RE: [-empyre-] fwd from Andrew Murpie re fundamental.
Writing is symbol, encoding is symbol, a rose IS a rose WHEN IT IS A REAL
ROSE otherwise it is just rose symbols. I further state that it does not
matter what alphabet or language the encoding is, assume there is a little
certain something there that works and makes us think rose or conjure up a
memory of a rose but if all life disappeared and someone was on a space ship
describing a rose to someone else, even a perfectly scaled rose hologram
combined with the precise aroma, a scratch from a thorn, accurate chemical
information and all other conceivable representations - they only capture
reductionist aspects of the rose and not the rose itself and maybe that is
ok - it makes the actual rose much more valuable, worth keeping.
In the quest to preserve, understand or share information about natural,
non-duplicatable things roses, we need new ways to combine as many cues as
possible. Computers may be able to "see" or "understand" or even "remember"
aspects of a rose but it won't take a scratch from it and does not have many
tools to assemble wholes on their own.
a museum designer obsessed with the real and leaving town for a day
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Jim Andrews
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 12:59 AM
Subject: RE: [-empyre-] fwd from Andrew Murpie re fundamental.
Thanks, Andrew. I will check out Brooks and Varela.
It would be fascinating to hear an alternative clearly stated. I will look
for that in Rodney Brooks and Francisco Varela.
OK, I've had enough of this debate with Alan. It would be nice to hear from
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and