[-empyre-] Re: empyre Digest, Vol 10, Issue 13
These are called memes, see Dawkins, then Blackmore:
> more than likely i'm having a little moment of panic over semantics here,
> but jim's suggestion that....
>
> > a gesture, for instance, if it is remembered, is
> > remembered via some inscription of it somewhere (or multiple places) in
the
> > body. Whether we want to call it writing or inscription or coding or
> > whatever, doesn't matter. Aspects of the gesture are coded in the body
as
> > information, in some way that makes them memorable, ie, recallable, ie,
> > decipherable later on as the gesture. Readable later on as the gesture.
> >
> > In other words, the information is coded in a language that is
inscribable
> > and, later, decipherable or readable, amenable to interpretation
according
> > to some rules regarding the language.
>
> .... seems to reduce gesture - and embodied perception more generally - to
a
> sort of call-and-response activity linked to a relatively limited
repertoire
> of codes - a definitional framework that aims not just to construct the
body
> but to prescribe 'every possible signifying and countersignifying move as
a
> selection from a repertoire of possible permutations on a limited set of
> predetermined terms'
----- Original Message -----
From: <empyre-request@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
To: <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 5:58 PM
Subject: empyre Digest, Vol 10, Issue 13
> Send empyre mailing list submissions to
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> empyre-request@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> empyre-owner@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: empyre Digest, Vol 10, Issue 12 (Albert Lundquist)
> 2. Re:oh my god (ian)
> 3. Re: Re:oh my god (Joel Weishaus)
> 4. potential of code.. (Melinda Rackham)
> 5. Re: potential of code.. (Andrew Murphie)
> 6. Re: Re:oh my god (Andrew Murphie)
> 7. Re: Re:oh my god (tamara lai)
> 8. Re: potential of code.. (tamara lai)
> 9. Re: Re:oh my god (tamara lai)
> 10. RE: potential of code.. (Jim Andrews)
> 11. Re: potential of code.. (tamara lai)
> 12. Re: Re:oh my god (Alan Sondheim)
> 13. Re: potential of code.. (Alan Sondheim)
> 14. Re: potential of code.. (Alan Sondheim)
> 15. Re: Re:oh my god (Alan Sondheim)
> 16. Re: potential of code.. (Joel Weishaus)
> 17. Re: potential of code.. (Yvonne Martinsson)
> 18. Re: potential of code.. (Henry Warwick)
> 19. RE: Accidents (was for example) (Jim Andrews)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:07:21 -0700
> From: "Albert Lundquist" <AGLTUCS1@worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: [-empyre-] Re: empyre Digest, Vol 10, Issue 12
> To: <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <001201c3a8b9$551a29e0$e064530c@nowhere.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Re: information copying, see Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" or Susan
Blackmore's
> "The Meme Machine". Mimetics has come a long way in the last 25 years.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <empyre-request@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> To: <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 5:58 PM
> Subject: empyre Digest, Vol 10, Issue 12
>
>
> > Send empyre mailing list submissions to
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > empyre-request@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > empyre-owner@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: Accidents (was for example) (eugenie)
> > 2. Re: Accidents (was for example) (Joel Weishaus)
> > 3. riddle and enigma (Jim Andrews)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:10:30 +0000
> > From: eugenie <eugenies@onetel.net.uk>
> > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Accidents (was for example)
> > To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Message-ID: <BBD657D7.1D1E%eugenies@onetel.net.uk>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> >
> > all,
> >
> > more than likely i'm having a little moment of panic over semantics
here,
> > but jim's suggestion that....
> >
> > > a gesture, for instance, if it is remembered, is
> > > remembered via some inscription of it somewhere (or multiple places)
in
> the
> > > body. Whether we want to call it writing or inscription or coding or
> > > whatever, doesn't matter. Aspects of the gesture are coded in the body
> as
> > > information, in some way that makes them memorable, ie, recallable,
ie,
> > > decipherable later on as the gesture. Readable later on as the
gesture.
> > >
> > > In other words, the information is coded in a language that is
> inscribable
> > > and, later, decipherable or readable, amenable to interpretation
> according
> > > to some rules regarding the language.
> >
> > .... seems to reduce gesture - and embodied perception more generally -
to
> a
> > sort of call-and-response activity linked to a relatively limited
> repertoire
> > of codes - a definitional framework that aims not just to construct the
> body
> > but to prescribe 'every possible signifying and countersignifying move
as
> a
> > selection from a repertoire of possible permutations on a limited set of
> > predetermined terms'
> >
> > .... that last little bit is lifted from Brian Massumi's 'Parables for
the
> > Virtual', and i'm roping him in here because he argues much more
> eloquently
> > than i do against frameworks which propose a determinitive structure
(i.e.
> a
> > code) first, and movement or gesture second. these sort of models leave
no
> > room for change - qualitative material transformation. in other words
they
> > suggest that embodiedness itself is historically static and the only
> things
> > that change are the codes/inscriptions that make it legible.
> >
> > > the human perceptual crevice is only a sliver of temporal and spatial
> > > phenomenon
> >
> > i'd agree - and given this it seems a bit optimistic to suggest that
> sensory
> > information is coded and readable like any other language
> >
> > eu
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 08:55:26 -0800
> > From: "Joel Weishaus" <weishaus@pdx.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Accidents (was for example)
> > To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Message-ID: <000a01c3a874$9bc41ee0$8ffdfc83@oemcomputer>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "eugenie" <eugenies@onetel.net.uk>
> > To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 1:10 AM
> > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Accidents (was for example)
> >
> >
> > > all,
> > >
> > > more than likely i'm having a little moment of panic over semantics
> here,
> > > but jim's suggestion that....
> > >
> > > > a gesture, for instance, if it is remembered, is
> > > > remembered via some inscription of it somewhere (or multiple places)
> in
> > the
> > > > body. Whether we want to call it writing or inscription or coding or
> > > > whatever, doesn't matter. Aspects of the gesture are coded in the
body
> > as
> > > > information, in some way that makes them memorable, ie, recallable,
> ie,
> > > > decipherable later on as the gesture. Readable later on as the
> gesture.
> > > >
> > > > In other words, the information is coded in a language that is
> > inscribable
> > > > and, later, decipherable or readable, amenable to interpretation
> > according
> > > > to some rules regarding the language.
> > >
> > > .... seems to reduce gesture - and embodied perception more
generally -
> to
> > a
> > > sort of call-and-response activity linked to a relatively limited
> > repertoire
> > > of codes - a definitional framework that aims not just to construct
the
> > body
> > > but to prescribe 'every possible signifying and countersignifying move
> as
> > a
> > > selection from a repertoire of possible permutations on a limited set
of
> > > predetermined terms'
> > >
> > > .... that last little bit is lifted from Brian Massumi's 'Parables for
> the
> > > Virtual', and i'm roping him in here because he argues much more
> > eloquently
> > > than i do against frameworks which propose a determinitive structure
> (i.e.
> > a
> > > code) first, and movement or gesture second. these sort of models
leave
> no
> > > room for change - qualitative material transformation. in other words
> they
> > > suggest that embodiedness itself is historically static and the only
> > things
> > > that change are the codes/inscriptions that make it legible.
> > >
> > > > the human perceptual crevice is only a sliver of temporal and
spatial
> > > > phenomenon
> > >
> > > i'd agree - and given this it seems a bit optimistic to suggest that
> > sensory
> > > information is coded and readable like any other language
> >
> > Well it isn't, it's a chemical language which we don't yet fully
> understand.
> > More interesting is the transformative mechanism as the code reformats
> into
> > natural languages. The creative gesture. Again, there are terms but yet
> > little understanding. As for "embodiedness (look how "died" is embedded
> > here!) itself is historically static," there is no stasis in nature,
only
> > continuous flux within a normative spectrum. At bottom, codes are only
> > energetic beeps.
> > I don't like Massumi's "determinative structure," however, as the
> normative
> > is beyond what we can determine.
> >
> > -Joel
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:26:01 -0800
> > From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
> > Subject: [-empyre-] riddle and enigma
> > To: "Soft_Skinned_Space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Message-ID: <DCEIJDHNAAEEKPKFBEALIEEACKAA.jim@vispo.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > hi joel, eugenie, alan, all,
> >
> > alan asked how i would model the semantics of a poem. meaning is
> constructed
> > and invented, isn't it. boring to read stuff that 'cannot be
> misunderstood'.
> > and impossible. we can show more than tell. telling presupposes an
> > unequivocal meaning but meaning is constructed not so much like putting
> > together a jig saw puzzle (unique construction) but a poem (multiply
> > interpretable). should writing engage our own inventive faculties
> intensely,
> > we enjoy it. our spark jumps the gaps. we enjoy putting things together,
> are
> > intensely inferential. of necessity. perception is discrete/nerves must
> > fire, but we infer continuity. writing is broken into pieces but we
infer
> > even voice.
> >
> > the processses by which we parse text and construct meaning are probably
> not
> > different in kind from the processes by which we interpret other
> perceptions
> > of the poemy universe.
> >
> > there's riddle and there's enigma. from moment to moment we interpret
> > enigma. and riddle. enigmatically, apparently. i saw a book of poems
> titled
> > 'Interpreting Silence'. Great title. The book was OK. Hard to live up to
> > such a title, I guess.
> >
> > language and the theory of computation. language and theories of
> perception.
> > language and theories of mind. i started out studying lit and math. some
> > years later i went back to school to study computer science and math.
much
> > of the computing stuff was kinda dull, but there was one course, called
> > 'language and the theory of computation' that tingled my nerves. to see
> how
> > central the study of language is to the study of computing was pretty
> > inspiring, and to see how study of language has figured in some of the
> > outstanding mathematics of the last century changed my outlook on the
> > relations between math and language. enigma: 'in the beginning was the
> > word'... youda thunk in the beginning was the thing itself...or
> > whatever...in any case, the relations between language and creation are
> deep
> > and near the source of creation.
> >
> > wouldn't it be interesting if the mechanisms of our perception and
> > meaning-construction use a type of language that is fundamentally richer
> > than 'natural language'? if this is possible. intuition says it isn't
but
> > there's the countably infinite and the uncountably infinite, the
> 'rational'
> > and the 'irrational' (and beyond both) and whoda thunk it? So that we
> could
> > aspire to 'speak the body electric'.
> >
> > tamara spoke of creating work that 'juggles' different media. our
> processing
> > of sensory data does this routinely. we 'read' it from moment to moment.
> but
> > we do not 'write' it routinely, except in reverie and dream, ie, to
> > ourselves. yet we don't have to 'write' to the complete sensorium of
> others
> > in order to engage them in the construction of a world; they do it
anyway;
> > we have 'merely' to engage their imaginations. so less can be more, if
the
> > goal is invention, creation, and discovery. and communication, if
meaning
> is
> > constructed rather than 'ready made', if communication is a kind of
> > gift-giving where some assembly is required, the instructions are
largely
> > implicit, and the intent is not so much like a jig saw puzzle as a poem.
> >
> > still, however flexible and non-determinative the construction of
meaning,
> > that doesn't necessarily imply that it is non-algorithmic. Also, however
> > mysterious and complex the ways in which the body and mind code the data
> of
> > the sensorium and the subsequent processed version of it, I don't see
any
> > way around the notion that they are indeed coded some way in the body,
> > unless our memories are not stored in the body but are elsewhere. This
is
> i
> > suppose possible but it doesn't seem likely to me.
> >
> > ja
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre mailing list
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
> >
> > End of empyre Digest, Vol 10, Issue 12
> > **************************************
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:01:49 +1100
> From: ian <ian@laudanum.net>
> Subject: [-empyre-] Re:oh my god
> To: empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> Message-ID: <2D573E6C-14B4-11D8-B916-000393C418DE@laudanum.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> >
>
> I'm in that fabulous spot where one just lands in a
> conversation....such as a bar
> and SPINS literally spins out...oh my god!
> What are you talking about. Can someone rescue this dialogue?
>
> Are the collective authors proposing that:
>
> 1/ there is a code/inscription that functions as a record and forms a
> pre-kinesthetic intention or script for gestures to be enacted by the
> body.
>
> 2/ There are gestures that operate as code for kinesthetic memory to
> reveal
> experience in the conscious.
>
> 3/ If gesture/code/kinesthetic memory are intertwined why doesn't
> scores for choreography
> reflect this.
>
> 4/ Where is choreography when it comes to the kinds of extended
> discourses such as found in music, and music theory; sound, harmonics,
> psycho-acoustics, intervals, rhythm, acoustics, scores, translation,
> transposition, spatial acoustics, spatial mapping, jamming, improv. to
> name a few....
>
> 5/ Have we discussed Reich yet?
>
> I'd love to pick up on this
> cheers
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> Ian Hobbs
>
> Lens
> 19a Quirk st.
> Rozelle 2039
> NSW
>
> 0411032601
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:33:52 -0800
> From: "Joel Weishaus" <weishaus@pdx.edu>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Re:oh my god
> To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <000301c3a8d6$689ea140$5dfdfc83@oemcomputer>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> > I'm in that fabulous spot where one just lands in a
> > conversation....such as a bar
> > and SPINS literally spins out...oh my god!
> > What are you talking about. Can someone rescue this dialogue?
> >
> > Are the collective authors proposing that:
> >
> > 1/ there is a code/inscription that functions as a record and forms a
> > pre-kinesthetic intention or script for gestures to be enacted by the
> > body.
> >
> > 2/ There are gestures that operate as code for kinesthetic memory to
> > reveal
> > experience in the conscious.
> >
> > 3/ If gesture/code/kinesthetic memory are intertwined why doesn't
> > scores for choreography
> > reflect this.
> >
> > 4/ Where is choreography when it comes to the kinds of extended
> > discourses such as found in music, and music theory; sound, harmonics,
> > psycho-acoustics, intervals, rhythm, acoustics, scores, translation,
> > transposition, spatial acoustics, spatial mapping, jamming, improv. to
> > name a few....
> >
> > 5/ Have we discussed Reich yet?
>
> Ian:
>
> I was addressing somatic save/inscribe/retrieve functions, thus chemical
> codes in apposition to natural languages. Choreography was not on my mind,
> or in my feet. Also, a gesture is not necessarily kinesthetic. It doesn't
> operate but orchestrates, which is what I think you're saying. But
> intertwining is for grape vines not neuronic circuits.
>
> -Joel
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:11:00 +1100
> From: "Melinda Rackham" <melinda@unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: [-empyre-] potential of code..
> To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <00a501c3a8db$5d552070$8c0c083d@fluffy>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> tamara and others hi..
>
> along with the metaphysical gaps between zero and one we have been
> discussing i am interested in what inspired your work "portrait of god" as
i
> keep seeing net.works that talk about spirituality popping up.. like
Shilpa
> Gupta 's "blessed bandwidth" commission at the Tate which looks at the
place
> of religion in digital age..
>
> there seesm to be a persistent tendency to map ephemerality into
electronic
> space...
> i.e. maybe that energy alan was talking about which maintains the
language
> protocols; the potential of energetic voids; the digital aura; etc. im
> having visions of an animating spirit residing in these gaps, lurking
> bewteen data packets?
>
> melinda
>
>
>
> tamara wrote:
> > when I initiate and direct networked projects, I regard myself
especially
> as
> > an agent, an instrument, a catalyst.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:45:52 +1100
> From: Andrew Murphie <a.murphie@unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] potential of code..
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <DB9BA680-14DB-11D8-81F0-000A959EB10E@unsw.edu.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 04:11 PM, Melinda Rackham wrote:
>
> > im
> > having visions of an animating spirit residing in these gaps, lurking
> > bewteen data packets?
>
> something like Descartes' animal spirits - moving between soul
> (intensity) and (mechanical) matter? So that code has the more
> potential when it is animated by intensity, or swirled into voids, or
> both, as it must be ...
>
> Andrew
> --
> "I thought I had reached port; but I seemed to be cast
> back again into the open sea" (Deleuze and Guattari, after Leibniz)
>
> Dr Andrew Murphie - Senior Lecturer
> School of Media and Communications, University of New South Wales,
> Sydney, Australia, 2052
> web:http://mdcm.arts.unsw.edu.au/homepage/StaffPages/Murphie/
> fax:612 93856812 tlf:612 93855548 email: a.murphie@unsw.edu.au
> room 311H, Webster Building
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:03:39 +1100
> From: Andrew Murphie <a.murphie@unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Re:oh my god
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <57E3B326-14DE-11D8-81F0-000A959EB10E@unsw.edu.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> Great discussion...
>
> 1. any code or language is a way of corralling forces (i.e. electrical
> forces, variations in voltage for example as zeroes and ones,
> ingredients in a recipe for making cakes, etc) ...for me, language is
> one way and one way only of gathering forces, a bit like gathering
> forces into packets to distribute them efficiently across the internet.
> The mistake, in my view at least, is perhaps to think the gathering
> comes before the forces, or that any gathering is a matter of language
> or code... .. also, for me, all this means that language is far from
> abstract ... its gathering of forces is on every occasion specific and
> with specific direction and force
>
> 2. languages, codes or algorithms are not the only ways to corral
> forces ... there are techniques which are not codes strictly speaking -
> or never only codes ... there is, as Ian mentioned,
> choreography...there is colour and other forms of intensity that seem
> very difficult to incorporate into codes, etc .. For me, art is firstly
> about this intensity rather than firstly a communication through codes
> .... - even when explicitly engaging with codes and languages art
> (more than for example, the social sciences) deals with the forces
> involved in acts of coding - or to put this differently art seems to
> foreground the intensities that codes and algorithms are attempting to
> grapple with or simply express ... art defined as intensity includes
> digital art, which deals with digital, networked intensities .... but
> the temptation is to think that digital art is completely contained
> within code and algorithm, and even just 'about' code ... this would be
> like saying that dancing is only about choreography or that music is
> about the score ...
>
> 3. this corralling of forces is not only human of course
>
> 4. if you see why language. code and algorithms are not the only
> participants in networks of forces - then voids, etc become very
> important precisely in terms of intensities - language, as a coralling
> of forces has its voids but so do other nexes of forces. All this means
> that structure is as much about intensity as code or algorithm.
>
> 5. networks make this more obvious and they don't just make
> 'communication' possible - they further intensify intensities. Networks
> look all the more coded, overcoded, complexly coded, and indeed as
> interactions of codes and algorithms they are, but it would be a
> mistake to overlook that in networks which is not coded - the voids
> certainly but also other forms of intensity ... digital art is a
> powerful and intense expression of networking precisely when networks
> are not only taken as code or algorithm,.. digital art is about the
> dancing of networks ... the music of networks ...
>
> best , a
> --
> "I thought I had reached port; but I seemed to be cast
> back again into the open sea" (Deleuze and Guattari, after Leibniz)
>
> Dr Andrew Murphie - Senior Lecturer
> School of Media and Communications, University of New South Wales,
> Sydney, Australia, 2052
> web:http://mdcm.arts.unsw.edu.au/homepage/StaffPages/Murphie/
> fax:612 93856812 tlf:612 93855548 email: a.murphie@unsw.edu.au
> room 311H, Webster Building
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:10:45 +0100
> From: tamara lai <tamara.lai@skynet.be>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Re:oh my god
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <BBD7B7A4.FDD0%tamara.lai@skynet.be>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>
>
> "digital art is about the
> dancing of networks ... the music of networks ..."
>
>
>
> magnifique!!
>
> many many thanks
>
> regards
>
> Tamara
>
> > De : Andrew Murphie <a.murphie@unsw.edu.au>
> > Répondre à : soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Date : Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:03:39 +1100
> > À : soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Objet : Re: [-empyre-] Re:oh my god
> >
> > Great discussion...
> >
> > 1. any code or language is a way of corralling forces (i.e. electrical
> > forces, variations in voltage for example as zeroes and ones,
> > ingredients in a recipe for making cakes, etc) ...for me, language is
> > one way and one way only of gathering forces, a bit like gathering
> > forces into packets to distribute them efficiently across the internet.
> > The mistake, in my view at least, is perhaps to think the gathering
> > comes before the forces, or that any gathering is a matter of language
> > or code... .. also, for me, all this means that language is far from
> > abstract ... its gathering of forces is on every occasion specific and
> > with specific direction and force
> >
> > 2. languages, codes or algorithms are not the only ways to corral
> > forces ... there are techniques which are not codes strictly speaking -
> > or never only codes ... there is, as Ian mentioned,
> > choreography...there is colour and other forms of intensity that seem
> > very difficult to incorporate into codes, etc .. For me, art is firstly
> > about this intensity rather than firstly a communication through codes
> > .... - even when explicitly engaging with codes and languages art
> > (more than for example, the social sciences) deals with the forces
> > involved in acts of coding - or to put this differently art seems to
> > foreground the intensities that codes and algorithms are attempting to
> > grapple with or simply express ... art defined as intensity includes
> > digital art, which deals with digital, networked intensities .... but
> > the temptation is to think that digital art is completely contained
> > within code and algorithm, and even just 'about' code ... this would be
> > like saying that dancing is only about choreography or that music is
> > about the score ...
> >
> > 3. this corralling of forces is not only human of course
> >
> > 4. if you see why language. code and algorithms are not the only
> > participants in networks of forces - then voids, etc become very
> > important precisely in terms of intensities - language, as a coralling
> > of forces has its voids but so do other nexes of forces. All this means
> > that structure is as much about intensity as code or algorithm.
> >
> > 5. networks make this more obvious and they don't just make
> > 'communication' possible - they further intensify intensities. Networks
> > look all the more coded, overcoded, complexly coded, and indeed as
> > interactions of codes and algorithms they are, but it would be a
> > mistake to overlook that in networks which is not coded - the voids
> > certainly but also other forms of intensity ... digital art is a
> > powerful and intense expression of networking precisely when networks
> > are not only taken as code or algorithm,.. digital art is about the
> > dancing of networks ... the music of networks ...
> >
> > best , a
> > --
> > "I thought I had reached port; but I seemed to be cast
> > back again into the open sea" (Deleuze and Guattari, after Leibniz)
> >
> > Dr Andrew Murphie - Senior Lecturer
> > School of Media and Communications, University of New South Wales,
> > Sydney, Australia, 2052
> > web:http://mdcm.arts.unsw.edu.au/homepage/StaffPages/Murphie/
> > fax:612 93856812 tlf:612 93855548 email: a.murphie@unsw.edu.au
> > room 311H, Webster Building
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:44:47 +0100
> From: tamara lai <tamara.lai@skynet.be>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] potential of code..
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <BBD7BF9C.FDD9%tamara.lai@skynet.be>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>
> hi Melinda &...
>
> if I were a prophet, I would use Internet to propagate the 'good word'!
(but
> us, artists, poets... are we prophets and are our words and ideas and
> questions and energies good to propagate and sow the world?)
> on the other hand it seems urgent to that artists (especially since
> Internet) become aware of their responsibility
> for the Western artist of the 21e century, the computer is at the same
time
> studio, laboratory and kitchen ; the softwares are its tools; images,
> sounds, words, interactivity, network, codes, are the ingredients with
which
> it will juggle, to compose and build art-works
> these works convey and give to ' see' ideas and concepts which differently
> would be only ' confidentiels', i.e. accessible to a minority of
specialists
>
> art should be opening (and as such arranging several 'doors of perception
')
> and are supposed to abolish all the compartmentalizations
>
> in my humble opinion
>
> Tamara
>
> > De : "Melinda Rackham" <melinda@unsw.edu.au>
> > Répondre à : soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Date : Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:11:00 +1100
> > À : "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Objet : [-empyre-] potential of code..
> >
> > tamara and others hi..
> >
> > along with the metaphysical gaps between zero and one we have been
> > discussing i am interested in what inspired your work "portrait of god"
as i
> > keep seeing net.works that talk about spirituality popping up.. like
Shilpa
> > Gupta 's "blessed bandwidth" commission at the Tate which looks at the
place
> > of religion in digital age..
> >
> > there seesm to be a persistent tendency to map ephemerality into
electronic
> > space...
> > i.e. maybe that energy alan was talking about which maintains the
language
> > protocols; the potential of energetic voids; the digital aura; etc. im
> > having visions of an animating spirit residing in these gaps, lurking
> > bewteen data packets?
> >
> > melinda
> >
> >
> >
> > tamara wrote:
> >> when I initiate and direct networked projects, I regard myself
especially
> > as
> >> an agent, an instrument, a catalyst.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:26:22 +0100
> From: tamara lai <tamara.lai@skynet.be>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Re:oh my god
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <BBD7E57D.FDE4%tamara.lai@skynet.be>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>
>
>
> I wonder whether finally, the practice of the virtual relation would not
> tend to develop a not very common faculty: telepathy... Thus the blind
> persons develop other senses to feel, to know the Other. At least, it
seems
> to me that ' tact ', the intuition of this Other is refined, and some
words
> and silences can say more on its personality and its intentions. On the
> other hand, that can be alienating, because how to be sure of these
furtive
> impressions, how to check them if not at the time of a meeting in flesh?
>
>
> t
>
> > De : Andrew Murphie <a.murphie@unsw.edu.au>
> > Répondre à : soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Date : Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:03:39 +1100
> > À : soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Objet : Re: [-empyre-] Re:oh my god
> >
> > Great discussion...
> >
> > 1. any code or language is a way of corralling forces (i.e. electrical
> > forces, variations in voltage for example as zeroes and ones,
> > ingredients in a recipe for making cakes, etc) ...for me, language is
> > one way and one way only of gathering forces, a bit like gathering
> > forces into packets to distribute them efficiently across the internet.
> > The mistake, in my view at least, is perhaps to think the gathering
> > comes before the forces, or that any gathering is a matter of language
> > or code... .. also, for me, all this means that language is far from
> > abstract ... its gathering of forces is on every occasion specific and
> > with specific direction and force
> >
> > 2. languages, codes or algorithms are not the only ways to corral
> > forces ... there are techniques which are not codes strictly speaking -
> > or never only codes ... there is, as Ian mentioned,
> > choreography...there is colour and other forms of intensity that seem
> > very difficult to incorporate into codes, etc .. For me, art is firstly
> > about this intensity rather than firstly a communication through codes
> > .... - even when explicitly engaging with codes and languages art
> > (more than for example, the social sciences) deals with the forces
> > involved in acts of coding - or to put this differently art seems to
> > foreground the intensities that codes and algorithms are attempting to
> > grapple with or simply express ... art defined as intensity includes
> > digital art, which deals with digital, networked intensities .... but
> > the temptation is to think that digital art is completely contained
> > within code and algorithm, and even just 'about' code ... this would be
> > like saying that dancing is only about choreography or that music is
> > about the score ...
> >
> > 3. this corralling of forces is not only human of course
> >
> > 4. if you see why language. code and algorithms are not the only
> > participants in networks of forces - then voids, etc become very
> > important precisely in terms of intensities - language, as a coralling
> > of forces has its voids but so do other nexes of forces. All this means
> > that structure is as much about intensity as code or algorithm.
> >
> > 5. networks make this more obvious and they don't just make
> > 'communication' possible - they further intensify intensities. Networks
> > look all the more coded, overcoded, complexly coded, and indeed as
> > interactions of codes and algorithms they are, but it would be a
> > mistake to overlook that in networks which is not coded - the voids
> > certainly but also other forms of intensity ... digital art is a
> > powerful and intense expression of networking precisely when networks
> > are not only taken as code or algorithm,.. digital art is about the
> > dancing of networks ... the music of networks ...
> >
> > best , a
> > --
> > "I thought I had reached port; but I seemed to be cast
> > back again into the open sea" (Deleuze and Guattari, after Leibniz)
> >
> > Dr Andrew Murphie - Senior Lecturer
> > School of Media and Communications, University of New South Wales,
> > Sydney, Australia, 2052
> > web:http://mdcm.arts.unsw.edu.au/homepage/StaffPages/Murphie/
> > fax:612 93856812 tlf:612 93855548 email: a.murphie@unsw.edu.au
> > room 311H, Webster Building
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:56:12 -0800
> From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
> Subject: RE: [-empyre-] potential of code..
> To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <DCEIJDHNAAEEKPKFBEALCEFACKAA.jim@vispo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Tamara's 'Tell A Mouse': http://tellamouse.be.tf
>
> Enjoyed your 'medi[a]tation'
> http://users.skynet.be/tamara.lai/URBANGS/dlsan/mediatation.htm piece,
> Tamara.
>
> I read the second part first as SWF, not SFW since it's in Flash, and
> laughed. But also I enjoyed the irreverent playfulness of it. There's a
kind
> of meditation in composition, in creating work, that is sufficient.
>
> Looking at some of your other work, like
> http://www.imal.org/tamara_lai/SOLENOIDES/solenoide.htm , it seems
> experiential, imagistic. It doesn't try too hard to incorporate some
notion
> of narrative but operates frame by frame, imagistically, though there are
> motifs running through the pieces on relationship.
>
> ja
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:14:50 +0100
> From: tamara lai <tamara.lai@skynet.be>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] potential of code..
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <BBD7F0D6.FDE9%tamara.lai@skynet.be>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>
>
> thanks Jim
>
>
> but
>
> 'medi[a]tation'
>
> is a work of dlsan an artist from Verona, Italia
>
> (http://www.dlsan.org)
>
> he made it for URBANGS (Urban Anguishes)
> (http://urbangs.be.tf)
> a networked project (about 70 participants)
> that i've realized in 2002 / 2003
>
> SOLENOIDES
>
> Solenoïdes, contrary to appearances, is a Net art and even Web art
project,
> which would not have existed without Internet: the cyber poems are the
> result of the destructuration of more classic texts, written for projects
> and of extracts of mails addressed to some virtual correspondents. These
> bits, re-compiled and re-written, call upon a subliminal intention: that
of
> speaking once again about the virtual relations, of feeling alone in front
> of a dumb, voiceless, or silently noisy screen ; fascinated by this
contact
> of spirit to spirit, bewitched by these impulses/impulses wrapping me like
a
> magnetic and inextinguishable flux...
>
>
> Since 1999, i've met and (work with) several hundred artists worldwide.
> Sometimes during hours, I was in communication with correspondents, so
much
> so that my conscience of the place where I was and from the computer
> disappeared, it was a such a close presence..., until the moment when the
> illusion was broken by an external element, a noise or... At this time, I
> found myself lonely in front of the screen, and this return to physical
> reality was violent. It arrives me sometimes to confuse these
> correspondents, and, (except to those which I met physically), I do not
know
> any more to which of these men I address myself. A French collaborator had
> me one day compared with Mary Shelley! It is of that that my "Solenoids
> speak": a history of love, an ode to a man who does not exist:
Frankenstein
> recreated from pieces of hearts and souls, dreams and images...
> The body is the carnal envelope of the spirit. Projected beyond time and
of
> space the spirit has the capacity to create the illusion of a body image
> and, if the contact continues in an intimate way, of a quasi physical
> presence.
>
> t
>
> > De : "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
> > Répondre à : soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Date : Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:56:12 -0800
> > À : "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Objet : RE: [-empyre-] potential of code..
> >
> > Tamara's 'Tell A Mouse': http://tellamouse.be.tf
> >
> > Enjoyed your 'medi[a]tation'
> > http://users.skynet.be/tamara.lai/URBANGS/dlsan/mediatation.htm piece,
> > Tamara.
> >
> > I read the second part first as SWF, not SFW since it's in Flash, and
> > laughed. But also I enjoyed the irreverent playfulness of it. There's a
kind
> > of meditation in composition, in creating work, that is sufficient.
> >
> > Looking at some of your other work, like
> > http://www.imal.org/tamara_lai/SOLENOIDES/solenoide.htm , it seems
> > experiential, imagistic. It doesn't try too hard to incorporate some
notion
> > of narrative but operates frame by frame, imagistically, though there
are
> > motifs running through the pieces on relationship.
> >
> > ja
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:56:18 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Re:oh my god
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.58.0311121453260.6028@panix2.panix.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
>
> I think... where I differ... I don't think 'information' is neuraly
> encoded... I think if anything neurophysiology problematizes code, at
> least in the sense I understand it (Eco for example or info theory). Look
> at Winograd's later work on breaking-down - for that matter, outside
> offormal languages, I don't think mathematics ad language are that
> inextricably related -
>
> I'm on the road, typing on a PDA - excuse the brevity - Aland the errors -
>
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, ian wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > I'm in that fabulous spot where one just lands in a
> > conversation....such as a bar
> > and SPINS literally spins out...oh my god!
> > What are you talking about. Can someone rescue this dialogue?
> >
> > Are the collective authors proposing that:
> >
> > 1/ there is a code/inscription that functions as a record and forms a
> > pre-kinesthetic intention or script for gestures to be enacted by the
> > body.
> >
> > 2/ There are gestures that operate as code for kinesthetic memory to
> > reveal
> > experience in the conscious.
> >
> > 3/ If gesture/code/kinesthetic memory are intertwined why doesn't
> > scores for choreography
> > reflect this.
> >
> > 4/ Where is choreography when it comes to the kinds of extended
> > discourses such as found in music, and music theory; sound, harmonics,
> > psycho-acoustics, intervals, rhythm, acoustics, scores, translation,
> > transposition, spatial acoustics, spatial mapping, jamming, improv. to
> > name a few....
> >
> > 5/ Have we discussed Reich yet?
> >
> > I'd love to pick up on this
> > cheers
> > Ian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ian Hobbs
> >
> > Lens
> > 19a Quirk st.
> > Rozelle 2039
> > NSW
> >
> > 0411032601
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
>
> http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
> http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
> Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
> finger sondheim@panix.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:58:51 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] potential of code..
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.58.0311121458130.6028@panix2.panix.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
>
> are there gaps between 0/1? thats te crux of it - one way or an other -
>
>
> http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
> http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
> Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
> finger sondheim@panix.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:02:58 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] potential of code..
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.58.0311121501030.6028@panix2.panix.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
>
> personally I don't think we're prophets at all, any more than any other
> group. prophecy scares me; we are simply too ignorant to do more than
> create oracles we can't read ourselves -
> and which may - for that matter - be nonsensical -
>
> Alan (spelling mistakes courtesy of PDA on line on the road)
>
> http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
> http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
> Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
> finger sondheim@panix.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:04:14 -0500 (EST)
> From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Re:oh my god
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.58.0311121503340.6028@panix2.panix.com>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
>
> and providing oe believes in telepathy ofcourse - otherwise we're left
> with digial bytes - alan
>
> http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
> http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
> Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
> finger sondheim@panix.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:07:06 -0800
> From: "Joel Weishaus" <weishaus@pdx.edu>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] potential of code..
> To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <001501c3a960$ee629ae0$55fdfc83@oemcomputer>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> > personally I don't think we're prophets at all, any more than any other
> > group. prophecy scares me; we are simply too ignorant to do more than
> > create oracles we can't read ourselves -
> > and which may - for that matter - be nonsensical -
> >
> > Alan (spelling mistakes courtesy of PDA on line on the road)
>
> Ah, wonderful! The stink from the crevice was just foul air after all.
>
> -Joel
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:16:59 +0100
> From: Yvonne Martinsson <yvonne@freewheelin.nu>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] potential of code..
> To: empyre <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <1068671891.12946@mailserv03>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
>
> Every structure carries the logic of absence, the void; matter -
> anti-matter, you know the drill.
>
> yvonne
>
> ---------------------------
> http://www.freewheelin.nu
> ---------------------------
>
> > From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
> > Reply-To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:58:51 -0500 (EST)
> > To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Subject: Re: [-empyre-] potential of code..
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > are there gaps between 0/1? thats te crux of it - one way or an other -
> >
> >
> > http://www.asondheim.org/ http://www.asondheim.org/portal/.nikuko
> > http://www.anu.edu.au/english/internet_txt
> > Trace projects http://trace.ntu.ac.uk/writers/sondheim/index.htm
> > finger sondheim@panix.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > empyre forum
> > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> > http://www.subtle.net/empyre
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:44:49 -0800 (PST)
> From: Henry Warwick <henry.warwick@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [-empyre-] potential of code..
> To: soft_skinned_space <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <20031112224449.99255.qmail@web80501.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> --- Yvonne Martinsson <yvonne@freewheelin.nu> wrote:
> >
> > Every structure carries the logic of absence, the
> > void; matter -
> > anti-matter, you know the drill.
>
> The above is self refuting.
>
> Set Theory.
>
> {
> set of all structures
>
> (set of structures that carry logic)
> (set of structures that don't carry logic)
> (set of structures who's carrying capacity is
> unknowable)
>
> }
>
> Therefore there are some structures that may or may
> not carry logic. Per: Entia non sunt multiplicanda
> praeter necessitatem, one should not assume that the
> set of structures of unknown capacity is an empty set,
> any more than one should assume that the set of
> structures that don't carry logic has any members.
>
> So, no, not every structure carries the logic of
> absence, or void, or antimatter or anything, really,
> as it may be a structure from a set of structures
> who's logical carrying ability is either absent or
> unknown or unknowable.
>
> Hence, it is unreasonable to assume that all
> structures carry any given logic.
>
> I would also go further: Since logical statements are
> a tiny subset of all possible statements, it is
> actually much more likely that there are many more
> structures that are completely useless and meaningless
> than there are structures that can carry a given
> logic.
>
> best,
>
> HW
>
> random quote sig.:
>
> SHOES FOR INDUSTRY!
> SHOES FOR THE DEAD!
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:53:52 -0800
> From: "Jim Andrews" <jim@vispo.com>
> Subject: RE: [-empyre-] Accidents (was for example)
> To: "soft_skinned_space" <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> Message-ID: <DCEIJDHNAAEEKPKFBEALCEFOCKAA.jim@vispo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> > .... seems to reduce gesture - and embodied perception more
> > generally - to a
> > sort of call-and-response activity linked to a relatively limited
> > repertoire
> > of codes - a definitional framework that aims not just to
> > construct the body
> > but to prescribe 'every possible signifying and countersignifying
> > move as a
> > selection from a repertoire of possible permutations on a limited set of
> > predetermined terms'
> >
> > .... that last little bit is lifted from Brian Massumi's 'Parables for
the
> > Virtual', and i'm roping him in here because he argues much more
> > eloquently
> > than i do against frameworks which propose a determinitive
> > structure (i.e. a
> > code) first, and movement or gesture second. these sort of models leave
no
> > room for change - qualitative material transformation. in other words
they
> > suggest that embodiedness itself is historically static and the
> > only things
> > that change are the codes/inscriptions that make it legible.
>
> Hi Eugenie,
>
> We make decisions, of course. But are those decisions inevitable in the
> sense that were time replayed, we would necessarily do the same thing?
When
> I say 'replay time', I mean every circumstance is as it was before,
> including our state of knowledge.
>
> We can't answer this question because we can't 'rewind' time.
>
> A computer would have to do the same thing it did initially. Random() is
> pseudo-random in the sense that if the precise situation is duplicated, it
> will produce the same output it did initially.
>
> I don't think we sacrifice any of our humanity, Eugenie, by supposing that
> we would necessarily do the same thing. We will never know, I suspect, in
> any case.
>
> I have never heard about any proof that anything we think or do cannot be
> algorithmic in nature. Which doesn't mean such a proof doesn't exist. But
my
> intuition is an answer would amount to an answer of the question I raised
> above. If there was one, it would be big news, much bigger than Fermat's
> theorem, for instance.
>
> There are tasks for which no algorithms can *ever* exist. The 'halting
> problem' (
>
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22the+h
> alting+problem%22 )is a famous example. Henry mentioned Godel several
posts
> ago. The halting problem is a proof by Alan Turing that 'undecidable'
> problems exist in computing.
>
> Even still, though there are 'undecidable' problems, that doesn't imply
that
> we ourselves do anything that isn't algorithmic in nature, even in
> formulating and proving the halting problem.
>
> Also, as Henry pointed out, there will always be the unknown, there will
> always be mystery. Our total knowledge will always be a drop in the bucket
> of the knowable. But our drop. Our drop of sweat to know about ourselves
and
> the universe.
>
> We can learn from our mistakes. We are free to act as we may, given
> circumstances and who and where we are and what we know. But even God has
> limitations. Can God create a stone so big God can't lift it? If yes, then
> there's something God can't do. If no then, again, there's something God
> can't do.
>
> ja
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre mailing list
> empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre
>
>
> End of empyre Digest, Vol 10, Issue 13
> **************************************
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and
MHonArc 2.6.8.