled gabbers actually believe they understand it.
On the other hand, however, it does have a certain sense of "rightness" to it in some ways, and certainly seems to fit the some of the uses it's put to, at least in certain contexts. At the very least, it sort of makes what can be very slippery subjects more manageable and understandable, and even seems to allow aspects of cognition and social behaviour that were previously hard to 'connect' to be put into a context in which that can be made to fit together in some way - at least for the purposes of a given context, if not more broadly and deeply.
So, I guess it really comes down to who's "using" it and for what ends.
Personally, I think it's an important idea, and whether or not it ultimately turns out to be "right" (if it even can be ultimately determined or usefully considered as "right" or "wrong"), it is certainly a useful tool for examining a number of important phenomena from new perspectives, and allows them to be looked at, in many cases, in relation to each other to varying degrees as well.
I have a running debate with a friend as to the 'validity' of the ideas behind memetics; he takes the idea very seriously and feels it's the "right" way to look at the things it deals with. I take the view (at least for now) that it's merely a "useful" way to look at things. Personally, I am not convinced - yet - that it's essentially "right" in any way. While it does have a certain attractiveness AND seems effective in some ways, I do have issues that I have found hard to express verbally, although mentally/conceptually, they are pretty clear for me. I'll try to do a better job here of expressing those reservations; in fact, part of the purpose of this commentary IS for -me- to work through -my- thoughts on the topic and find an effective way for -me- to think about memetics, and the plusses and minuses as I see 'em.
For those of you unfamiliar with the topic, well, you're probably thinking about stopping reading this about now (even if you haven't already, otherwise you'd not be reading this). For those of you who are expert on the topic, what I have to say probably will do little for you, and likely you'll soon determine that what I say here is not substantive enough for you to bother with. This is for those of you who are interested in the subject, recognize you're not an expert on it, and are interested in whatever you can find on the subject that that could provide some perspective that you haven't considered yet.
Or not. Caveat Lector: Your risk, your decision. ;o)
Okay now...so, a quick review...
Memetics is often defined as "...an approach to evolutionary models of information transfer based on the concept of the meme." It generally has to do with certain cognitive functions and social behaviours, and largely placed in a "human" context when discussed (although I think that if it is a scientifically valid concept, then the supercontext should really be more broad in certain ways (eg. the concept can be, at least generally, applicable in many contexts), and I'll try to touch on that later).
A "meme" is essentially a "unit of information" (in memetic terms). Although the general idea has been around a while, the author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme" (as sort of the informational analog to "gene"), and used it to mean things such as: "...tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothes fashions, ways of making pots, or of building arches."
Memes, in this view are "replicators" and subject to evolution and selection pressures much in the same way genes are, albeit with the pressures and environments in which they function being very different. Successful memes spread, unsuccessful ones don't.
Sounds really neat, doesn't it? Seems to make sense, too.
Yep.
But there are issues. Some of them arise from memes:genes analogy itself - certain aspects could be misinterpreted too 'strongly', perhaps, or not in 'quite the right' way. Some arise from the basic ideas, though, and assumptions made about them (memes and the things they represent, or express) that may or may not be 'valid', or at least not 'proveable'. And then, there are certain fundamental questions that need, in my view, to at least be asked - and either answered, or the questions shown to be irrelevant (note: SHOWN, not just 'asserted' to be).
For example, what IS a "meme"? What's it made of? How do we know one when we see one, especially a new one, or new "type" of meme? How do we tell one from another, especially in composite memes (memeplexes)? We know what "genes" are, and what they are made of, or at least pretty much "think" we do...
Very simply, genes are chains of four basic nucleotides (or nucleobases) the encode genetic information for biological organizms. The nucleotides cannot be thrown together in just 'any' order - to qualify as a gene, arrangement (order and structure) is important. So, essentially, genes are biological constructs that encode information. What information do they encode? Well, basically, they encode the information required to replicate themselves; hence, they are called "replicators".
We'll not get into the complex processes involved here - a high-level view is enough for now. But one observation is worth noting: it's not hard to see now how Dawkins, himself an evolutionary biologist, could come up with this way of describing the ideas involved here. He's already quite well disposed to looking at things from an "evolutionary" point of view, and on this point, I'm certainly in tune with his thinking here: I also see evolution as a principle that's expressed in many ways at ALL levels of structure, organization, and complexity; there's certainly no reason why it SHOULDN'T be found in cognitive processes and social behaviour (itself an expression of cognition, in any case).
(I'm also pretty sure he's quite pleased with himself in having played a key role in creating, or at least promoting, a "meme" that's become pretty successful itself!)
So, we have been told that memes are "replicators". But how does this replication work? What, exactly, is being "replicated"? Where does this replication happen, and what processes are at work? Here is one area where things begin to get dicey, I think; at least from a scientific, or at least empirical, point of view...
Genes exist in the "physical" world. They are molecules made up of atoms, and they undergo various chemical reactions to do what they do. Essentially, provided there are the materials at hand to continue doing what they do, i.e. energy and the necessary molecules needed to replicate, they keep on going. When those things are not availble, they don't. Essentially, this means that if whatever entity/organism the gene 'belonged' to was "successful" (either the original or offspring alive and metabolising), then the materials needed to replicate would be available and it could continue to replicate. If the the materials were not available, essentially, that means lack of success (at least for that individual organizm) and replication ceases. Hopefully, success continues to outweigh failures and many organisms survive to reproduce.
Evolution happens when changes to the genetic code occurs - generally through various random processes or causes (which do happen fairly frequently) - and the resulting change in genetic expression confers some survival advantage to the organism (more accurately, its offspring) within its environment. Most changes in genetic code have little, if any, result in this sense - not all genetic code is 'expressive'. Some is also "regulatory", some is "archival" (old, unused portions), and some is for other purposes. And of the changes that do get expressed, not all will have an impact on the survivability of the organism, although if the organism IS successful, of course other traits it has, regardless of their fitness impact, will also be passed on. (Of course there are changes, or mutations, that do have an unfavorable impact, but presumably (usually), they affect the survival (or at least the odds of reproduction) for the organism involved, and don't get passed on.) But anyway - the short answer is that evolution of a species requires both numbers (of reproducing individuals) and time (so that a large enough number of reproductions (replications) can occur) for evolutionary changes to occur.
But what, really, IS the replicator? We know it's not really the organism itself; that's more an expression of the gene, and serves as a vehicle that's 'used' to promote replication, essentially. So, is the replicator the "gene" itself, or the pattern (information) encoded within the gene? My position is that it's the pattern, and in a sense, the idea of memes supports that idea. What is needed is a mechanism for a pattern to be encoded, preserved, and "passed on". Genes are encoded in physical constructs - arrangments of nucleotides (molecules) - made up of molecules, etc. Memes, however, are a bit different. You could look at them as being encoded in songs, books, manuals, stories, and modes of behaviour, but all these are really just sort of temporary "vehicles" to facilitate the preservation and transmission of the memetic patterns. The pattern itself gets embedded in our minds, and that's where it becomes active and important - that's how it gets 'expressed' in real terms.
But can a pattern really "exist" in some non-physical sense apart from the the structure in which it's encoded? Sure, we like to think in terms of 'abstraction' and so on, however we can't even think "abstractly" without a physical substrate for both the thought processes and the information involved. Any pattern, it seems to be, is really a relationship between physical entities/structures/processes, and without this physical underpinning, no 'pattern' - abstract or otherwise - can possibly exist. Even if you can 'encode', say, the "idea" of something in many ways, is this merely the creation of copies of some original "idea" (with varying degrees of completely/accuracy), or is it truly a case of some idea-pattern transcending physical dependency?
Is there some "memetic" code? I think, so far, that's not been determined, and although one would tend to think there should be, perhaps it's carrying the analogy too far. Or is it? Information is encoded in SOME way. It HAS to be for it to be percieved and transmitted between individuals. And it has to be encoded in some consistent, and potentially (or just possibly) universally intelligible way, too (remember the comment above about non-human contexts?). Can there be different ways to encode memes, or the information carried by them? In other words, are memes and/or memetic structures able to encoded via different methods and still retain their "integrity" as memes?
Can a given meme be encoded in very different ways (with very different sets of "nucleobases" or "alphabets") and transmitted (or even stored) via and within different methods and media? Or do these things somehow also contribute to the integrity/consistency of the meme itself in some way, and how it is transmitted and evolves?
In one way, language can be seen as serving as the 'code' for this, however, language itself can be considered as a meme as well. So, to me, what this implies are 'levels' of encoding at work here, levels "below" language. So, while we can point to language as a means of encoding (some subset of, or some types of?) memes at one level, there has to be something more fundamental that underpins the language meme. Also, there are clearly some memes that do appear to be "language specific/dependent", while others seem to be free of this dependency, with language serving mainly as a convenient vehicle to more easily describe/transmit/store them. So then - do memes and genes exist in some way separately from the 'language' that describes them and the media that stores them and through which they propagate? Or is that where we begin to 'reach' a bit?
In what "space" do memes exist? Is it so that we cannot really "see" them; we can only see their expression or some 'representation' of them? Or are these "expressions" and "representations" actually in some way copies (or replications) of the meme itself?
Now, don't misunderstand me here; I'm quite capable of accepting and grokking memes as mental abstrations. In fact, in many ways I prefer to. But let's take an example. Let's take a tune, for example...
I select for this example the tune "Battle Hymn of the Republic" as an example of a successful meme. It's existed for a long time, and has a powerful effect on those who hear it, but with the nature and degree of the effect varying based on the context it's 'experienced' in and the person it's being experienced by. As a work of music, it's encoded both in musical notation and human language (lyrics). However, it's percieved by a person as sounds - music and voices (language) which are then stored in the brain. Anyone who's heard a good rendition of the tune (let's say, by Jim Nabors, for example), can attest that it has a powerful emotional effect on a person - even if you're not particularly religious. The tune's construction, musically and emotionally, hits a person at several levels...
// STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION \\
These are, for me, interesting questions - and it's not just the obvious answers to some of them that makes them interesting, but the fact that it seems these ARE 'valid' questions and they DO seem to have answers - and are interesting to think about.
.
Memes. Memeplex. Memetics.
Fashionable bafflegab to allow pseudo-intellectuals to talk "intelligently" about things they don't really understand, or a useful context to examine complicated, difficult-to-pin-down ideas and concepts related to cognitive functions and social behaviours?
To be honest, I've not yet made up my mind. On one hand, it certainly seems to be bafflegab in the wrong hands, and very dangerous bafflegab if the baffled gabbers actually believe they understand it.
On the other hand, however, it does have a certain sense of "rightness" to it in some ways, and certainly seems to fit the some of the uses it's put to, at least in certain contexts. At the very least, it sort of makes what can be very slippery subjects more manageable and understandable, and even seems to allow aspects of cognition and social behaviour that were previously hard to 'connect' to be put into a context in which that can be made to fit together in some way - at least for the purposes of a given context, if not more broadly and deeply.
So, I guess it really comes down to who's "using" it and for what ends.
Personally, I think it's an important idea, and whether or not it ultimately turns out to be "right" (if it even can be ultimately determined or usefully considered as "right" or "wrong"), it is certainly a useful tool for examining a number of important phenomena from new perspectives, and allows them to be looked at, in many cases, in relation to each other to varying degrees as well.
I have a running debate with a friend as to the 'validity' of the ideas behind memetics; he takes the idea very seriously and feels it's the "right" way to look at the things it deals with. I take the view (at least for now) that it's merely a "useful" way to look at things. Personally, I am not convinced - yet - that it's essentially "right" in any way. While it does have a certain attractiveness AND seems effective in some ways, I do have issues that I have found hard to express verbally, although mentally/conceptually, they are pretty clear for me. I'll try to do a better job here of expressing those reservations; in fact, part of the purpose of this commentary IS for -me- to work through -my- thoughts on the topic and find an effective way for -me- to think about memetics, and the plusses and minuses as I see 'em.
For those of you unfamiliar with the topic, well, you're probably thinking about stopping reading this about now (even if you haven't already, otherwise you'd not be reading this). For those of you who are expert on the topic, what I have to say probably will do little for you, and likely you'll soon determine that what I say here is not substantive enough for you to bother with. This is for those of you who are interested in the subject, recognize you're not an expert on it, and are interested in whatever you can find on the subject that that could provide some perspective that you haven't considered yet.
Or not. Caveat Lector: Your risk, your decision. ;o)
Okay now...so, a quick review...
Memetics is often defined as "...an approach to evolutionary models of information transfer based on the concept of the meme." It generally has to do with certain cognitive functions and social behaviours, and largely placed in a "human" context when discussed (although I think that if it is a scientifically valid concept, then the supercontext should really be more broad in certain ways (eg. the concept can be, at least generally, applicable in many contexts), and I'll try to touch on that later).
A "meme" is essentially a "unit of information" (in memetic terms). Although the general idea has been around a while, the author and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme" (as sort of the informational analog to "gene"), and used it to mean things such as: "...tunes, catch-phrases, beliefs, clothes fashions, ways of making pots, or of building arches."
Memes, in this view are "replicators" and subject to evolution and selection pressures much in the same way genes are, albeit with the pressures and environments in which they function being very different. Successful memes spread, unsuccessful ones don't.
Sounds really neat, doesn't it? Seems to make sense, too.
Yep.
But there are issues. Some of them arise from memes:genes analogy itself - certain aspects could be misinterpreted too 'strongly', perhaps, or not in 'quite the right' way. Some arise from the basic ideas, though, and assumptions made about them (memes and the things they represent, or express) that may or may not be 'valid', or at least not 'proveable'. And then, there are certain fundamental questions that need, in my view, to at least be asked - and either answered, or the questions shown to be irrelevant (note: SHOWN, not just 'asserted' to be).
For example, what IS a "meme"? What's it made of? How do we know one when we see one, especially a new one, or new "type" of meme? How do we tell one from another, especially in composite memes (memeplexes)? We know what "genes" are, and what they are made of, or at least pretty much "think" we do...
Very simply, genes are chains of four basic nucleotides (or nucleobases) the encode genetic information for biological organizms. The nucleotides cannot be thrown together in just 'any' order - to qualify as a gene, arrangement (order and structure) is important. So, essentially, genes are biological constructs that encode information. What information do they encode? Well, basically, they encode the information required to replicate themselves; hence, they are called "replicators".
We'll not get into the complex processes involved here - a high-level view is enough for now. But one observation is worth noting: it's not hard to see now how Dawkins, himself an evolutionary biologist, could come up with this way of describing the ideas involved here. He's already quite well disposed to looking at things from an "evolutionary" point of view, and on this point, I'm certainly in tune with his thinking here: I also see evolution as a principle that's expressed in many ways at ALL levels of structure, organization, and complexity; there's certainly no reason why it SHOULDN'T be found in cognitive processes and social behaviour (itself an expression of cognition, in any case).
(I'm also pretty sure he's quite pleased with himself in having played a key role in creating, or at least promoting, a "meme" that's become pretty successful itself!)
So, we have been told that memes are "replicators". But how does this replication work? What, exactly, is being "replicated"? Where does this replication happen, and what processes are at work? Here is one area where things begin to get dicey, I think; at least from a scientific, or at least empirical, point of view...
Genes exist in the "physical" world. They are molecules made up of atoms, and they undergo various chemical reactions to do what they do. Essentially, provided there are the materials at hand to continue doing what they do, i.e. energy and the necessary molecules needed to replicate, they keep on going. When those things are not availble, they don't. Essentially, this means that if whatever entity/organism the gene 'belonged' to was "successful" (either the original or offspring alive and metabolising), then the materials needed to replicate would be available and it could continue to replicate. If the the materials were not available, essentially, that means lack of success (at least for that individual organizm) and replication ceases. Hopefully, success continues to outweigh failures and many organisms survive to reproduce.
Evolution happens when changes to the genetic code occurs - generally through various random processes or causes (which do happen fairly frequently) - and the resulting change in genetic expression confers some survival advantage to the organism (more accurately, its offspring) within its environment. Most changes in genetic code have little, if any, result in this sense - not all genetic code is 'expressive'. Some is also "regulatory", some is "archival" (old, unused portions), and some is for other purposes. And of the changes that do get expressed, not all will have an impact on the survivability of the organism, although if the organism IS successful, of course other traits it has, regardless of their fitness impact, will also be passed on. (Of course there are changes, or mutations, that do have an unfavorable impact, but presumably (usually), they affect the survival (or at least the odds of reproduction) for the organism involved, and don't get passed on.) But anyway - the short answer is that evolution of a species requires both numbers (of reproducing individuals) and time (so that a large enough number of reproductions (replications) can occur) for evolutionary changes to occur.
But what, really, IS the replicator? We know it's not really the organism itself; that's more an expression of the gene, and serves as a vehicle that's 'used' to promote replication, essentially. So, is the replicator the "gene" itself, or the pattern (information) encoded within the gene? My position is that it's the pattern, and in a sense, the idea of memes supports that idea. What is needed is a mechanism for a pattern to be encoded, preserved, and "passed on". Genes are encoded in physical constructs - arrangments of nucleotides (molecules) - made up of molecules, etc. Memes, however, are a bit different. You could look at them as being encoded in songs, books, manuals, stories, and modes of behaviour, but all these are really just sort of temporary "vehicles" to facilitate the preservation and transmission of the memetic patterns. The pattern itself gets embedded in our minds, and that's where it becomes active and important - that's how it gets 'expressed' in real terms.
But can a pattern really "exist" in some non-physical sense apart from the the structure in which it's encoded? Sure, we like to think in terms of 'abstraction' and so on, however we can't even think "abstractly" without a physical substrate for both the thought processes and the information involved. Any pattern, it seems to be, is really a relationship between physical entities/structures/processes, and without this physical underpinning, no 'pattern' - abstract or otherwise - can possibly exist. Even if you can 'encode', say, the "idea" of something in many ways, is this merely the creation of copies of some original "idea" (with varying degrees of completely/accuracy), or is it truly a case of some idea-pattern transcending physical dependency?
Is there some "memetic" code? I think, so far, that's not been determined, and although one would tend to think there should be, perhaps it's carrying the analogy too far. Or is it? Information is encoded in SOME way. It HAS to be for it to be percieved and transmitted between individuals. And it has to be encoded in some consistent, and potentially (or just possibly) universally intelligible way, too (remember the comment above about non-human contexts?). Can there be different ways to encode memes, or the information carried by them? In other words, are memes and/or memetic structures able to encoded via different methods and still retain their "integrity" as memes?
Can a given meme be encoded in very different ways (with very different sets of "nucleobases" or "alphabets") and transmitted (or even stored) via and within different methods and media? Or do these things somehow also contribute to the integrity/consistency of the meme itself in some way, and how it is transmitted and evolves?
In one way, language can be seen as serving as the 'code' for this, however, language itself can be considered as a meme as well. So, to me, what this implies are 'levels' of encoding at work here, levels "below" language. So, while we can point to language as a means of encoding (some subset of, or some types of?) memes at one level, there has to be something more fundamental that underpins the language meme. Also, there are clearly some memes that do appear to be "language specific/dependent", while others seem to be free of this dependency, with language serving mainly as a convenient vehicle to more easily describe/transmit/store them. So then - do memes and genes exist in some way separately from the 'language' that describes them and the media that stores them and through which they propagate? Or is that where we begin to 'reach' a bit?
In what "space" do memes exist? Is it so that we cannot really "see" them; we can only see their expression or some 'representation' of them? Or are these "expressions" and "representations" actually in some way copies (or replications) of the meme itself?
Now, don't misunderstand me here; I'm quite capable of accepting and grokking memes as mental abstrations. In fact, in many ways I prefer to. But let's take an example. Let's take a tune, for example...
I select for this example the tune "Battle Hymn of the Republic" as an example of a successful meme. It's existed for a long time, and has a powerful effect on those who hear it, but with the nature and degree of the effect varying based on the context it's 'experienced' in and the person it's being experienced by. As a work of music, it's encoded both in musical notation and human language (lyrics). However, it's percieved by a person as sounds - music and voices (language) which are then stored in the brain. Anyone who's heard a good rendition of the tune (let's say, by Jim Nabors, for example), can attest that it has a powerful emotional effect on a person - even if you're not particularly religious. The tune's construction, musically and emotionally, hits a person at several levels...
// STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION \\
These are, for me, interesting questions - and it's not just the obvious answers to some of them that makes them interesting, but the fact that it seems these ARE 'valid' questions and they DO seem to have answers - and are interesting to think about.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Commentary: The Voice of the Universe
.
I think heard God speak a few years ago.
Not "god" in the Judeo-Christian or Muslim sense, nor even to me, at least not directly. But there is, I feel, a message being delivered by "something" powerful to all people who can and are willing see it. And I'm not talking about some mystical "voice from heaven" booming from the sky, either.
Not at all.
In fact, it came in the form of a blonde wraith with an angelic voice singing a song that had lyrics with such a profound meaning that I had to wonder: could the human author of those words really have such a deep and powerful understanding of the world as the one expressed in that song? Or did - somehow - this "force" manage to get itself expressed in such a way as it could be percieved and understood by those who may be able to recieve it? If the latter, could it have been a 'concious' effort, or is it simply "inevitable" - something that was bound to happen sooner or later, almost by "accident"?
I don't know.
All I DO know is that the message is there, and clear as a bell for those with the background knowledge and understanding of certain things to be able to easily decrypt it, and a willingness to "hear" such a message to begin with. Or, at least I think it is...
Don't get me wrong, here. I am NO mystic by any means. I am not into this "New Age" bullshit. I believe that for something to be true, it should make some sense in some way in relation to other 'true' things. And, in a wierd way, this does, and also in some ways, it turns some things I hold to be true updside down, while at the same time reinforcing others. I haven't let go of them, but I do admit to be being a bit taken aback, and forced to look at things somehow differently in some ways.
The "force" I am talking about is not, in my view, some ethereal intelligent, all-knowing awareness. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I'm talking about what most people call the "evolutionary algorithm'. However in my way of thinking, that 'algorithm' is simply the mathematical description of something more 'vague' or 'general' that I call the 'evolutionary principle' - the principle that allows for, even forces, change to occur in this world, and that this change leads inexorably to increasing complexity (decreases in entropy) in "local" systems on a scale that converges somewhere near the middle between the largest (cosmic) scales and the smallest (atomic to Planck) scales.
I also not suggesting that this force is 'consciously' directed by some "intelligence'. Rather, I think it's a natural property, emergent from the fundamental characteristics of nature, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics and the properties of matter and energy, and, in some way, is also somehow responsible for them, in the sense that these characteristics ARE the result of the earliest stages of the evolution of the universe. For me, this is perhaps one way to define 'god', if one needs to define something as such; it's the fundamental driver of change change and complexity in the universe and makes everything - from heavy metals to Heavy Metal - possible.
Most people look at "evolution" as the process that governs how biological life changes over time, or evolves. Generally, life is the only context it's even considered in. But in reality, there is no dividing line between "life" and "non-life" in the universe. That's an arbitrary disctinction that we give to systems that exhibit certain qualities that we specify, and even there, we have certain problems in demarcating the line between life and non-life when we get down to the lower ends of the life chain. Things like viruses and prions, for example, raise the question of whether or not they are 'alive'. Some even go so far as to say that the nucleic acids are essentially 'alive'. Basically, in the "spectrum" of processes and systems through which the evolutionary principle is expressed, biological life is just one part of it.
What we call 'life' is really just a very complicated system of non-living components. We have to conciously try to keep in mind that 'life' is a human distinction, and that what we call biology is just one context in which evolution can be expressed. However, let's not make the mistake of over-generalizing, either; the degree of complexity involved in what we call 'life' is an important stage in evolution, and I'll come back to why that is so shortly. But in essence, life is really just a set of emergent qualities arising from systems of systems built upon layer upon layers of change and complexity that have been 'evolving' over billions of years through a combination of the laws of physics and what basically amounts to 'luck'. A direct line can be traced not just back to the earliest life forms on earth, but back to the very origins of the universe itself.
You can see evolution expressed in many ways. The 'universe' has evolved and continues to evolve from the Big Bang onwards. Matter and energy 'evolved', with protons, neutrons, electrons, and all the other "elementary particles" being built up of simpler particles, themselves constructed of even smaller parts that we have yet to fully understand, that condensed out of the hot soup that was expelled from the initial singularity at the time of the Big Bang.
Not all evolutionary "lines" need be long or complex, stars are not going to evolve into something more than they already are. However, they DO lay the foundation of and become components themselves of further evolutionary systems to be built on top of them, and this can even happen in different ways. Matter was formed with certain inherent characteristics that allow for change and emergent complexity, even starting with a relatively limited set of materials having a limited number of qualities. In fact, the vast majority of matter created in the early universe consisted of only hydrogen and some helium.
It took further steps for the other elements necessary to our existence to be created, such as carbon, oxygen, iron, and the rest. These elements were formed in the heart of stars through nuclear fusion, itself only possible through the fact that hydrogen and helium, being matter, have a property called "mass" and therefore have gravity. Without gravity, the first stars could not have formed out of the primordial hydrogen, nor could the nuclear fusion required for the transormation of hydrogen and helium into all the other elements we know be started, lighting the furnaces that essentially were the foundries in which all the components necessary for complexity - and life - were forged.
This is amazing.
Chemistry, and hence biology, would not be possible without this evolutionary step. to have more to think about, even that is not 'enough', though. Without elementary particles having a property known as 'charge' (itself one of the properties stamped on the elementary particles during the Big Bang), even chemistry, dependent upon the positive and negative charges of atoms, would not exist.
But it does.
And it is chemistry which allows atoms to combine in myriad ways as molecules, the building blocks of the everyday matter-based objects and systems we see around us: water, rocks, and so forth. Of course, just having 'matter' doesn't allow for chemistry or biology to happen. You need also something to "instigate" it: energy. Luckily, that's also provided for. Light is one form. Heat is another. Kinetic energy - movement - is also another. The fact that different forms of energy can be converted into one or the other is also important.
Anyway...moving on - starting from this level and moving up, it becomes clear that the Universe is an amazing construct. Many different aspects of it combine to generate the sorts of change that allow for increasing complexity at many levels in many ways, each of which in turn allows for more further 'up'. The atoms of the various elements can combine in different ways - in understood and specific ways - to create more complex molecules, and so on.
Water, for example, is one composed of hydrogen and oxygen. Iron and other elements can combine to create other materials. Eventually, this type of "inorganic chemistry" leads to another, more complex one: organic chemistry, through which the molecules required for what we call "life" are built up.
When you look at a planetary system like our own Solar System, you see a fairly complex system that is the result of billions of years of evolution, even at this scale. There is structure and complexity there, though to be sure, of a rudimentary and gross kind - at least at the planetary scale. There are many forms of energy at work keeping things 'going' - heat, light, kinetic energy, etc. There are complex organic and inorganic materials there in various forms. And such planetary systems themselves allow for more complex degree of evolution to occur within them at another scale and degree of complexity - life.
I don't know if there are some sets of conditions in which life (or something similar enough to it in certain ways so that we could generally call it 'life), can exist outside of a solar system, but I tend to think not. Of the things necessary for the evolution from organic molecules to what we call 'life', some important 'ingredients' are needed, such as time, different types of energy within certain 'ranges' as to type and quantity, and an environment with some 'mix' of stability and enough 'elbow room' for incremental change to occur without drastic changes frequently 'wiping the slate clean'. Such systems are hard to find outside of a planet with the right composition and conditions located in an orbit around a star within certain parameters. Other environments generally seem to be too choatic and unstable or too homogenous. Some have too much energy, some too little.
Very few seem to be 'just right'.
Once such a situation exists, however, I feel pretty certain that the evolutionary processes that can lead to life will proceed and, given time, will eventually lead systems that we'd call "life". In fact, I think it's inevitable, given the right conditions and time: it's all based on the laws of physics, and the same laws operate everywhere all the time.
I further believe that - at least at the 'lower levels', life in one system would resemble life in most any other, much as our solar system likely remembles one in any other except perhaps in certain details like the number, types, and sizes of planets, and their orbits, for example. Variety can only vary (increase) so much at a given degree of complexity in structural possibilities.
This means that life in other places could be (and in my opinion is most likely) based on nucleic acids, or perhaps on different but very similar molecules with a similar purpose, and if so, then you have your viruses and prions and perhaps even bacteria and simple plant life being very similar from planet to planet, all else being 'equal' (or close). While it's very unlikely that life would evolve exactly as it has on earth - there are far too many variables involved - there would be perhaps similar stages of evolution and similar solutions found to various environmental problems.
Just look at the variety of life on earth - millions of species in most any environment possible. Still, all have certain similarities, and some due not simply to relation through direct genetic lineage. Many are due to environmental influences on evolution across species, with different species working out similar solutions to the same environmental problems: fins to get around in water, legs on land, and wings in the air, for example. Fish and dolphins have fins, bats and birds their wings, and so on.
I'm not going to get into a discourse here on Darwin's work on the evolution of species - all of this has led up to a conclusion I've reached in a slightly different context, and that is that evolution is a 'force' or 'principle' of the universe that is created by and expressed through the very structure of the universe itself and what it's made of. It began at the Beginning and continues on up through every level of structure and complexity that exists. It's unavoidable and inexorable. It's everywhere, all the time. I will say, however, that Darwin, Dawkins, and Stanovich are pretty close, but their context is too limited; genetics, and even memetics, are only a couple of contexts in which evolution is at work...
And it continues to work.
Is all change 'evolution'? Well, that's hard to say. I would say that generally all change is (or can be) a PART of evolution. The water cycle - where liquid water evaporates to water vapor through being heated, rises into the air, cools, condenses back into a liquid and falls to the gruond as rain would not be considered 'evolution' by most people. But it CAN be seen as a system, or process, that has arisen THROUGH evolution (let's remember that most elements and their properties are the result OF evolution!) and is important TO evolution at other levels or in other systems.
Or take a few other examples...
Knives, for example, have evolved over time. Cars have evolved. Look at them - from the earliest stone-flake knives on up through the huge variety of them available today. Your Model-T up through the modern F1 racer or passenger car or 18-wheelers of today. Then take a look at the famous picture illustrating the evolution of Man, from the early australopithecines up through modern Home Sapiens. I don't think you can say that is evolution, but the others are not, simply because one occured through 'nature' and the others are 'man-made'. Look close - the Evolutionary Principle is there, if you care to see it, and not just metaphorically or analogously...
...which brings me back to my earlier point about why 'biology' is an important step IN evolution. Biology allows for the creation of systems that can be ACTIVE agents OF evolution, agents that can participate in the process - and even direct it. This seems perfectly logical to me - an almost inescapable conclusion, in many ways, if you think about it. We, for example, as 'agents of evolution', participate in and direct the evolution of many types of systems ourselves: our technology and social structures, for example, all 'evolve' through us. It's also very possible we're more involved there than we may know or want to be in evolution; in creating computers and - eventually - artificial intelligence, are we perhaps creating our successors at the 'pinnacle' of evolution - that of the evolution of intelligence in the universe?
I've now reached a point in this line of thought where it can branch off into a few other directions that I don't have time to get into just now (but probably will later). This discussion started with a message in the lyrics of a song...
Given what I've said above, and assuming - simplistically as I've put it - that it's somewhat close to 'correct', then I think it's hard to miss the message embodied in the below lyrics. Yes, you can limit the the context to a 'genetic' one, but I see it as also valid in the more broad, general sense I describe above.
And that's also where my question comes from - is the writer of the lyrics intentionally expressing the above idea - even if in the limited genetic context a la Darwin and Dawkins - or was he meaning to express something else - perhaps a people's cultural heritage - and it just "seems" like there's a deeper meaning?
Personally, irregardless of what was in the lyricist's mind when he wrote the song, I feel that the message I percieve IS there, and it's an important one. It's one that allows a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world, and also one which connects those understandings in a clear, logical, and useful way...if we chose to get it. It is not at all a big stretch to consider it as 'god' talking to us - by whatever mechanism. And regardless of your belief or faith, or even how you elect to define what 'god' is, it works on different levels, and in that sense, it can also be seen as a sort of 'bridge' between people of different points of view. Even the most diehard atheist cannot but avoid being touched by this song, I think, and the truth it carries.
Read the lyrics...
***********************************
THE VOICE
winner 1996 Eurovision Song Contest
performed by Eimear Quinn
***********************************
I hear your voice on the wind,
And I hear you call out my name...
---
"Listen, my child," you say to me
"I am the voice of your history.
Be not afraid - come follow me,
Answer my call and I'll set you free."
REFRAIN
I am the voice in the wind and the pouring rain,
I am the voice of your hunger and pain.
I am the voice that always is calling you,
I am the voice, and I will remain.
I am the voice in the fields when the Summer's gone,
The dance of the leaves when the Autumn winds blow.
Ne'er do I sleep throughout all the cold Winter long,
I am the force that in Spring-time will grow.
I am the voice of the past that will always be,
Filled with my sorrows and blood in my fields.
I am the voice of the future...
Bring me your peace, bring me your peace,
And my wounds - they will heal.
***********************************
And now, watch the video:
***********************************
Oh well. Maybe I'm just nuts. Or a misguided romantic with a too scientific view of the world.
Or maybe...
I think heard God speak a few years ago.
Not "god" in the Judeo-Christian or Muslim sense, nor even to me, at least not directly. But there is, I feel, a message being delivered by "something" powerful to all people who can and are willing see it. And I'm not talking about some mystical "voice from heaven" booming from the sky, either.
Not at all.
In fact, it came in the form of a blonde wraith with an angelic voice singing a song that had lyrics with such a profound meaning that I had to wonder: could the human author of those words really have such a deep and powerful understanding of the world as the one expressed in that song? Or did - somehow - this "force" manage to get itself expressed in such a way as it could be percieved and understood by those who may be able to recieve it? If the latter, could it have been a 'concious' effort, or is it simply "inevitable" - something that was bound to happen sooner or later, almost by "accident"?
I don't know.
All I DO know is that the message is there, and clear as a bell for those with the background knowledge and understanding of certain things to be able to easily decrypt it, and a willingness to "hear" such a message to begin with. Or, at least I think it is...
Don't get me wrong, here. I am NO mystic by any means. I am not into this "New Age" bullshit. I believe that for something to be true, it should make some sense in some way in relation to other 'true' things. And, in a wierd way, this does, and also in some ways, it turns some things I hold to be true updside down, while at the same time reinforcing others. I haven't let go of them, but I do admit to be being a bit taken aback, and forced to look at things somehow differently in some ways.
The "force" I am talking about is not, in my view, some ethereal intelligent, all-knowing awareness. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I'm talking about what most people call the "evolutionary algorithm'. However in my way of thinking, that 'algorithm' is simply the mathematical description of something more 'vague' or 'general' that I call the 'evolutionary principle' - the principle that allows for, even forces, change to occur in this world, and that this change leads inexorably to increasing complexity (decreases in entropy) in "local" systems on a scale that converges somewhere near the middle between the largest (cosmic) scales and the smallest (atomic to Planck) scales.
I also not suggesting that this force is 'consciously' directed by some "intelligence'. Rather, I think it's a natural property, emergent from the fundamental characteristics of nature, such as the Laws of Thermodynamics and the properties of matter and energy, and, in some way, is also somehow responsible for them, in the sense that these characteristics ARE the result of the earliest stages of the evolution of the universe. For me, this is perhaps one way to define 'god', if one needs to define something as such; it's the fundamental driver of change change and complexity in the universe and makes everything - from heavy metals to Heavy Metal - possible.
Most people look at "evolution" as the process that governs how biological life changes over time, or evolves. Generally, life is the only context it's even considered in. But in reality, there is no dividing line between "life" and "non-life" in the universe. That's an arbitrary disctinction that we give to systems that exhibit certain qualities that we specify, and even there, we have certain problems in demarcating the line between life and non-life when we get down to the lower ends of the life chain. Things like viruses and prions, for example, raise the question of whether or not they are 'alive'. Some even go so far as to say that the nucleic acids are essentially 'alive'. Basically, in the "spectrum" of processes and systems through which the evolutionary principle is expressed, biological life is just one part of it.
What we call 'life' is really just a very complicated system of non-living components. We have to conciously try to keep in mind that 'life' is a human distinction, and that what we call biology is just one context in which evolution can be expressed. However, let's not make the mistake of over-generalizing, either; the degree of complexity involved in what we call 'life' is an important stage in evolution, and I'll come back to why that is so shortly. But in essence, life is really just a set of emergent qualities arising from systems of systems built upon layer upon layers of change and complexity that have been 'evolving' over billions of years through a combination of the laws of physics and what basically amounts to 'luck'. A direct line can be traced not just back to the earliest life forms on earth, but back to the very origins of the universe itself.
You can see evolution expressed in many ways. The 'universe' has evolved and continues to evolve from the Big Bang onwards. Matter and energy 'evolved', with protons, neutrons, electrons, and all the other "elementary particles" being built up of simpler particles, themselves constructed of even smaller parts that we have yet to fully understand, that condensed out of the hot soup that was expelled from the initial singularity at the time of the Big Bang.
Not all evolutionary "lines" need be long or complex, stars are not going to evolve into something more than they already are. However, they DO lay the foundation of and become components themselves of further evolutionary systems to be built on top of them, and this can even happen in different ways. Matter was formed with certain inherent characteristics that allow for change and emergent complexity, even starting with a relatively limited set of materials having a limited number of qualities. In fact, the vast majority of matter created in the early universe consisted of only hydrogen and some helium.
It took further steps for the other elements necessary to our existence to be created, such as carbon, oxygen, iron, and the rest. These elements were formed in the heart of stars through nuclear fusion, itself only possible through the fact that hydrogen and helium, being matter, have a property called "mass" and therefore have gravity. Without gravity, the first stars could not have formed out of the primordial hydrogen, nor could the nuclear fusion required for the transormation of hydrogen and helium into all the other elements we know be started, lighting the furnaces that essentially were the foundries in which all the components necessary for complexity - and life - were forged.
This is amazing.
Chemistry, and hence biology, would not be possible without this evolutionary step. to have more to think about, even that is not 'enough', though. Without elementary particles having a property known as 'charge' (itself one of the properties stamped on the elementary particles during the Big Bang), even chemistry, dependent upon the positive and negative charges of atoms, would not exist.
But it does.
And it is chemistry which allows atoms to combine in myriad ways as molecules, the building blocks of the everyday matter-based objects and systems we see around us: water, rocks, and so forth. Of course, just having 'matter' doesn't allow for chemistry or biology to happen. You need also something to "instigate" it: energy. Luckily, that's also provided for. Light is one form. Heat is another. Kinetic energy - movement - is also another. The fact that different forms of energy can be converted into one or the other is also important.
Anyway...moving on - starting from this level and moving up, it becomes clear that the Universe is an amazing construct. Many different aspects of it combine to generate the sorts of change that allow for increasing complexity at many levels in many ways, each of which in turn allows for more further 'up'. The atoms of the various elements can combine in different ways - in understood and specific ways - to create more complex molecules, and so on.
Water, for example, is one composed of hydrogen and oxygen. Iron and other elements can combine to create other materials. Eventually, this type of "inorganic chemistry" leads to another, more complex one: organic chemistry, through which the molecules required for what we call "life" are built up.
When you look at a planetary system like our own Solar System, you see a fairly complex system that is the result of billions of years of evolution, even at this scale. There is structure and complexity there, though to be sure, of a rudimentary and gross kind - at least at the planetary scale. There are many forms of energy at work keeping things 'going' - heat, light, kinetic energy, etc. There are complex organic and inorganic materials there in various forms. And such planetary systems themselves allow for more complex degree of evolution to occur within them at another scale and degree of complexity - life.
I don't know if there are some sets of conditions in which life (or something similar enough to it in certain ways so that we could generally call it 'life), can exist outside of a solar system, but I tend to think not. Of the things necessary for the evolution from organic molecules to what we call 'life', some important 'ingredients' are needed, such as time, different types of energy within certain 'ranges' as to type and quantity, and an environment with some 'mix' of stability and enough 'elbow room' for incremental change to occur without drastic changes frequently 'wiping the slate clean'. Such systems are hard to find outside of a planet with the right composition and conditions located in an orbit around a star within certain parameters. Other environments generally seem to be too choatic and unstable or too homogenous. Some have too much energy, some too little.
Very few seem to be 'just right'.
Once such a situation exists, however, I feel pretty certain that the evolutionary processes that can lead to life will proceed and, given time, will eventually lead systems that we'd call "life". In fact, I think it's inevitable, given the right conditions and time: it's all based on the laws of physics, and the same laws operate everywhere all the time.
I further believe that - at least at the 'lower levels', life in one system would resemble life in most any other, much as our solar system likely remembles one in any other except perhaps in certain details like the number, types, and sizes of planets, and their orbits, for example. Variety can only vary (increase) so much at a given degree of complexity in structural possibilities.
This means that life in other places could be (and in my opinion is most likely) based on nucleic acids, or perhaps on different but very similar molecules with a similar purpose, and if so, then you have your viruses and prions and perhaps even bacteria and simple plant life being very similar from planet to planet, all else being 'equal' (or close). While it's very unlikely that life would evolve exactly as it has on earth - there are far too many variables involved - there would be perhaps similar stages of evolution and similar solutions found to various environmental problems.
Just look at the variety of life on earth - millions of species in most any environment possible. Still, all have certain similarities, and some due not simply to relation through direct genetic lineage. Many are due to environmental influences on evolution across species, with different species working out similar solutions to the same environmental problems: fins to get around in water, legs on land, and wings in the air, for example. Fish and dolphins have fins, bats and birds their wings, and so on.
I'm not going to get into a discourse here on Darwin's work on the evolution of species - all of this has led up to a conclusion I've reached in a slightly different context, and that is that evolution is a 'force' or 'principle' of the universe that is created by and expressed through the very structure of the universe itself and what it's made of. It began at the Beginning and continues on up through every level of structure and complexity that exists. It's unavoidable and inexorable. It's everywhere, all the time. I will say, however, that Darwin, Dawkins, and Stanovich are pretty close, but their context is too limited; genetics, and even memetics, are only a couple of contexts in which evolution is at work...
And it continues to work.
Is all change 'evolution'? Well, that's hard to say. I would say that generally all change is (or can be) a PART of evolution. The water cycle - where liquid water evaporates to water vapor through being heated, rises into the air, cools, condenses back into a liquid and falls to the gruond as rain would not be considered 'evolution' by most people. But it CAN be seen as a system, or process, that has arisen THROUGH evolution (let's remember that most elements and their properties are the result OF evolution!) and is important TO evolution at other levels or in other systems.
Or take a few other examples...
Knives, for example, have evolved over time. Cars have evolved. Look at them - from the earliest stone-flake knives on up through the huge variety of them available today. Your Model-T up through the modern F1 racer or passenger car or 18-wheelers of today. Then take a look at the famous picture illustrating the evolution of Man, from the early australopithecines up through modern Home Sapiens. I don't think you can say that is evolution, but the others are not, simply because one occured through 'nature' and the others are 'man-made'. Look close - the Evolutionary Principle is there, if you care to see it, and not just metaphorically or analogously...
...which brings me back to my earlier point about why 'biology' is an important step IN evolution. Biology allows for the creation of systems that can be ACTIVE agents OF evolution, agents that can participate in the process - and even direct it. This seems perfectly logical to me - an almost inescapable conclusion, in many ways, if you think about it. We, for example, as 'agents of evolution', participate in and direct the evolution of many types of systems ourselves: our technology and social structures, for example, all 'evolve' through us. It's also very possible we're more involved there than we may know or want to be in evolution; in creating computers and - eventually - artificial intelligence, are we perhaps creating our successors at the 'pinnacle' of evolution - that of the evolution of intelligence in the universe?
I've now reached a point in this line of thought where it can branch off into a few other directions that I don't have time to get into just now (but probably will later). This discussion started with a message in the lyrics of a song...
Given what I've said above, and assuming - simplistically as I've put it - that it's somewhat close to 'correct', then I think it's hard to miss the message embodied in the below lyrics. Yes, you can limit the the context to a 'genetic' one, but I see it as also valid in the more broad, general sense I describe above.
And that's also where my question comes from - is the writer of the lyrics intentionally expressing the above idea - even if in the limited genetic context a la Darwin and Dawkins - or was he meaning to express something else - perhaps a people's cultural heritage - and it just "seems" like there's a deeper meaning?
Personally, irregardless of what was in the lyricist's mind when he wrote the song, I feel that the message I percieve IS there, and it's an important one. It's one that allows a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world, and also one which connects those understandings in a clear, logical, and useful way...if we chose to get it. It is not at all a big stretch to consider it as 'god' talking to us - by whatever mechanism. And regardless of your belief or faith, or even how you elect to define what 'god' is, it works on different levels, and in that sense, it can also be seen as a sort of 'bridge' between people of different points of view. Even the most diehard atheist cannot but avoid being touched by this song, I think, and the truth it carries.
Read the lyrics...
***********************************
THE VOICE
winner 1996 Eurovision Song Contest
performed by Eimear Quinn
***********************************
I hear your voice on the wind,
And I hear you call out my name...
---
"Listen, my child," you say to me
"I am the voice of your history.
Be not afraid - come follow me,
Answer my call and I'll set you free."
REFRAIN
I am the voice in the wind and the pouring rain,
I am the voice of your hunger and pain.
I am the voice that always is calling you,
I am the voice, and I will remain.
I am the voice in the fields when the Summer's gone,
The dance of the leaves when the Autumn winds blow.
Ne'er do I sleep throughout all the cold Winter long,
I am the force that in Spring-time will grow.
I am the voice of the past that will always be,
Filled with my sorrows and blood in my fields.
I am the voice of the future...
Bring me your peace, bring me your peace,
And my wounds - they will heal.
***********************************
And now, watch the video:
***********************************
Oh well. Maybe I'm just nuts. Or a misguided romantic with a too scientific view of the world.
Or maybe...
Poetry: Quantum Indecision
.
Quantum Indecision
do i do this,
or do i not?
or do i, or not,
do something else?
decisions, decisions,
or so it would seem;
but reality intrudes,
and in making just one,
all the others are made...
or...are all the others
just denied their fruition?
do i do this,
or do i not?
or do i, or not,
do something else?
Quantum Indecision
do i do this,
or do i not?
or do i, or not,
do something else?
decisions, decisions,
or so it would seem;
but reality intrudes,
and in making just one,
all the others are made...
or...are all the others
just denied their fruition?
do i do this,
or do i not?
or do i, or not,
do something else?
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Poetry: A Postcard from Cartesia
.
***************
"Postcard from Cartesia"
I write, therefore I am.
I am, therefore I feel.
I feel, therefore I write.
***************
***************
"Postcard from Cartesia"
I write, therefore I am.
I am, therefore I feel.
I feel, therefore I write.
***************
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Poetry: for 'someone'
.
This is a poem I wrote for "someone" who once meant a lot to me, and whose memory still does...
***************
just for you
i just shed a single tear,
just one,
and just for you.
i shed one every single year -
just one,
and just for you.
***************
This is a poem I wrote for "someone" who once meant a lot to me, and whose memory still does...
***************
just for you
i just shed a single tear,
just one,
and just for you.
i shed one every single year -
just one,
and just for you.
***************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)