Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)

Joe E. Dees (
Thu, 3 Jun 1999 23:19:29 -0500

Date sent:      	Thu, 3 Jun 1999 19:55:36 -0700 (PDT)
From:           	Dylan Durst <>
Subject:        	Re: virus: Technology (was manifest science)
Send reply to:

> > > At the level that we view 'evolution' (your definition), I would say
> > > that you are correct. However, as everyone I know will agree, recursion is
> > > weird. Who is to say that our minds our at the bottom of the stack in
> > > 'self-awareness'?
> > >
> > Our conscious minds are the tip of the iceberg that breaks the
> > waterskin; we are unaware of most of our cognitive processing.
> Agreed. But that still does not awnser my question. You are looking at
> what is on top of our 'conscious' minds (all the details, breath, motor
> control, depression), I'm curious to know what is below us on the stack.
> What our recursive minds are subproblems of.
Once something becomes routine with us we lose awareness of it; it becomes subliminal. Our attention and intention is focused on the novel and the pivotal; the rest is absorbed beneath our level of awareness and notice. All the correlations of action with perception we learned as infants, how to reach for what we see, how to follow a moving object, even how to focus our eyes or turn them toward the calculated source of a sound, how to shape our mouths to shape our words, and how to coordinate various muscular movements so that they may summate in a smoothness of action, all these we had to learn, and we learned them so well that we no longer have to think of HOW to do them, just TO do them; they have become habits, routines, the performance of which occurs subliminally, automatically, while we consider not their processes but our goals

> - dylan
> - - -
> Dylan Durst # # #
> # <-<--<---<----<----|---->---->--->-->->