Viruses of the Mind.pdf

Viruses of the Mind

by Richard Dawkins

Article in Free Inquiry Summer 1993 pg 34-41

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 constantly

switching back and forth, say between writing and drawing programs? Do people succeed in

moving the mouse pointer straight to the target, or do they meander around in time-wasting hunting

movements that could be rectified by a change in design?

The company could send out a questionnaire asking all these questions, but the customers that

replied would be a biased sample and, in any case, their own assessment of their computer-using

behavior might be inaccurate. A better solution would be a market-research computer program.

Customers would be asked to load this program into their system where it would unobtrusively sit,

quietly monitoring and tallying key-presses and mouse movements. At the end of a year, the

customer would be asked to send in the disk file containing all the tallyings of the market-research

program. But again, most people would not bother to cooperate and some might see it as an

invasion of privacy and of their disk space.

The perfect solution, from the company's point of view, would be a virus. Like any other virus, it

would be self-replicating and secretive. But it would not be destructive or facetious like an ordinary

virus. Along with its self-replicating booster it would contain a market-research warhead. The virus

would be released surreptitiously into the community of computer users. Just like an ordinary virus

it would spread around, as people passed floppy disks and e-mail around the community. As the

virus spread from computer to computer, it would build up statistics on users behavior, monitored

secretly from deep within a succession of systems. Every now and again, a copy of the viruses

would happen to find its way, by normal epidemic traffic, back into one of the company's own

computers. There it would be debriefed and its data collated with data from other copies of the virus

that had come ``home.''

Looking into the future, it is not fanciful to imagine a time when viruses, both bad and good, have

become so ubiquitous that we could speak of an ecological community of viruses and legitimate

programs coexisting in the silicosphere. At present, software is advertised as, say, ``Compatible

with System 7.'' In the future, products may be advertised as ``Compatible with all viruses

registered in the 1998 World Virus Census; immune to all listed virulent viruses; takes full

advantage of the facilities offered by the following benign viruses if present...'' Word-processing

software, say, may hand over particular functions, such as word-counting and string-searches, to

friendly viruses burrowing autonomously through the text.

Looking even further into the future, whole integrated software systems might grow, not by design,

but by something like the growth of an ecological community such as a tropical rain-forest. Gangs

of mutually compatible viruses might grow up, in the same way as genomes can be regarded as

gangs of mutually compatible genes (Dawkins, 1982). Indeed, I have even suggested that our

genomes should be regarded as gigantic colonies of viruses (Dawkins, 1976). Genes cooperate

with one another in genomes because natural selection has favored those genes that prosper in the

presence of the other genes that happen to be common in the gene pool. Different gene pools may

evolve towards different combinations of mutually compatible genes. I envisage a time when, in the

same kind of way, computer viruses may evolve towards compatibility with other viruses, to form

communities or gangs. But then again, perhaps not! At any rate, I find the speculation more

alarming than exciting.

At present, computer viruses don't strictly evolve. They are invented by human programmers, and if

they evolve they do so in the same weak sense as cars or aeroplanes evolve . Designers derive this

year's car as a slight modification of last year's car, and then may, more or less consciously,

continue a trend of the last few years --- further flattening of the radiator grill or whatever it may be.

Computer virus designers dream up ever more devious tricks for outwitting the programmers of

anti-virus software. But computer viruses don't --- so far --- mutate and evolve by true natural

selection. They may do so in the future. Whether they evolve by natural selection, or whether their

evolution is steered by human designers, may not make much difference to their eventual

performance. By either kind of evolution, we expect them to become better at concealment, and we

expect them to become subtly compatible with other viruses that are at the same time prospering in

the computer community.

DNA viruses and computer viruses spread for the same reason: an environment exists in which

there is machinery well set up to duplicate and spread them around and to obey the instructions

that the viruses embody. These two environments are, respectively, the environment of cellular

physiology and the environment provided by a large community of computers and data-handling

machinery. Are there any other environments like these, any other humming paradises of

replication?

3 The Infected Mind

I have already alluded to the programmed-in gullibility of a child, so useful for learning language

and traditional wisdom, and so easily subverted by nuns, Moonies and their ilk . More generally, we

all exchange information with one another. We don't exactly plug floppy disks into slots in one

another's skulls, but we exchange sentences, both through our ears and through our eyes. We

notice each other's styles of moving and dressing and are influenced. We take in advertising jingles,

and are presumably persuaded by them, otherwise hard-headed businessmen would not spend so

much money polluting the air with them.

Think about the two qualities that a virus, or any sort of parasitic replicator, demands of a friendly

medium,. the two qualities that make cellular machinery so friendly towards parasitic DNA, and that

make computers so friendly towards computer viruses. These qualities are, firstly, a readiness to

replicate information accurately, perhaps with some mistakes that are subsequently reproduced

accurately; and, secondly, a readiness to obey instructions encoded in the information so

replicated.

Cellular machinery and electronic computers excel in both these virus-friendly qualities. How do

human brains match up? As faithful duplicators, they are certainly less perfect than either cells or

electronic computers. Nevertheless, they are still pretty good, perhaps about as faithful as an RNA

virus, though not as good as DNA with all its elaborate proofreading measures against textual

degradation. Evidence of the fidelity of brains, especially child brains, as data duplicators is

provided by language itself. Shaw's Professor Higgins was able by ear alone to place Londoners in

the street where they grew up. Fiction is not evidence for anything, but everyone knows that

Higgins's fictional skill is only an exaggeration of something we can all do . Any American can tell

Deep South from Mid West, New England from Hillbilly. Any New Yorker can tell Bronx from

Brooklyn. Equivalent claims could be substantiated for any country. What this phenomenon means

is that human brains are capable of pretty accurate copying (otherwise the accents of, say,

Newcastle would not be stable enough to be recognized) but with some mistakes (otherwise

pronunciation would not evolve, and all speakers of a language would inherit identically the same

accents from their remote ancestors). Language evolves, because it has both the great stability and

the slight changeability that are prerequisites for any evolving system.

The second requirement of a virus-friendly environment --- that it should obey a program of coded

instructions --- is again only quantitatively less true for brains than for cells or computers. We

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: