We said that Leibniz spoke of the body like a room without windows, and somehow it was necessary to recreate to be able to communicate.
If the body has no windows, no see or see us. The value of credibility, having to represent it may not be verified our script, contained in the four walls of our house sealed, becomes the glue that connects and links. Simulated to reproduce the space before the world is "like a window that looks the same from both sides." The world is in one, because in my window I see the same as those outside. An information space and visual organization. Communications organization serving the multiplicity of different relationships and thus to adapt an agile and quick understanding from outside. Leibniz goes on to say that it considers necessary to create interfaces.
However, some baroque said that "the body is a necessity for being" because it is the only strategy to let others know where you are. Leibniz and others adapted the digital binary language. The digital world is representational constructions, facades hired to locate the real things, things that are no longer still. The Coyote could not see the Road Runner, so it was equipped with all the technology Acme possible. The facade of the digital language provides an amazing ability to build these strategies, such capacity, that we ourselves devices strategic, always ready to be in the right place and capture the best image. And to kill once and for all the repulsive Runner.
In 1960, Ivan Sutherland presented a doctoral thesis in the area of \u200b\u200bartificial intelligence that showed a new way of interacting with computers, which until then were only alphanumeric combinations, endless strips of perforated tape data or digits in a circular radar screen. Sutherland thought that screens and digital computers could provide a means to familiarize themselves with concepts not perceptible in the physical world, "by placing a window or glass of some sort" the wonderful world of mathematics on a computer. Eight years later, Sutherland established the model "definitive" virtual town or HMD (Head Mounted Display) incorporating information technology. Later, NASA and the U.S. Defense Department expanded these experiments as flight simulators and training to handle tanks and submarines.
In autumn 1968, during the sessions of the Fall Joint Computer Conference, held at the Civic Auditorium in San Francisco, Doug Engelbart introduced a new relationship with computers you end up and down revolutionize the computer world. It was actually a new system flight simulation.
During the presentation, an electronic projection system provided a high-definition picture, twenty times the size of a person on a large screen. Engelbart stood on a sort of stage with his back to the screen, sitting with his hands in a strange console, bringing in the head a set of headphones and microphones. In the console, a small screen allowed to observe as in the large and keyboard writing was on the center. On the left, a set of five keys he used to enter orders and the right was a kind of box the size of a pack of cigarettes, with buttons on top and connected by a cable to the console. Engelbart moved it on the table with his right hand. It was the mouse or mouse.
"Picture yourself in a new type of vehicle with an unlimited scope in time and space", Howard Rheingold has written about Engelbart experiments. "This vehicle is a magical window that lets you choose from a wide range of views as possible and quickly filter a vast field of possibilities, from the microscopic to the galactic, from a particular word on a particular book in a library specific to the summary of an entire field of knowledge (...) The land you see through increased window on your new vehicle is not the normal landscape of plains, trees and oceans, but a landscape of information whose elements are words, numbers, graphics, images, concepts, paragraphs, arguments, relations, formulas, diagrams, etc. The tidal effect at first. In Engelbart's words, 'all our old habits of organizing information have been blown up by exposure to a model system, not pens and printers, but on the manner in which the human mind processes information'. "
What if I'm just blind when I leave the room? How may perceive what I have at home and instead not see a damn of what's out? The only possible solution would be to invite outsiders to come home so we can know what they are. But then, assuming the other the same thing happens to me when leaving their houses if they are able to find a way to do so, which is widely doubted, are blind and can not see me. So they do not actually win anything. What should we do then to see our rear-breath smell us and be sure that it is not an exercise in imagination but really that person off the inevitable smell of a meal with garlic? Should we understand When Leibniz says that "this is the best of all possible worlds" that is because they can see and therefore it is possible? That is, it exists because you can see? What is it that you can see if it is not just our own little room with no windows and airy? Or should understand that what is required is "the best of all possible worlds" because we can not see, that which is beyond the wall? Why do all we can do is imagine?
In the Renaissance, it was assumed that the windows and walls were transparent occlusive. Another fundamental assumption in the Renaissance linear perspective was that the window was flat. Organize the world so that it can be understood in two dimensions is quite pathetic. But that's not all. Why the hell do we have to think the world the same way as we see, first, second and third planes? asked Leibniz (Leibniz Newton could not stand when he began to think about these things, the end of the whole story is just the roots when the apple hit the floor loudly and all possible levels and layers were to gargle.)
I think of the few windows that I have at my disposal. The issue of provision usually leads to think that someone has prepared well. But instead I swear they are there because they are the tickets I have played in the raffle eye. I remember them. I think in the viewfinder of my camera, the viewfinder of my video camera in the event that some had given me a birthday (I always fall plants by the laws of human gravity, that is, forgetting water , twist down prematurely), think about my Mac that does not ask for water, used to drink more voltage, I think the binoculars let me see relatively always in constant battle with my glasses, and think about the black dots swarm in my field of vision and tenacity regularly.
The individual consciousness, in themselves, are closed to each other; can only communicate by signs where they translate their inner states, wrote Emile Durkheim.
0 comments:
Post a Comment