Richard Dawkins - Viruses of the Mind.PDF - artykuły - de.pitt

Viruses of the Mind

Richard Dawkins

1991

The haven all memes depend on reaching is the human mind, but a

human mind is itself an artifact created when memes restructure a

human brain in order to make it a better habitat for memes. The

avenues for entry and departure are modified to suit local conditions,

and strengthened by various artificial devices that enhance fidelity

and prolixity of replication: native Chinese minds differ dramatically

from native French minds, and literate minds differ from illiterate

minds. What memes provide in return to the organisms in which

they reside is an incalculable store of advantages --- with some

Trojan horses thrown in for good measure. . .

Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained

1 Duplication Fodder

A beautiful child close to me, six and the apple of her father's eye, believes

that Thomas the Tank Engine really exists. She believes in Father

Christmas, and when she grows up her ambition is to be a tooth fairy. She

and her school-friends believe the solemn word of respected adults that

tooth fairies and Father Christmas really exist. This little girl is of an age to

believe whatever you tell her. If you tell her about witches changing princes

into frogs she will believe you. If you tell her that bad children roast forever

in hell she will have nightmares. I have just discovered that without her

father's consent this sweet, trusting, gullible six-year-old is being sent, for

weekly instruction, to a Roman Catholic nun. What chance has she?

A human child is shaped by evolution to soak up the culture of her people.

Most obviously, she learns the essentials of their language in a matter of

months. A large dictionary of words to speak, an encyclopedia of

information to speak about, complicated syntactic and semantic rules to

order the speaking, are all transferred from older brains into hers well

before she reaches half her adult size. When you are pre-programmed to

absorb useful information at a high rate, it is hard to shut out pernicious

or damaging information at the same time. With so many mindbytes to be

downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that

child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to

subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns. Like

immune-deficient patients, children are wide open to mental infections

that adults might brush off without effort.

DNA, too, includes parasitic code. Cellular machinery is extremely good at

copying DNA. Where DNA is concerned, it seems to have an eagerness to

copy, seems eager to be copied. The cell nucleus is a paradise for DNA,

humming with sophisticated, fast, and accurate duplicating machinery.

Cellular machinery is so friendly towards DNA duplication that it is small

wonder cells play host to DNA parasites --- viruses, viroids, plasmids and a

riff-raff of other genetic fellow travelers. Parasitic DNA even gets itself

spliced seamlessly into the chromosomes themselves. ``Jumping genes''

and stretches of ``selfish DNA'' cut or copy themselves out of chromosomes

and paste themselves in elsewhere. Deadly oncogenes are almost

impossible to distinguish from the legitimate genes between which they are

spliced. In evolutionary time, there is probably a continual traffic from

``straight'' genes to ``outlaw,'' and back again (Dawkins, 1982). DNA is just

DNA. The only thing that distinguishes viral DNA from host DNA is its

expected method of passing into future generations. ``Legitimate'' host

DNA is just DNA that aspires to pass into the next generation via the

orthodox route of sperm or egg. ``Outlaw'' or parasitic DNA is just DNA that

looks to a quicker, less cooperative route to the future, via a squeezed

droplet or a smear of blood, rather than via a sperm or egg.

For data on a floppy disc, a computer is a humming paradise just as cell

nuclei hum with eagerness to duplicate DNA. Computers and their

associated disc and tape readers are designed with high fidelity in mind.

As with DNA molecules, magnetized bytes don't literally ``want'' to be

faithfully copied. Nevertheless, you can write a computer program that

takes steps to duplicate itself. Not just duplicate itself within one computer

but spread itself to other computers. Computers are so good at copying

bytes, and so good at faithfully obeying the instructions contained in those

bytes, that they are sitting ducks to self-replicating programs: wide open to

subversion by software parasites. Any cynic familiar with the theory of

selfish genes and memes would have known that modern personal

computers, with their promiscuous traffic of floppy discs and e-mail links,

were just asking for trouble. The only surprising thing about the current

epidemic of computer viruses is that it has been so long in coming.

2 Computer Viruses: a Model for an

Informational Epidemiology

Computer viruses are pieces of code that graft themselves into existing,

legitimate programs and subvert the normal actions of those programs.

They may travel on exchanged floppy disks, or over networks. They are

technically distinguished from ``worms'' which are whole programs in their

own right, usually traveling over networks. Rather different are ``Trojan

horses,'' a third category of destructive programs, which are not in

themselves self-replicating but rely on humans to replicate them because

of their pornographic or otherwise appealing content. Both viruses and

worms are programs that actually say, in computer language, ``Duplicate

me.'' Both may do other things that make their presence felt and perhaps

satisfy the hole-in-corner vanity of their authors. These side-effects may be

``humorous'' (like the virus that makes the Macintosh's built-in

loudspeaker enunciate the words ``Don't panic,'' with predictably opposite

effect); malicious (like the numerous IBM viruses that erase the hard disk

after a sniggering screen-announcement of the impending disaster);

political (like the Spanish Telecom and Beijing viruses that protest about

telephone costs and massacred students respectively); or simply

inadvertent (the programmer is incompetent to handle the low-level

system calls required to write an effective virus or worm). The famous

Internet Worm, which paralyzed much of the computing power of the

United States on November 2, 1988, was not intended (very) maliciously

but got out of control and, within 24 hours, had clogged around 6,000

computer memories with exponentially multiplying copies of itself.

``Memes now spread around the world at the speed of light, and replicate

at rates that make even fruit flies and yeast cells look glacial in comparison.

They leap promiscuously from vehicle to vehicle, and from medium to

medium, and are proving to be virtually unquarantinable'' (Dennett 1990,

p.131). Viruses aren't limited to electronic media such as disks and data

lines. On its way from one computer to another, a virus may pass through

printing ink, light rays in a human lens, optic nerve impulses and finger

muscle contractions. A computer fanciers' magazine that printed the text

of a virus program for the interest of its readers has been widely

condemned. Indeed, such is the appeal of the virus idea to a certain kind of

puerile mentality (the masculine gender is used advisedly), that

publication of any kind of ``how to'' information on designing virus

programs is rightly seen as an irresponsible act.

I am not going to publish any virus code. But there are certain tricks of

effective virus design that are sufficiently well known, even obvious, that it

will do no harm to mention them, as I need to do to develop my theme.

They all stem from the virus's need to evade detection while it is spreading.

A virus that clones itself too prolifically within one computer will soon be

detected because the symptoms of clogging will become too obvious to

ignore. For this reason many virus programs check, before infecting a

system, to make sure that they are not already on that system. Incidentally,

this opens the way for a defense against viruses that is analogous to

immunization. In the days before a specific anti-virus program was

available, I myself responded to an early infection of my own hard disk by

means of a crude ``vaccination.'' Instead of deleting the virus that I had

detected, I simply disabled its coded instructions, leaving the ``shell'' of the

virus with its characteristic external ``signature'' intact. In theory,

subsequent members of the same virus species that arrived in my system

should have recognized the signature of their own kind and refrained from

trying to double-infect. I don't know whether this immunization really

worked, but in those days it probably was worth while ``gutting'' a virus

and leaving a shell like this, rather than simply removing it lock, stock and

barrel. Nowadays it is better to hand the problem over to one of the

professionally written anti-virus programs.

A virus that is too virulent will be rapidly detected and scotched. A virus

that instantly and catastrophically sabotages every computer in which it

finds itself will not find itself in many computers. It may have a most

amusing effect on one computer ---- erase an entire doctoral thesis or

something equally side-splitting --- but it won't spread as an epidemic.

Some viruses, therefore, are designed to have an effect that is small

enough to be difficult to detect, but which may nevertheless be extremely

damaging. There is one type, which, instead of erasing disk sectors

wholesale, attacks only spreadsheets, making a few random changes in

the (usually financial) quantities entered in the rows and columns. Other

viruses evade detection by being triggered probabilistically, for example

erasing only one in 16 of the hard disks infected. Yet other viruses employ

the time-bomb principle. Most modern computers are ``aware'' of the date,

and viruses have been triggered to manifest themselves all around the

world, on a particular date such as Friday 13th or April Fool's Day. From

the parasitic point of view, it doesn't matter how catastrophic the eventual

attack is, provided the virus has had plenty of opportunity to spread first (a

disturbing analogy to the Medawar/Williams theory of ageing: we are the

victims of lethal and sub-lethal genes that mature only after we have had

plenty of time to reproduce (Williams, 1957)). In defense, some large

companies go so far as to set aside one ``miner's canary'' among their fleet

of computers, and advance its internal calendar a week so that any

time-bomb viruses will reveal themselves prematurely before the big day.

Again predictably, the epidemic of computer viruses has triggered an arms

race. Anti-viral software is doing a roaring trade. These antidote programs

-- ``Interferon,'' ``Vaccine,'' ``Gatekeeper'' and others --- employ a diverse

armory of tricks. Some are written with specific, known and named viruses

in mind. Others intercept any attempt to meddle with sensitive system

areas of memory and warn the user.

The virus principle could, in theory, be used for non-malicious, even

beneficial purposes. Thimbleby (1991) coins the phrase ``liveware'' for his

already-implemented use of the infection principle for keeping multiple

copies of databases up to date. Every time a disk containing the database

is plugged into a computer, it looks to see whether there is already another

copy present on the local hard disk. If there is, each copy is updated in the

light of the other. So, with a bit of luck, it doesn't matter which member of

a circle of colleagues enters, say, a new bibliographical citation on his

personal disk. His newly entered information will readily infect the disks of

his colleagues (because the colleagues promiscuously insert their disks

into one another's computers) and will spread like an epidemic around the

circle. Thimbleby's liveware is not entirely virus-like: it could not spread to

just anybody's computer and do damage. It spreads data only to

already-existing copies of its own database; and you will not be infected by

liveware unless you positively opt for infection.

Incidentally, Thimbleby, who is much concerned with the virus menace,

points out that you can gain some protection by using computer systems

that other people don't use. The usual justification for purchasing today's

numerically dominant computer is simply and solely that it is numerically

dominant. Almost every knowledgeable person agrees that, in terms of

quality and especially user-friendliness, the rival, minority system is

superior. Nevertheless, ubiquity is held to be good in itself, sufficient to

outweigh sheer quality. Buy the same (albeit inferior) computer as your

colleagues, the argument goes, and you'll be able to benefit from shared

software, and from a generally large circulation of available software. The

irony is that, with the advent of the virus plague, ``benefit'' is not all that

you are likely to get. Not only should we all be very hesitant before we

accept a disk from a colleague. We should also be aware that, if we join a

large community of users of a particular make of computer, we are also

joining a large community of viruses --- even, it turns out,

disproportionately larger.

Returning to possible uses of viruses for positive purposes, there are

proposals to exploit the ``poacher turned gamekeeper'' principle, and ``set

a thief to catch a thief.'' A simple way would be to take any of the existing

anti-viral programs and load it, as a ``warhead,'' into a harmless

self-replicating virus. From a ``public health'' point of view, a spreading

epidemic of anti-viral software could be especially beneficial because the

computers most vulnerable to malicious viruses --- those whose owners

are promiscuous in the exchange of pirated programs --- will also be most

vulnerable to infection by the healing anti-virus. A more penetrating

anti-virus might --- as in the immune system --- ``learn'' or ``evolve'' an

improved capacity to attack whatever viruses it encountered.

I can imagine other uses of the computer virus principle which, if not

exactly altruistic, are at least constructive enough to escape the charge of

pure vandalism. A computer company might wish to do market research

on the habits of its customers, with a view to improving the design of

future products. Do users like to choose files by pictorial icon, or do they

opt to display them by textual name only? How deeply do people nest

folders (directories) within one another? Do people settle down for a long

session with only one program, say a word processors, or are they

Richard Dawkins - Viruses of the Mind.PDF

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: