Re: Definitions for Transhumanism

=- deluxe -= (
Sun, 19 Apr 1998 13:26:46 -0700

Natasha Vita More (fka Nancie Clark) wrote:

> >Why does it have to be rational?
> It's not such a bad word -:) And, it doesn't really take away from
> creative thinking. Wouldn't it be better to be creative in a rational way,
> than in an irrational manner?

Wow, this conversation could really open up a large can of post-human worms, but
suffice it to say that (here comes the old somewhat naturally evolved human
speaking) a balance of rational and irrational creativity is likely responsible
for some of the more clever insights into the human world. Whenever you put a
limitation on perception you block possible avenues of thought which might lead
to revelation.

Lets think about this however. In say a post human model, presumably derived from
a nano-equiped neural/body scanning system, you could build integrate a full
electro-chemical simulation. The reason would be to give the new entity an
consistent temporal relationship to say the 'human' who'd interface with it.
Think about what would happen if you removed the electrochemical portion of our
mechanism. We might experience 1000 years of human time per second, or something
along those lines. This could make communication with this entity really
difficult. Would the model of the human mind go 'insane' because its software is
not capable of operating with these limitations removed. (i.e. could an
automobile operate at the speed of light with out disintegrating?) I think our
'physical model' which supports the human consciousness, would need to have built
into it a way of controlling the speed of electrochemical simulation. This could
be controlled by the posthuman, which would allow its software to re-write itself
as necessary to accommodate the new efficiency. (what a rant no?)

> Perhaps this is the upside of the posthuman. Whether or not we hit a
> Singularity, we will hit a Creativity Augmentum where creativity will be
> much in demand at a period when we have not only the time, but the
> brain-power to create. The leaps in our creativity will be manifold. Will
> it be rational? If we are rational beings, our creativity is rational.

Do you think that Van Gough was a 'rationally creative' mind?

Here's a quote which I love:

"Method helps intuition when it is not transformed into dictatorship. Intuition
augments method if it does not instill anarchy. In every moment of our semiotic
existence, method and intuition complement one another."

Mihai Nadin
Interface Design and Evaluation - Semiotic Implications

Perhaps I'm wrong seeing METHOD as the rational side of creativity. To me it does
seem that intuition is rarely based on a RATIONAL line of thinking.

Finally this list is getting back into the singularity. Which by the way, is an
important element in an installation I'm working on for the ICC Modern Art Museum
in Tokyo. MAX and NATASHA would probably love what we're working on. (-;

-= deluxe =-