even some of our more hardcore and thoroughgoing materialists are still spooked by ghost machines if not ghosts in machines, seems to evidence not so much cogs in vast karmic/social wheels but the deep rooted evolutionary cog-biases of human-being.
there are indeed aliens within us and so among our project-ions into the world.
In response to my last post, dmf and Michael make some interesting remarks. Dmf asks,
do/can I interact with an insurance company or rather with a particular salesrep, webpage, lawyer, or an answering-machine, etc.
Michael builds on this, remarking
What DMF is alluding to is that fact that insurance companies are sets rather than units. Whereas all objects are assemblages ontologically speaking there are different types of assemblages. Some assemblages are materially/structural continuous or extensively bounded (e.g., lawyers, sales reps, etc) and rightly considered ‘objects’, while others are primarily aggregate and extensively adjacent (corporations, social groups, etc), best described as ‘aggregates’ – no matter how operationally coupled they may seem. Attributing ‘thinghood’, then, becomes a tricky game of avoiding the polar tendencies of either over-exaggerating extensive connection and/or under-appreciating the intensity of cohesion and operational efficacy. Football teams and nation-states are not ‘objects’ but assemblages.
Coding this ‘delicate balance’…
View original post 890 more words