XIV. Basics of imagehoppers
We honour the veterans of old meme wars. Wanna join an even older one?
Guide:
I. Introduction
II. Components of thinking
III. Mechanisms of cognition
IV. More mechanisms
V. Types of memes
VI. Meme2Meme2Gene interactions
VII. Human2Human transmission
VIII. A Bigger World
IX. Gravity of 'plexes
X. Three is a crowd
XI. Third scenario
XII. Religion and philosophy
XIII. Mental disorders of the new age
XIV. True vs Fake <-you are here
XV. Outsourced Me
________________________________________
1.Beligerents
Better name pending, and so are a lot of revisions and additions.
Universe is full of dead information.
Patterns no longer present in the noosphere, programs failed to sustain themselves, - generations fly by as entropy claims it’s victims both from physical and abstract domains. I would like to provide an example of corpses of practices, but that would go against the definition, so let’s go with just unpopular ones:
Not that many people practicing mesopotamian religions, am i right, fellas?
It’s not hard to understand why the use of torches fell out of grace, as gaslights and lightbulbs conquered the grey matter territory of people’s heads, yet there’s one more replacement not as understood, and definitely noticed less by the general public; the one which threatens to unmoor the fabric of societies itself.
The conflict between original and imitation.
Body and shell.
Real and the mimic.
Before jumping into the fray i have to (i think) properly describe what exactly am i talking about, and that requires being a bit methodical and thorough, so i will take a while describing things as they are, before going to the actual point. Bear with me, i promise, i don’t want to just list things.
And i’m not the only person to touch upon the nature of fakes, so alternatively you can learn about simulacrums.
2.All the pretty things
To explain the nature of the beasts i present these two pictures (spliced in one for convenience), and don’t scroll past the separating line if you want to figure out the answer yourself:
Ignore the framing and background differences, the point lies in flowers. They are substantially different at the very core. Can you notice said difference?
___________________________
One of the roses is real, while the other is made of plastic. One of them is real, while another is imitation.
Let’s go technical (on abstract level): everything can be seen as two distinct parts of the whole - the outward appearance, “shell“, and the “nature“/”core”/”body” of a thing. Rose on the left looks green and red, if you touch it you’ll fell particular tactile sensations, it weighs specific amount of grams, the rose has a specific signal. The rose on the right also has a signal not too dissimilar to the real thing (like colors). For the sake of the argument let’s imagine a perfect plastic floral replica, which would perfectly trick everyone into believing it’s a real deal. So what’s the difference then?
For starters - real plant is green because of the chlorophyll, which is responsible for the energy generation in the rose’s body, which is also a pigment that gives leaves and stem this particular hue. Replica is green because it’s painted green. Real plant also absorbs water and nutrients to grow, it can fold and unfold it’s bud, it can procreate, it… it has many functions in it’s body, while replica is just solid plastic.
Fake has a cover of paint to make it look like a thing, true object has a lot of internal processes, of which creating signal readable by outsiders is merely a byproduct.
For more examples you can look at yourself - even such a simple act as blushing is a result of complex interactions leading to a blood accumulation in that section of the face, not a deliberate pigmentation that serves some unknown purpose.
The list of things the outer appearance of which doesn’t reflect their inner qualities is long, so just a few more examples:
In a way, mimicry can be viewed as a measure of how well appearance correlates to “substance“ of object or idea in question (don’t use chocolate tools, ‘cuz they don’t have properties of steel).
Minor caveat - the shell/core distinction is highly dependent on the target’s ability to perceive: all examples so far rely on replicating the visual signal, without faking the sound, taste, or smell, - plastic rose wouldn’t trick a professional perfumer. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder“ but so is the lie. Remember the Tesla in a ring of salt? Fake signal is like a key, and you are the lock - more sophisticated(or completely different) ability to analyze the incoming data doesn’t fit/is harder to trick.
To go completely schizo - a being with perfect ability to perceive would also be able to go beyond the shell and know the whole, making it impossible to deceive. For a laplace’s demon the difference between appearance and nature doesn’t exist.
As you can see, i’m not talking about traditional mimicry, the kind you see animals exhibit, but the kind where even objects don the appearances of other objects to make you take care and create more of them(Mostly visual patterns are copied, sound and smell mimicry is rare).
Why? Without you - they cease to exist, a man is their means of reproduction. Idea is a DNA of the reality. Well, a fragment of it. Bearing the title of a “Tool maker“ means humanity isn’t shaping the reality, but reality shapes and propagates itself through us. Apparently universe desires Funko Pops now.
3. Who/Whom/What
Sadly, i can’t puch traditional sciences for their terminology to define the relationships mimics have between each other and more organic specimens. Example: batesian mimicry is when one animal looks like another, more dangerous one (flies with color scheme of wasps); how do images of inanimate fit into that? Are vacuum cleaners more dangerous than brooms? (the pretender is a competitor to a real thing, so they can be put on a “danger” scale)
These words betray my ignorance again, however i do think there’s an axis we can place mimics upon, even if this idea is rather underdeveloped for now.
Measure the “Value“. It’s a pretty abstract metric, prone to subjectivity, but that doesn’t render it’s less true.
To show what i mean - there’s a video with a bunch of vietnamese guys making Bugatti Chiron from clay and scrap:
They also have a bunch of other luxurious cars built in the fashion. “Luxurious“… Don’t expect climate control, comfortable seats, i doubt the tail lights are even working, the only thing those cars have in common with the model (one term i can actually take from biology) is the “shell“. And they exist because the real deal is a “luxury“, it’s “expensive“, it’s “desirable“, it’s valuable. And of course there aren’t only cars being faked (by other people), - clocks, clothes, food - if you want it, someone already made a mimic of it.
To add to the list of fakes - the term “bootleg“ should be written down - when a mimic replicates the signal very faithfully, but not completely (like “Abibas“), because for whatever reason being a semi-obvious pretender is more beneficial in whatever way. Or going full way is somehow more dangerous than being a partial copy (possible reason - trademark laws).
Another set of boxes you can put mimics in is a category system based on whom they are trying to deceive. As far as i’m aware there are only two groups capable of perception (for now), so there are fakes directed at humans, and fakes for animals (future demands we make mimics for robots and surveillance cameras). The examples are obvious: for humans there are plenty of counterfeit goods, and for animals - you already saw the duck decoy. Sound lures, imitating the call of some specific species are also in the box.
Last distinction is how harmful the mimics are - were they made with malice, or their purpose is beneficial to the target. I assume, perhaps erroneously, that whoever creates a fake(at least intentionally) does so for their own benefit, fully aware of the mimic’s deceptive nature.
But that means mimic can lie to it’s target for it’s benefit - a counterintuitive conclusion at best, and a lie at worst. I promise, i do not aim to misdirect, i’m not that meta, there are indeed good pretender objects: consider placebo medicine. The ones which were made from sugar,and have a powerful appearance, with the goal of helping through lie.
Another example: fake facades.
Concrete and rebar are a good materials for building, however, if someone were to build a house from them alone - all residents would kill themselves in a week. Maybe they’ll even help each other to speed up the process. Why? Because grey color is fucking depressing. Just look at any brutalist building photo not made by a professional photographer and imagine yourself living with such vista for years. Ugly sights are a memetic, and even an info-hazard, - how do you solve the problem? Getting rid of concrete is not economical, so just cover it up with something better.
Double deception - the cover pretends to be something it is not, while also helping the wall to look like something it will never be.
Can’t remember more examples, sorry, but there are probably more. This ought to be enough to make everyone who reads these passages undersand. I’m also sure you know the examples of bad mimics too, so i’ll spare the page space.
4.Lie to Me
Time to focus on humans.
Question: should camouflage be considered a form of mimicry too? Technically, when you put on the ghillie suit you are pretending to be grass, so it is a way of altering the appearance, but at the same time the person is trying to not be found at all, rather than being found and misidentified. Perhaps this difference makes no difference.
Human capacity for mimicry is very limited, our bodies aren’t designed to alter neither optical, audible, nor olfactory signals; if a body starts to blend in with the ground due to change in colors - he was a good man and his family loved him very much. We evolved for other things.
Thus, to mask the signal homo sapien had to resort to making masks. And other elements of attire, making nature his face and body: “I am the land“. From that the idea of sewing together the caricatures of reality splits into usual categories, based on what is being modeled - the element of the environment, or an animal.
I don’t have enough information about the past, so i’ll skip to stuff i know - the modernity.
Present day human mimicry consists of camouflage for blending with the environment, used by military and hunters, and animal costumes used by… groups of people hard to categorize. In most cases the target is another human.
I know, its easy to say “Furries“, but there are also corporate mascots used for advertising purposes, and people frequently interacting with living animals.
There’s also humans pretending to be other humans via wearing right clothes, make-up, or even through liberal application of plastic surgery - flesh can’t change on it’s own, so an external assist is required.
Like with this dude (on the left):
Or:
It is also rumored some (if not all) presidents have their own body doubles to thwart assassination attempts.
Different cases are created for different results, but the divide between “good“ and “bad“ mimicry is present still, - dudes with rifles hide themselves to inflict more harm to their targets, while other examples seek to bring joy. The “malice” of goals isn’t bound to the methods, be warned, because there are definitely cases of men in colourful costumes using their “innocent“ appearance to lure children. If it looks like a duck… Not that it’s completely random either - performers in Disneyland don’t sport Flecktarn(they wear parade uniforms), and a guy in a T-Rex costume doesn’t go to battlefields. At least, not regularly.
Note for the future: how to “classify” plastic surgery. Obvious point: cases with minor(or major too sometimes) interventions should be discounted, because their aim is only increasing the person’s value by taking the elements' of the model’s body and adapting the signal according to that. Magazine covers are full of models, in traditional meaning too, whom you should try replicating (according to said magazines). The signal is altered, yes, but the aim isn’t to look like another, the goal is looking *better*, according to the values of alter-er, whatever they may be.
At the same time there are definitely cases of original appearance being completely rewritten, with the goal of looking as close as possible to someone else.
5.Lie to yourself (and others!)
It’s pretty rational to treat “Shell“ and the “Core“ of a thing as inseparable parts - one cannot exist without the other, all objects capable of being perceived emit signal. It’s an old axiom - a part cannot exist without a whole, and a part is a whole in itself, while whole is also made of parts.
Now here’s a thesis of this page: mimicry is born out of hatred shell has for it’s nature.
Sounds schizophrenic, so let me explain: remember how i said that images and impressions of a thing spread faster and easier than a whole thing they try to depict? There are many portraits of a thing, but there’s only one the thing. An appearance is a lot easier to replicate, rather than the full object properly. Which means for shell to spread far and wide it has to ditch it’s ties to whatever shackles it. To add to the reasons: sometimes a mimic is a product of mutually beneficial relationship between a fake appearance and the body. Remember concrete wall i described earlier? The shell gets a better(sturdier) vessel to latch upon, while the wall itself gets to look prettier - there’s an incentive for both to work together.
This process affects humans too - ugly people want to look better, so their minds and bodies become a fertile ground for ideas which result in change of appearance(Weak minds are a fertile ground for all sorts of desires period). Granted, most of the time to unfortunate doesn’t want to take someone else’s likeness as a whole, it’s just a replacement of a few(or many) elements that concerns the guy; idea of deceiving others and pretending to be someone else is also not a goal. But the process is there. And sometimes people do want to look identical to someone else.
The field of robotics is the pinnacle of human mimicry:
The title of the page claims there’s a war going on, - what is the essence of this conflict?
Shell wants to be able to replicate itself as easily as possible onto as many places as it can, and to wage this war effectively it sprouted an idea that appearances can be unrelated to the inner functions of the body. And thus the number of fakes increases, and all true things and people are at risk of being replaced. The concepts describing correlations between various aspects of the body and human form are also attacked. The main casualty of this war is ability to render judgment from visual(audial, etc.) feed - if appearances are deceiving then there’s no point in analyzing them, and all that matters is how just looking at them affects you. In an environment created by mimics it is normal occurence to see a dude covered in tatoos and dressed like a bum and beleive he’s a middle-class lawyer, while a clean suburb with rows of pristine houses and pretty trees is actually a den of debauchery and misery.
Currently, as i see it, the ongoing disconnect of shell from body is at the core of three major western concepts:
1) Racism
2) Transgenderism
3) Blank Slate-ism
4) “Don’t judge a book by it’s cover“ lessons
Remember that speech from Martin Luther King Jr.? “…a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character“ is also a nation that denies there are correlations between the color of the skin and the content of the character.
With transgender people it’s a bit more tricky, because it’s core tenet is the capacity for changing bodies of one sex to another - in a world with perfectly good technology trans-people would just transfer their minds into a new vessel with all desired characteristics - so, not mimicry and appearance-only jumping. Problem is - we don’t live in a world with such tech, so surface-level alterations are the pinnacle of achievement, - trans men cannot have children, for example, because of to lack of functionality; and on a deeper level there’s still unaltered chromosomes and hormones. As a consequence, due to lack of options, all that is left is to dedicate all focus to impressions - gotta look as gender-normative as possible, and breaking the facade due to misgendering is a mortal offense. Bonus: even in that hypothetical perfect society the disconnect of mind from the body is present still, - the whole body became a shell. (N.B. There are probably different variations and configurations of disconnect between various elements of the body, but i’m not equipped to categorize those)
Blank Slate posits humans are not born with innate knowledge. This one is not concerned with appearances, so technically it should be disqualified, but we must honour their ancestors, and remember where everything came from. “Blank Slate” is a grand-grand-grand-grand-grand^n-parent of the current family of nature denial. Brain is a storage of ideas, so it fell to the disconnection trick first.
And the “Cover“ thingie - enemy propaganda is drilled into heads of children for as long as i can remember(tl:since my childhood), but the starting point is probably a lot earlier than that. Who could forget such brilliant pieces like “Beauty and the Beast“ or “The Hunchback of Notre Dame“?
The disconnect is rather pervasive as you can see, and not for no reason - the attempts of certain german regime to produce real genetically, and as such - mentally, superior individual proved to be inconsequential (or very consequential). Couple that the collective guilt the western cultures collectively suffered for all colonialism they did. Also - the early attempts to tie appearance to substance in humans via measurements of body parts, to find the connections between genes and their expression - they didn’t have much success.
All of that (and probably plenty more) fostered an environment where being true, but outside of set standarts, meant facing a significant societal disadvantage, leading to the development of new and advanced forms of mimicry, and denial of relation between a body and it’s appearance completely.
Where will it lead us? I don’t know. With proliferation of cybernetics the true body image isn’t coming back - plastic surgery already put a significant blow to the idea that beauty=health. Some correlations between appearance and nature of humans are going to be found for sure, but how widespread this knowledge will become is uncertain. We will see a world where everyone will look like whatever they want, and not a single appearance is going to matter or tell anything. Everyone is apparition.
Doom not, humans are pattern-seeking animals, so new knowledge describing character through it’s presentation will be drawn - it takes a special kind of person to look like X, so all people who don’t - are Y. Personality will shine through the facades once again, the only thing it takes is the realisation that, since “Shell“ is product of effort, then it still reflects the one who creates and wears it.