integer on Mon, 15 May 2000 19:42:52 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> It's not me it's my genes, or is it my memes? - phps your edukazion |
the principal input to the human brain is pictures and the principal output is words. thus to describe the human brain as a device converting pictures to words one would receive 10 points on the richter scale. aristotle stated that all human knowledge can be expressed in the form a = b. nouns and verbs are separated from static image nouns. separated in the retina they are reunited in speech. nearly all human thought is pattern recognition. there are four types. 1 dimensional - music 2 dimensional - fine art 3 dimensional - human anatomy 4 dimensional - physiology 1 general theory of pattern recognition is feasible - the sieve of eratosthenes. 2 aren't plausible. may be desirable accessing a publik library + edukating selves. it is ultra formidable the quantity of religious refuze germinating on this 01 particular list. considering it is populated by `artists` however - it may not be ultra formidable. a problem with the moderation battalion and not a problem with the submissions peut etre. ciao.nn. eusocial.com -> superb source for lo.tekk `artist` antibodies. pre.konssept!˙n meeTz ver!f1kat!˙n. - Netochka Nezvanova f3.MASCHIN3NKUNST @www.eusocial.com 17.hzV.tRL.478 e | | +---------- | | < \\----------------+ | n2t | > e >I received this answer to my nettime post 'Its not me its my genes, or is >it my memes?'. I think it is an interesting answer so I am fowarding it >(with the author's permission) to the list. > >Best. Ana > >=================================== >Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 16:06:03 -0400 >Subject: memes and genes >To: aviseu@oise.utoronto.ca >From: kenneth <kmcleod56@hotmail.com> > >The more we seem to advance along the parallel lines of cyber- and genetic >learning, a weird process is suggesting itself to me; a philosophical >devolution of the human concept from the ëparagon of animalsí to a metaphor >of the computer paradigm. Instead of finding new reforms for our models of >morality to take, that is, to have our humanity mature at a pace with our >new knowledge, we seem to be internalizing our technology. We speak of >ourselves as biological machines, wired by DNA, fated by our speciesí >programming. I canít help feeling that this is a sign of a self-justifying >excuse for society to apply 'medicine' where it sees a need for >'correction'; eugenics brushes dangerously along the territorial line of >prescribing 'cure' after the conclusion of 'diagnosis'. Itís starting to >sound like we need 'fixing', doesnít it? > >I see this approaching perspective as a greater danger than any amoral >license born of the 'boys will be boys' (or 'all men are dogs') school. I >donít see ourselves as some sort of fleshware lugging around irresistible >Neanderthal programming, waiting for some eugenicsí version of Prozac to >make us citizens. Chaos would perhaps be reduced in our daily lives, but so >would the growth that comes from imperfection. Lifestyles and good health >has been our alternative to surgery and medication; if we apply this >holistic outlook to our genetic profiles, we may still have the freedom to >be responsible for adjusting to this new knowledge of ourselves 'know who >and what you are, and thus take care of yourself'. I canít wait to tell >somebody, "Youíve got more memes than brains, buddy!" > _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold