Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)
Joe E. Dees (joedees@bellsouth.net)
Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:28:54 -0500
Date sent: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dylan Durst <ddurst@levien.com>
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)
Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
> > > I would say that all the 'tools' we get from 'technology' are
> > > specializations. I think that our 'tools' that we have made fall under the
> > > same proccess that made our biological 'tools' (and i guess, our bodies).
> > > The proccess seems similar enough.
> > >
> > The difference is intentionality, Dylan; people possess it; evolution
> > doesn't.
>
> Define 'possess'. Does possession require consiousness? I assume
> intentionality does.
>
Yes, to possess something, as in ownership, does indeed require
an intentional possessor. If "I" don't exist, nothing can be said to
be "mine."
>
> I want to begin ramblin' (please ignore if it doesn't click):
>
> I want to claim that, "That would be an assumption that 'evolution' does
> not have consiousness like we do." But that sounds silly. Yet still, I
> don't know that. While 'evolution' is a proccess, aren't we a 'process' as
> well (rendering in this bubble universe under physics).
>
There are many diffent kinds of processes. We are a recursively
self-conscious process, evolution is not.
>
> - dylan
>
> -- - _- - -_ - _ - _- _ - _ -_ _ = _ __
> Dylan Durst : ddurst@levien.com | ddurst@cats.ucsc.edu | dylan@haptek.com
>
>