Re: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?

From: metahuman (hidden@lucifer.com)
Date: Wed Nov 12 2003 - 14:22:50 MST

  • Next message: metahuman: "Re:virus: New virian virtue"

    [hkhenson1]
    The meme/gene analogy breaks here because we have words such as "idea" for
    patterns of information that do not require replication where we don't have
    a similar distinction for "gene." Genes are *assumed* to be the product of
    replication.

    [metahuman1]
    This is yet another reason supporting my claim that language is a
    communication barrier.

    [hkhenson2]
    Have I been unclear? Can you give an example or go into more detail as to
    why you make this statement?

    [metahuman2]
    No, you're quite clear on most subjects, however, if you're trying to make the case that language is not a communication barrier then this is something I must correct. Language is a form of communication usu. expressed with words and by the term "language" most people mean verbal communication and literary communication. This is the context in which I use "language." In fact, by this very elaboration I have already made the case that what you say is not always what you mean because what you mean is typically distorted by what others perceive. Such is the case in the "Why gods cannot exist" thread in the philosophy forum where bricoleur and Lucifer have brought it upon themselves to further alienate me.

    Lord Bertrand Russell wrote, "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." This is where my claim that language is a communication barrier rests: perception. My claim is also supported by the division of cultures by languages. A non-English speaking Russian cannot be understood by a non-Russian speaking Englishman and vice versa. I've told David that the one thing mankind should strive to do is to remove all language from communication. Since language is only representative of your thoughts, language is inaccurate. If the ability to communicate thoughts (incl. emotions) exactly as they are inhered in a being, that being would be infinitely more advanced than the primitive humans we have today. Of course, David fell into the trap of assuming that humans are a "special creation" by unlikening humans to what we refer to "animals." Yet there is no difference between humans and animals. Humans are animals. Da
    vid said that animals cannot speak and asked if that is what I think humans should strive to be. Animals do speak. They have their own language and it is much more primitive than ours... or so we perceive it to be. While their language consists of caws, moos, and barks, and much usage of body language, we use symbols which are indifferent from signals. All of these are representative of something in our Mind, and until we are at the point where we communicate our Mind instead of translating our Mind into symbols, we will remain humans. The goal here is to become a metahuman--a human who has transcended the boundaries of what is defined as human.

    ----
    This message was posted by metahuman to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS.
    <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29630>
    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 14:24:36 MST