“Natural vs Artificial”, “Man vs Nature” — those are real points of conversation. It’s important that we begin to see through that facade, to create new mythologies that don’t pose that kind of polarity, because it’s going to be a problem if people think it’s a real thing in the world.

How many articles are there now, about how computers and the internet are changing our brains, when actually we’ve been changing our brains for much longer than that — it’s only the most obvious, accelerated changes that are noticed, and the rest pass by as if they never happened. As if we were “natural” before computers, natural before the 1950s, before the 1800s? When? Where is the line? As if these artificial things are not a part of nature…

as if We Are not Nature Itself, Creating.

Stories like Avatar (or Fern Gully, if you like) have their points, and those are important. But we need new stories — stories that contain a different point of view: that of artifice as a manifestation of nature.

Olena, RE: Steve Fuller, “It’s Time for Humanity 2.0”

Quoting myself. (lol). Had forgotten about this. It’s good, it holds true, and it needs to become something.

Mythology Creation.

This can be done by an entire culture over centuries,

Or by a small group or even a single person over singular years. Their work may then be expanded upon and perhaps even realized by following generations. Take for example, Jules Verne’s all-electric submarine, or Star Trek’s warp drive, and holodeck.

TBC.
Because it’s one of those days: I feel discouraged and therefore brain-dead. But trying to keep showing up.

••••••

RE: eleanorsbuzz: “TBC? Are you sharing a documentary?”

—› It’s strange it’s possible to open a post for replies and yet you can’t answer them in any proper way except to message the person or edit the post.

Anyway, perhaps I misunderstand the question or its intent, but no. TBC as in “to be continued” because this is a topic I’ll be writing more about, when I’m able.

wildcat2030
” “Mythmaking could never discover the origin and meaning of humanity” — and contemporary philosophy is also irrelevant, having “long ago abandoned the foundational questions about human existence.” The proper approach to answering these deep questions is the application of the methods of science, including archaeology, neuroscience and evolutionary biology. Also, we should study insects.” “
Edward O. Wilson, American biologist, researcher in sociobiology, biodiversity, theorist, naturalist and author, parafrased by Paul Bloom in The Original Colonists, The New York Times, May 11, 2012. (via amiquote)
For [Marius Watz, an artist working with visual abstraction] this return to tactility is an expression of the digital artist’s quest for the ultimate “high resolution” object. After all, although digital processing can now shoulder prodigious amounts of information, a physical thing for the human perceiver is still the most substantial representation of information possible. Unlike something on a screen, a real object requires no suspension of disbelief. Software-made objects are a new category: the finished product is unlike anything that could ever be molded or sculpted by hand, and yet it’s distinctly the product of human creativity.
We need to be always reminding ourselves that we have always been enhancing ourselves, that science has always been enhancing the human condition, that we have been trusting machines over our own bodies for at least 300-400 years now. We’ve already broken through that barrier – we do live in a very artificial world. Even though the stuff on the horizon may amplify our powers tremendously, it is nevertheless part of the same process. It is a step change but it’s the same story, the story of scientific progress.

Steve Fuller: { It’s time for Humanity 2.0 }

••••••

"Most people" don’t see that. "Natural vs Artificial", "Man vs Nature" — those are real points of conversation. It’s important that we begin to see through that facade, to create new mythologies that don’t pose that kind of polarity, because it’s going to be a problem if people think it’s a real thing in the world. How many articles are there now, about how computers and the internet are changing our brains, when actually we’ve been changing our brains for much longer than that — it’s only the most obvious, accelerated changes that are noticed, and the rest pass by as if they never happened, as if we were "natural" before computers, natural before the 1950s, before the 1800s? When? Where is the line? As if these artificial things are not a part of nature, as if we are not nature itself, creating.

Stories like Avatar (or Fern Gully, if you like) have their points, and those are important. But we need new stories — stories that contain a different point of view: that of artifice as a manifestation of nature. Stories that highlight the impossibility of being outside of nature. Stories that then, once having said that, focus more on balance. It isn’t about “natural” or “unnatural” — it’s about how we can strike the correct balance to take care of life on/and our planet in the best way.

wildcat2030

One of the big mysteries of language is also a mystery of perception—how does (language/ perception) reach outside itself to have a meaning? I can say, “My pet dog loves to scratch itself,” and you can know what I’m referring to even though the meaning reaches out beyond the sentence to describe the world. Similarly, I can see my pet dog scratching itself and know what I’m seeing even though the meaning reaches out beyond the image and its neurology to show me the world. The similarity is one more bit of evidence that language is perception by other means. It is social perception.

Meanwhile, I can make a computer that can process the sentence, or a video camera that can capture the scene, but neither machine knows that its electronic processing refers to something outside itself. Nor are there any clues as to how we could get the machines to know about reference. …