Archive

Posts Tagged ‘tom maddox’

Debugging Trace

August 4, 2009 Leave a comment

from “Queen Victoria’s Personal Spook, Psychic Legbreakers, Snakes and Catfood: An Interview with William Gibson and Tom Maddox”

TM: […]You know what Marvin Minsky says about consciousness? It’s a debugging trace. It’s like a little piece of froth on the top of this larger thing. I think Bill believes that. Consciousness is just part of the act (laughs). All this other shit that goes on is equally important.

From Stewart Brand’s The Media Lab snagged from here

“Has any of this cleared up what consciousness is or is for?” I asked. “People have such a small number of memory registers,” Minsky said, “that we can’t think of much. Everything has to be on automatic. Consciousness is not a window. It’s more like a debugging trace you use for reprogramming around problems. Humans are really amazing, considering.”

Metaphor

July 29, 2009 Leave a comment

from “Queen Victoria’s Personal Spook, Psychic Legbreakers, Snakes and Catfood: An Interview with William Gibson and Tom Maddox”

TM: […] there’s a guy at Berkeley named Lakoff, George Lakoff. He’s a cognitive psychologist, and he’s testing a whole set of theories based on the notion that all knowledge is a “body” of knowledge, and that every single intellectual structure in the world is ultimately a piece of embodied spatial knowledge translated by metaphor into something else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff

The essential thrust of Lakoff’s work has been the argument that metaphors are primarily a conceptual construction, and indeed are central to the development of thought. He says, “Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature.”

For Lakoff, the development of thought has been the process of developing better metaphors. The application of one domain of knowledge to another domain of knowledge offers new perceptions and understandings.

Machines for Generating Interpretation

July 29, 2009 Leave a comment

from “Queen Victoria’s Personal Spook, Psychic Legbreakers, Snakes and Catfood: An Interview with William Gibson and Tom Maddox”

TM: Asking Bill if this thesis about women’s bodies is true to his work is asking him to be the interpreter of his own text, in which case he’s just another interpreter. Now if you [ask] what he meant by something, well, that’s legit, but he can’t validate or invalidate a particular interpretation, and in fact, to ask him to validate or invalidate a particular interpretation is like asking him to betray the possibilities of his own work. Umberto Eco wrote a book called A Postscript to The Name of the Rose, in which he said that in writing his postscript he was betraying the novel. He said, if I wanted to write an interpretation, I wouldn’t have written a novel, which is a machine for generating interpretation.