Natural Selection

[ Home ][ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
gary frost
Sat, 07 Mar 1998 04:30:22 -0600


I noticed something kind of weird about the Time & Bits background
paper. If you substitute the phrase "machine consciousness" everytime
the phrase "digital document" occurs and substitute "human
consciousness" every time "print document" occurs it reads a little
differently.

For example, a paragraph in IV Impermanence of Digital Memory under item
3. would read: <Unlike (human consciousness), which has had [x years] to
create institutional contexts, (machine consciousness) [is] still in the
early stages of innovation. Typically, in the first phase of innovation
a new (consciousness) will imitate [emerge from?] an older one; thus
(machine consciousness) [is] created from (human sources) - as a means
to create new value by expanded access. But new social and
organizational contexts made possible by (machine consciousness) are
still emerging, only suggested by terms like "virtual community" and
"distance education". In this sense, the organizational contexts which
are responsible for (machine consciousness) remain to be defined and
founded.>

Such a zany de-encryption was suggested by another, more concrete,
discovery. This is that media are not really distinguished into
categories of those with bits and those with atoms. Obviously, all media
have BOTH bit features and atom features and BOTH send out signals.
However, digital signals can, more characteristically, initiate
(emerging) machine thoughts while reading signals via the eye/mind can,
more characteristically, initiate human thoughts.

What this has to do with preservation may also be interesting.
Persistence of thoughts may be dependent on constraints of particular
environments of consciousness. It is also possible that a preservation
perspective can rise above any machine vs. human
culture wars and point to productive interaction.

Gary Frost
Library Conservator


  • Maybe reply: Martin Diekhoff: "Re: Natural Selection"
  • Reply: Kevin Kelly: "Re: Natural Selection"
  • Reply: Stewart Brand: "Re: Natural Selection"