Re: The Memetics of the Army - a logical proof

Kastytis Beitas (
Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:15:55 +0200

Message-Id: <>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:15:55 +0200
From: Kastytis Beitas <>
Subject: Re: The Memetics of the Army - a logical proof
In-Reply-To: <>

At 11:58 1998.03.26 +0100, Josip wrote:
>I do not believe in revolutions, even if they are "intellectually inspired"
>(aren`t them all inspired by "intellectuals"?). Revolutions are excellent
>examples of memetics engineering. Revolution, in contrary to evolution,
>means discontinuity (explosion) and in every such case besides the "bad
>stuff", that was the justification for starting the revolution, also some
>"good things" are destroyed. After every revolution there is a period
>needed for "cleaning out" the produced mess, and for the reconstruction of
>all the destroyed institutions with a new "better" technology.

But all modern "intelectually inspired" revolutions aren't examples of
memetic engineering. They maybe are wild experiments but without any
conscious (in memetic view) planning. All their planning is based on
various political, social, ethical, esthetic, economical, military,
technological, historical, philosophical etc. considerations (it depends on
kind of revolution - political, technological...). And no trace of
conscious memetic considerations.
And political/social revolution is special case of evolution, when some
inner pressures can be released in explosive way. All art of
revolution-making is to rise pressure to necessary point.
Technological revolutions are similar, but pressure is not social.
Revolutions in biological evolution is rare, so we do not have any detailed
reports about them. But I can imagine that may be as destructive as
political revolutions.

>I also have a particular attitude against the "Virtual Reality". It is not
>at all virtual (how reality can be virtual?) until it resides on such real
>things like computers, modems, satellites and other technological stuff.

Virtual realities are usual in human life. And computers are only a new
level in 'virtual realities history'.
Information processing in our brain is constructing of kind of virtual
reality about our environment.
a) Sometimes our actions based on this 'virtual reality model' are
effective in this environment. This means that this 'virtual reality' is
'real reality'.
b) Sometimes we see (hear, smell) some things. Later we discover that there
were these things, but they were in another place, of other shape, texture
etc. For example, dirty rag can be seen as grey mouse or bush as goblin.
Such phenomenon is named _illusion_ (physiological or psychological).
Something in our sensory or cognitive system screwed up part of our
information in ‘virtual reality’ model. And we feel some virtuality feature
in certain elements of this ‘virtual model’, presented by our sensory &
cognitive system.
Physical illusions are based on physical effects, they can be photographed,
do not depend on our sensory & cognitive system, so they must be named
‘mirages’, but not ‘illusions’.
c) Sometimes we look to our environment and see things that are absent in
environment. We name it _hallucination_.
Hallucinations images (sounds, smells, tactile sensations) are constructed
from information, extracted from memory, and installed to ‘virtual reality’
model. In this case virtuality of ‘virtual reality’ is of higher degree.
d) Natural virtuality is highest in night-dreams, delirium visions etc. The
images and scenes can do not have any similarity with environment.

Computeric virtual reality is technological way to make virtual reality.

>is only another way of, as you say, "externalization of the internal".
>Doesn`t writers, movie makers and other artists do already the same thing
>using other technological means.
Yes, but grade of virtuality is very low.

>You will say "Yes, but it is interactive".
>So what? It doesn`t mean that it is self-dependent or self-reliant.
In my opinion it is question of time.
In future the software will generate reality-like 'realities' based on
motives of our real physical reality. Self-programming algorithms will
change some rules of 'virtual-reality' generation...

>It is
>the same thing as when speaking about "information transmission" and
>abstracting the source and destination systems. "Information" has a mean
>only for this systems, not for itself.
Yes, the information is information when exist some system that uses it. In
other cases it is not information, but diversity of structure (of
electromagnetic waves, electric current, etc.).
I'm angry when some ecologists talk about guantity of information of
phytocenoses' structure or some biochemists about information in tertiary
structure of some mutant protein molecule.
But this problem reminds me about other one: Is the blood red when it is in
blood-vessel and no one sees it?


This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)