Hi Paul
I think we are singing from similar song books. Like you I think science is
the best system we have yet developed for understanding what is around us.
However, I nevertheless regard it as a severely restricted knowledge system.
Its power is in the recognition of its restrictions and contingencies that
is what ensures well practiced science is non-totalising.
Your argument risks totalising. I have a more limited notion of what a
machine is. It is something made to do something. I do not think the
universe is a machine because I doubt it was made (I am an atheist) and I
donšt think it is there to do anything (I am not a determinist). I certainly
have no understanding of why it is nor how it is (although through science I
have a partial comprehension of some of its phenomena). I donšt think that
anybody knows these things and I doubt that humans will ever be equipped to
know (I am not a humanist either).
Machines are things we make (if there are aliens they probably make them
too). Because we make them we understand them. To understand something as
complex as the universe in terms of a known system is a reductivist process.
It risks becoming another totalised belief system (gods, super-powerful
aliens, sentient universešs, etc) when there is no good reason why we have
to believe anything.
I wonder if the fervour of your position is a product of your distaste for
totalised belief systems and, in this fervour, you risk replacing one belief
with another?
Regards
Simon
On 5/12/08 17:11, "Paul Brown" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 5 Dec 2008, at 08:46, Simon Biggs wrote:
>
>> > I think a conversation like this cannot proceed without a careful
>> > definition of terms. What do we mean by machine?
>
>
> The Universe is a machine. Galaxies are machines. Suns are
> machines. Planets are machines. Viruses are machines. Cells are
> machines. Multi-cellular creatures are machines...
>
> Somewhere in this story a multi-cellular creature emerged who was not
> specialised like others: strong; fast; sharp... This one was quick
> thinking - it could outwit it's predators. Not surprisingly this one
> developed intelligence and - along with this two seriously misleading
> memes. The first is the concept of 'self' - an illusion as the Buddha
> explained to us over 2500 years ago - the perception of the individual
> as somehow distinct/separate from the universal machine. And along
> with this came the real mind-fuck - the concept of 'freedom of will' -
> the illusion that it's possible to act independently of the universal
> machine. [Geoff Summerhoff suggests that freedom of will is nothing
> more than the response of a simple entity to a complex environment
> (lovely!)].
>
> It seems to me that the inconsistencies in Simon's and Kristina's
> position is based on this illusion of self. A belief that humans are
> somehow 'special' and are therefore in some way exempt from (or a
> 'special case' of perhaps) the universal machine.
>
> By contrast it seems to me that we are just very (very) small and
> probably very (very (very(...))) insignificant cogs in the universal
> machine. [Though I am sympathetic to George Spencer Brown's
> hypothesis that we are the mechanism by which the universe perceives
> itself (but suggest that's another dialogue)]. To think otherwise is
> mere egotism - and (sorry) also implicitly invokes the need for a
> supernatural deity who gave us this ability to be 'separate'.
>
> The universe was not designed - it evolved. The universe is a machine.
>
> Paul
>
> ====
> Paul Brown - based in the UK Aug-Dec 2008
> mailto:[log in to unmask] == http://www.paul-brown.com
> UK Mobile +44 (0)794 104 8228 == USA fax +1 309 216 9900
> Skype paul-g-brown
> ====
> Visiting Professor - Sussex University
> http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/ccnr/research/creativity.html
> ====
Simon Biggs
Research Professor
edinburgh college of art
[log in to unmask]
www.eca.ac.uk
www.eca.ac.uk/circle/
[log in to unmask]
www.littlepig.org.uk
AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk
Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number SC009201
|
