> As for the idea of skipping the machine, obviously (cf. my website)
> I just can't follow you on that one. Although, sure, we could
> clearly hide all sorts of processes in any phenomenon, and treat all
> sorts of things like black boxes, but do we want to, and can
> anything become an abstraction but merely ignoring/avoiding it? I
> would suggest not, and would even suggest that it can lead us down a
> path of denial (Verdrängung).
Who said anything about ignoring or avoiding? In my example the
machine was not ignored or avoided, it was deemed unnecessary. Of
course what makes all of this seem ridiculous is the practicality of
someone becoming so fluent that the machine could become superfluous.
But it is none-the-less interesting to consider.
> Again, to a certain extent, I could follow you on that path, because
> indeed, part of looking at things algorithmically is looking beyond
> the machine as mere mechanics. But I honestly think you need to
> redefine the machine and it's role as an ensemble, rather than as a
> pure means to and end. No machine is mere means. It's a thought
> process, and is indistinguishable with the thinking it provokes. I
> figure that on a livecoding list what I've just said is obvious. But
> maybe I've misunderstood.
Well, of course I agree with you that all tools have a huge influence
on thought and computers are certainly tools. However, tools are also
generally causal, and for these tools (causal ones) it is usually
their experiential results that effect our thought. I would place
codes execution on a machine in this causal tool category.
Mathematics, however, is a good example of a tool that is not causal -
it's effect on our thought is reasoned not experiential. When we get
to program code things get more tricky. Most programmers of course
balk at the notion of non-causal code (i.e. code that is never
actually run on a machine), because it seems obtuse to talk of code
that has no causal effect. So to get back to your comment you are
assuming that code requires a machine to be "useful" - or put another
way you are making a statement that only causal outcomes are a valid
use of program code.
> Anyway, music without instruments and musicians is just as absurd as
> music without music. That's probably why Wittgenstein was the only
> appropriate response.
So you've never been on a long walk with an ABBA song running around
your head?
Received on Tue Jan 08 2008 - 00:59:49 GMT