>In Onar's essay on "Perspectivism", he describes some behavior of
>"knowledge animals".
>Knowledge animals use the human mind as a breeding ground.
>My statement expressed in Onar's terminology is:
>
> I think that the metaphor of "knowledge animals" has power in
> regions (perspectives) far away from the regions of the human
> mind and our society (without becoming ghost knowledge).
Though such a metaphor may be illuminating by attracting our attention to
the fact that knowledge (or information) can evolve independently from the
systems that carry it, the question is whether we need to use such a
specific term as "animal" which implies much more than just being an
autonomously evolving system. A somewhat more general term is "living
being" or in its weaker form "virus".
I wanted to attract your attention to the work of Ben Cullen, an
archeologist with a good knowledge of biological evolution theory, who
proposes a somewhat modified version of memetics which he calls "Cultural
Virus Theory". He will present that theory at the PCP Symposium in Brussels
this month (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/einmagsy.html). I include his
abstract:
---------------------------
Science, Art and Religion: Some Novel Lifeforms
By Ben Cullen
Department of Archaeology.
University of Wales.
Lampeter SA48 7ED.
WALES UK.
Email: 100127.3431@compuserve.com
Abstract:
What is the nature of the artefact? What is the nature of technological
knowledge? What is the precise nature of the ecological relationship
between human beings and the objects which they manufacture? Do artefacts
and ideas improve human life, or detract from it, or are there examples of
both kinds? Are they parasitic or symbiotic? Questions such as these are
considered against the background of the archaeology of human/artefact
relationships. It is argued that while the artefact production systems
associated with art, science and religion lack some of the qualities
associated with familiar life forms, they are nonetheless truly alive. The
paper compares the strategies of organisations and ideas in scientific,
artistic and religious milieus to the strategies of the AIDS virus and
parasitic plants such as Rafflesia.
-----------------------------
>I like to present my own work by building a "projection" from the
>work of Onar which some of you may have read. If you have not, read
>it first, his language is clearer than mine (but please come back :-)
No need to be so modest ;-)
> I think that we can "recognize" the activity of "knowledge
> animals" in our body organs, in biological cells, in plain
> chemistry, in the atomic and sub-atomic interactions and
> much more.
>
>Knowledge animals interact with their environment.
>They are affected by the environment and the environment is
>affected by their actions.
>This interaction results in the fact that "old knowledge animals"
>are expressed in a lot of things and do represent "the structure
>of a lot of things".
>Because it becomes increasingly difficult to change such old,
>omnipresent knowledge, I like to call this effect "the induration
>of information".
>
> I THINK THAT even THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE SUCH INDURATED
> KNOWLEDGE BEINGS.
This is a very interesting point. However, I would like to know whether
your physical "knowledge beings" still have the property of replication,
which is characteristic of animals or memes. In other words, if the laws of
physics are the same here on earth and on alpha centauri, is that because
the information being that constrains movements on alpha centauri and the
one that constrains it here are copies of each other? Or is there only one
being that determines physical movement everywhere in the universe?
> Another example: Human beings express the way they work in the
> tools they make. As a next step, even the making of the
> machines is automated, as a next step, the design of new
> machines is automated (Computer Aided Design), and an
> increasing amount of Artificial Intelligence is integrated
> in the design and manufacturing process.
This is Val Turchin's classical example of the tool-making metasystem
transitions (MSTs): tools making tools making tools ... making goods. (cf.
Val's book "The Phenomenon of Science")
>But:
>If we human beings express our knowledge in a recursive way,
>
> WHY WOULD WE BE THE FIRST STAGE IN A RECURSIVE CHAIN ?
Of course we are not. To get to the human being you need a lot of MSTs
going back at least to the levels of atoms and molecules. In this view,
your "knowledge being" might be just what we call a "(meta)system". But I
suppose there will be other differences (e.g. like replication), and I
would like discover those.
________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Francis Heylighen, Systems Researcher fheyligh@vnet3.vub.ac.be
PESP, Free University of Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
Tel +32-2-6292525; Fax +32-2-6292489; http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html