ART = Consciousness ?

Reilly Jones (
Sun, 1 Mar 1998 19:52:31 -0500

Ian Goddard wrote 3/1/98: <The most persuasive argument about the nature of
the individual "soul" that I've heard is that it is more than the atoms of
which the brain is composed, but this "more" is not a supernatural spirit,
it's simply the ordering of those atoms.>

I don't know if "ordering" is the best term here, but definitely some
concept that centers around what gives the collection of atoms, or quarks,
or bits of substance (being), coherency. IOW, why does this particular
quark or bit of substance contribute to the subjective "I" and not the
quark immediately next to it.

Ian: <It would therefore truly follow in the most intimate way that
understanding what is art is integral to understanding what it is to be a
human and thus what it will take to become a transhuman, since the
mechanical replication of consciousness/art is the cornerstone of the quest
for the transhumanist liberation.>

I don't think that art = consciousness holds up very well because art is
only one category out of many that has consciousness as a prerequisite.
Transhuman art will arise from expanded consciousness, which will arise
from a deeper and broader grasp of the past, forming a larger springboard
from which to jump farther into the future from. I think that art will be
seen, in retrospect, to be associated with the universal "beauty"
regardless whether it is human art or posthuman art or alien art. "The
mechanical replication of consciousness/art" is what I call having
children. Having children is, in fact, a cornerstone of liberty, because
of the responsibilities associated with child-rearing firmly attaching
themselves to individual rights. Rights without responsibilities is the
opposite of liberation.

Anders Sandberg wrote 3/1/98: <(rule no. 1 of all propaganda: dehumanize
your opponent)>

Exactly so, hence unborn children are referred to as viable tissue mass, or
fetal material, all the better to encourage murder. For the strong to prey
on the weak, the weak must be defined as negligible.

Reilly Jones | Philosophy of Technology: | The rational, moral and political relations
| between 'How we create' and 'Why we create'