> > But is "humanity" determined by biology or by how we describe ourselves.
> > Its always seemed to me to be or of a cultural description than a
> > physical one. Taking for granted that its a particular kind of biped's
> > behavior in question.
> Ever see a human outside a cultural context? Does our description of a
> tree change the reality of the tree? I might be willing to stipulate
> that our descriptions of ourselves may indeed change our culture but
> those descriptions can never take place outside an already partially
> defined cultural context.
I'm not disputing that the physical plant of the homo sapiens has
particular characteristics or that it isn't hardwired for certain
activities or propensities but that the label "human" and its
associations are temporary and, beyond that, proprietary to English if you
want to be picky.
I'm asserting only that there was a pre-"human" period of the species we
now *call* human and that there will be, in all probability, a post-human
phase pf our existence. I really didn't think this was that big a point.
Sterling's covered all of this ground better in fiction than we possibly
could in dry ol' usenet banter but I do enjoy talking about it.
.mpa
--
-----------Experiential Engineering for an Interesting Tomorrow-----------
Intelligence is very much a two edged sword, Captain-Doctor.
It is useful only up to a point. It interferes with the business of living.
-The Swarm
[Next appendix] | [Return to index for Appendix A4] | [Return to index for Appendix A]