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. -> superb source for lo.tekk `artist` antibodies.

                                                meeTz ver!f1kat!˙n.     


Netochka Nezvanova
                                                     |  +----------
                                                    |  |     <   
                                   \\----------------+  |  n2t      
                                                       |       >

>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
>From: kenneth <>
>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