Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)

Joe E. Dees (
Wed, 2 Jun 1999 16:59:03 -0500

Date sent:      	Wed, 2 Jun 1999 00:54:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:           	Dylan Durst <>
Subject:        	Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)
Send reply to:

> > Mommy and Daddy Innovation?
> > Innovation requires intentionality and creativity; evolution is a dumb
> > blind process, possessing neither of these.
> I can look at someones CAT scan (or whatever) and call someones
> thoughts dumb and blind (just reactions to their environment, imho).
You can call a rat an elephant; that doesn't make it so.
> I can
> look at the world from age 0 to now with my Objective Glasses on and see
> it the same way.
No pet scan is necessary to inspect in the absence of a brain (although we can perform experiments upon animal brains we cannot ethically perform on human ones, and these teach us a good deal about the lower functions of our own), so your glasses will do fine - but they are not objective, but intersubjective. You may share standard perceptions with many others, but they are still all registered inside individual brains.
> I can become conscious and learn to make tools and toys
> and all sorts of material organizations that comes out of my head, but
> I'll still look at an Anteater and think of it as a 'hella' creative way
> for evolution to work.
That is a metaphor (and a confusing one), not a verity.
> I'm looking for a word that describes all of this in one. One that
> refers to technology as just another trail of evolution.
Such a term would be confusing because it would combine and conflate two dissimilar things, one requiring intentionality and purpose, one not.
> ... fodder cut <snip> ...
> - dylan