Columbia University
“Deleuze and the Use of the Genetic Algorithm in Architecture”, Speaker: Manuel Delanda, Date: April 9, 2004, Art and Technology Lecture Series
Source
Manuel Delanda, "Deleuze and the Use of the Genetic Algorithm in Architecture"
my new favorite human
this is some serious bullshit
Please watch Deleuze's own lectures on line. Deleuze was a very careful — even punctilious – academic, and this is often obscured by his inventiveness and originality.
In this lecture De Landa talks about morphogenesis in relation to evolutionary biology. He notes that the topological potential of bones in chordata are constrained by what identifies us as vertebrates – bones and their connections, and how they connect, but not their length or shape. There is a large search space in which bones develop their form. It reminded me of a thing I read, about the connection between the number of fingers we have and our reproductive abilities – the two are genetically interrelated so that mutation to the hands, such as any significant change in number or placement of fingers or joints for example, can create infertility. Though slow, gradual changes are possible, and thus a hand and arm can be become a bird wing or fin or leg and hoof, yet, despite what can be radical transformations in appearance and function, the basic topological structure remains the same and we can distinguish the adapted fingers and joints that correlate to our own arms and hands and which are derived from the ancestral five digit hand. This is a boundary of the search space that defines vertebrates. I wonder what features of insects are bound to their reproduction?
"It might be imagined that some propositions, of the form of empirical propositions, were hardened and functioned as channels for such empirical propositions as were not hardened but fluid; and that this relation altered with time, in that fluid propositions hardened, and hard ones became fluid. The mythology may change back into a state of flux; the riverbed of thoughts may shift. But I distinguish between the movements of the waters on the riverbed and the shift of the bed itself; though there is not a sharp division of the one from the other." WITTGENSTEIN
his ponytail is more convincing
As a philosopher, he is joke. He should be called a pseudo-philosopher. He does not much about the philosophy of mathematics. The more that I watched the video, It is making me laugh at his stupidly in mathematics. He is blowing smoke out of his ass.
He does not know about Knot theory in pure mathematics
His argument is weak, because Wittgenstein in Philosophical Investigation and TLC shows their language is a necessary condition for communication in any form of human and non-human communication.
Then read "History of Sexuality". It is hard to say what Foucault wanted to say (though Deleuze conceived of him as materialist), therefore you have Foucault studies all around the world
.
Mr Delanda?
I find this distinction materialism vs. postmodern philosophy a bit inadequate – anyone who has read suveriller et punir cannot ignore the fact that Foucault is in some sense also a materialist – the fact that we cannot but perceive the world in the form of language does not necessarily mean that it wouldn't exist without us. There are two very different type of objects here – the world we can explore, a sematic entitiy and the world as object outside language, a thing we will never grasp.
finally, a video without any dislikes!! =)
Absolutely amazing orator and a truly evolutionary process of thinking into the organised abstract if that's possible.
Absolutely amazing!
@gen6k Correlationism is not idealism.
Manuel Delanda mentions that a genetic algorithm could be applied by only using the computer. I think computers are one of several mediums and/or dimensions in which we could applied and genetic algorithm. Think about nature, it does evolve and if we simple mimic with a math algorithm a structure from nature we could create a GA with the hand and paper… Computer is a tool of many possible ones… I would say computers open up a wide range of possible dimensions and/or worlds…
So the intro to Deleuze is whack, but the lecture its self is becoming.
DeLanda my mayne, you ain't breakin it down so good brother. "Deleuze never said a word about phenomenology" The dude was all about moving passed phenomenology, he was all over it.
Please enlighten me, because I don't know of a single post-modern philosopher who does not, in principle, object agains the traditional Cartesian substantialist notion of the subject. So where is the idealism?
Semantics
This is rather pathetic. To call post-modern philosophy 'idealist', an to put phenomenology in the same bag, is a gross simplification. This is not serious, or rigorous.