Hi,
On 02 Nov 2013, at 17:40, Joseph Brenner wrote:
Dear Gordana and Loet,
I think that you here and Loet, with his idea of local inversion of
the hierarchy, have an intuition of something I consider potentially
very important. In reality, it is the processes in the "hierarchy"
that have been moving and continue to move partly in a non-univocal
manner, countercurrently if you like. My logic gives a framework for
such
movement in a spiral, not circular manner by alternating
actualization and potentialization.
Of course it is persons, and not "systems", in their complexity,
that are communicating and not communicating and wondering whether
to continue to communicate or not, or are sorry they communicated.
Any attempt at a more complete understanding of communication should
be able to take such complexification of the notion of system into
account, in my opinion.
This thread reminds me George Bush when he said that that corporations
are persons.
If that is taken literally, that can only be a threat for the human
individual rights.
That would lead to the human's lost of (Turing) universality, and
would be an advantage for some higher level entity in which humans
would be the equivalent of specialized cells. You can compare this
with the amoeba lost of immortality and "freedom", when beginning to
cooperate through multicellular organism.
Personally, I think humans should try to keep their Turing
universality at all costs, but corporations will opposes naturally to
this. The tension between universality at different levels is
unavoidable.
But if we abandon an atom of human Turing universality for some ideal
security, we will lose both.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
