> Alex Wrote:
> However, I can see a time in which the AI community comes up with a
> system of sufficent complexity that its operation /can/ be described
> with the meme-abstraction, and thus, be aproachable through memetics.
> **********************************************************************
>
> Will the machines be male or female? black or white? gay or straight?
>
> Do you think that some machines will think of themselves as superior to
> others? Will they have careers and will they play football against each
> other?
>
> Will they get into arguements because one has a different point of view
> or feels opressed by another?
>
> Will one suddenly change its mind about *everything*, go into the nevada
> desert and drop pehote to find itself?
>
>
> I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. The reason why I ask these
> questions is that I can't see memes as these particulant things, as you
> do.
>
> I cannot see how a certain string of code can be a meme. But I'm no
> scientist-- would the code that you write be a memetic artifact?
I don't see how a piece of code can be a meme *in stasis*. Execution is
another story entirely--I have no ideas there, yet.
Conjecture: One of an artifact's traits is a configuration with "unnaturally
low entropy/unnaturally high information" compared to its surroundings.
The above trait is equally represented by computer code and chairs.
[With appropriate definitions, entropy can be viewed as the absence of
information--and thus, entropy/information can be defined for documents,
genomes, etc. without reference to their physical makeup.]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Towards the conversion of data into information....
/
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////