JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Archives


NEW-MEDIA-CURATING@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING Home

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING  December 2008

NEW-MEDIA-CURATING December 2008

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Bio

From:

Mark Palmer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Mark Palmer <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:00:03 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1 lines)

> I think a conversation like this cannot proceed without a careful definition
> of terms. 
 
Agreed, 

>What do we mean by machine? 

I'd venture another position that might resolve some of these contradictions, if we consider the mechanical not in terms of something made but in terms of 'mechanisms' we may move closer to something workable (the OED entry for mechanical runs to almoist a full column). In these terms I'm thinking of folk such as Kaufmann who suggests that life is an inevitable product of chemical systems that create emergent systems... or more simply the things we see in things such as Conways Game of life. The interesting things about complex systems is that they themselves can generate novelty and as such are not themselves characteristically bound to the simple mechanisms that underpin them. There's a lot of really interesting works in robotics in this field and one of the reason I wanted to meet Rodney Brooks when we went to Boston. 

>Secondly, although the fashionable debate at the moment is about questioning
>mind/body dualism (expressed in terms such as embodied cognition) to me, for
>a long time, the more interesting question has concerned the self/other
>debate. 

In itself this needs more carefully defining as this too seems to be based on a false dualism, what needs to be achieved is a more subtle understanding of the ontological basis of such assertions., 

>The mind/body debate is premised on the assumption that we are
>individual organisms and beings.

No its not - it is based on the notion that thought and extension are different substances. Within this debate the notion of the assurity of thought over and above physical experience has taken presidence (Descartes' Cogito ergo sum - and the concept of the evil genius)

> I would argue that this assumption may not
>be correct and that we might not exist as individuals but rather as
>instances of being. I do not mean by this some sort of Platonic holism,
>where we are each an instance of some sort of ideal, 

Plato is part of the problem, there are the ideal forms, associated with thought, which is 'corrupted' by our embodied experience.

> but rather that we
>exist primarily as social and cultural beings, where we are brought into
>being through our social relations. 

This is a strong statement, and if we are to be careful about our definitions this needs to be questioned. I don't think we are 'brought into being' by social relations otherwise this implies the sort of creationsim you are disputing, but equally I don't think there are individuals, however if ontological understanding is to be achieved it is more closely aligned to complexity than to the reductionism we all seem to be disputing... one might say they're a part of a complex system but the terms part and whole in themselves invoke an inappropriate reductionsim.

>Assuming this sort of position leads to a pretty messy
>scenario, where the delicate probings of the anthropologist are probably
>more useful than those of the engineer. Again, a mechanistic approach to
>this world-view would be too simplistic.

It all depends on the assumptions of the anthroplogist or engineer...

>I would argue that to consider ourselves to be machines invokes more
>immediately the creationist debates Paul feels his posiiton avoids (see my
>first argument above, about machines requiring a maker).

>As such I completely disagree (with respect) with PaulĀ¹s position and would
>ask him to define what he means by machine.

Paul might well disagree with my position but I thought it might be useful to pull some of these issues apart, and besides which when my marking workload hits on Monday I may not be able to contiunue with the debate!...



all the best

 

Mark



This email was independently scanned for viruses by McAfee anti-virus software and none were found

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager