Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)
Joe E. Dees (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 2 Jun 1999 17:28:54 -0500
Date sent: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dylan Durst <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)
Send reply to: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > The difference is intentionality, Dylan; people possess it; evolution
> > > 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.
> > >
> > 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
> 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 : email@example.com | firstname.lastname@example.org | email@example.com