posted March 01, 2000 08:46 PM            

And you had to use text commands to do everything. What a drag. (Of course I thought it was hi tech). Now text is a graphical thing and the world is better for it.

There is nothing better that the properly used font and nothing more annoying when they are misused.

Onward we move and its for the good I believe. Anything that will cause writing to be read can't be all bad.

posted March 01, 2000 10:40 PM            

Electronic Consciousness is the idea that human existence has changed alongside the technological revolution.

Of course it has changed our concept of self, and the other... shall we count the ways?

kk+

quote:

---

Originally posted by sondheim:
I have grave doubts about your premises here. After movies became popular, there was the same conclusion - the same after television. In fact the print media are enormous at this point, reading's up. Online activity is by and large email, which is also reading. To talk about "electronic consciousness" in terms of the image is to make the same mistake I think that Barthes made in relation to Japan - calling Japanese culture "visual" - of course it was for him, since he couldn't read kanji, and could only see the shapes. If one reads a great deal online as I do, it seems more than ever textual - if one is used to flash and image, etc. than that is emphasized. Even Spark is largely textual, the reviews are textual and so forth - Alan

---

posted March 03, 2000 03:25 AM            

Electronic Consciousness is the idea that human existence has changed alongside the technological revolution.

-- Actually I do disagree with this - this idea goes all the way back at least to the Annales group in France (Braudel etc.) - and that was way before electronic. But I was thinking of

We now think and behave as people raised on TVs and Computers would be expected to think and behave; that is,
our focus is primarily image rather than text based, and our behaviour reflects that which is presented in images
rather than as text i.e. Ally McBeal v. the 10 commandments.

- It's this I disagree with, the "primarily image rather than text based," and "our behavior reflects that which is presented in images" - which was also how art historians at one time thought about the didactic friezes in cathedrals.

I'm also not sure what constitutes an "image" and I don't think that's trivial - images can be the result of projections and introjections, the result of text itself - as well as what might be considered "pure" image - as if such existed - or "pure" representation.

posted March 04, 2000 05:43 PM            

Alan Sondheim has an interesting post-structural perspective.

With much respect, his view is essentially a Derridian application of the "Binary opposite" view of logical juxtaposition.

"Electronic" becomes an issue in Sondheim's criticism because of its placement. The essential "consciousness" is not at issue. The argument then, is essentially whether text or "image" forms the heart of our current cultural dialogue.

I disagree that the Annales group invented the idea of "electronic consciousness."

The views of the Annales group were prescriptive, attempting to like most French academic thought to purport a comprehensive worldview.

Rather, "electronic consciousness" is a descriptive signifier that the editorial staff of *spark-online came up with to describe current cultural discourse. Or at least that of the cultural discourse of the post-industrial societies of the west.

I agree with the idea that text based community interaction is growing. However, this is a linguistic reaction to societal change.

We now see a more Imperialistic hegemony of language groups than ever before in human history. Languages, especially non-recorded language groups, are becoming extinct at a rapid rate. Yet, new lexicons are being developed to deal with technological change. i.e. The Programmers Language, Sondheim refers to in his posting.

I experienced this strange paradox while living and working in Tokyo, Japan. The Japanese language has had two major language groups contribute to its lexicon: The Chinese, and the European. Traditional Japanese is actually a mismatch of Chinese roots grafted onto the homophonic Japanese palette. Japanese linguistic history is very much like that of the English language.

Very superficially, English adopted the Greek and Latin as "intellectual roots" when faced with a poverty of linguistic signification to deal with the rise of technological and scientific change (Latin and Greek being of course, the major scientific languages in Europe throughout the Medieval period--hearkening back to the early colonial roots which provided the basis for the flowering of "European" culture from the "Renaissance" of the 16th century to today).

When Japan opened itself up to Western ideas in the 19th century (thanks to the guns of Admiral Perry's U.S. Navy Black Ships in Yokohama harbour), it was faced with a dilemma: Modernize or face the brutish European fate that befell the Chinese in the Opium wars. Therefore, an aggressive modernization program was embarked upon, after the re-establishment of the Emperor and the start of the Meiji period at the end of the 19th century. The question became: How should the Japanese provide for the integration of new technological ideas into the very formalistic language that evolved during the isolationist regime of the Shoguns?

A period of linguistic innovation developed in response.

The old "katakana" text was utilized to provide for the integration of European vocabulary into the Japanese. Because Japanese tongues didn't take kindly to the polyphonic European languages, European words were shortened and "colloquialized" in order to provide for easy assimilation into Japanese.

Today, Japan is going through another period of linguistic dynamism (though to the chagrin of the all powerful Japanese Education Ministry).

Some modern examples include: Convenience Store. In Japanese this becomes: Konbeniensu sutoa... But because Japanese generally is restricted to words of four homophones or less, Convenience Store in Japanese is now: Konbini.

Because of the speed of technological change, you can see the dramatic influence of English upon the Japanese lexicon in the form of words used for computer programming. Almost 90% of the computer lexicon is in Katakana, and is derived from English. Because of the rate of change, the linguistic importation has been wholesale, and has not had the requisite historical breathing space to "colloquialize." However, the homophonic nature of the Japanese language creates an interesting study in linguistic assimilation.

Therefore "Computer" in Japanese becomes: Konputah. And "word processor" becomes: Wa Puro.

So, at least in the Japanese context, while traditional Japanese is becoming extinct (to such an extent that people now listen to Kabuki in translation because the old Japanese of the Shoguns is so foreign), the "new Japanese" of Manga and Computer programming is tightening its grip on Japanese youth.

Of course, the source of this linguistic change: Technology, especially of the electronic variety.

This is of course, the "electronic" aspect of electronic consciousness. Though image is a part of the descriptive analysis (and I very much appreciated Sondheim's deconstruction of the idea of "image") of electronic consciousness, it is merely a part of the description.

I could certainly go on at length about the affect Western, especially American, T.V., Film and Music has had on the Japanese language, but the point is essentially moot.

With the rise of technological innovation, culture, especially linguistic culture goes through concurrent innovation. The reason is quite simple: Human beings are dynamic and adaptive creatures. Electronic consciousness is a descriptive view of the current technological change being wrought upon western society.

Electronic consciousness then, is descriptive and historical, it attempts to understand our current cultural epoch through a unifying signifier.

Electronic consciousness is slavishly McLuhanesque I might add. We adopt as truth that the medium is the message.

The image component of electronic consciousness recognizes the role of electronic media, especially Film and Television, and now the Internet in current cultural debate. "Image is everything" for these media.

Text, is the heart of the post-structuralist critique of modernity. The rise in the adherence to the cult of media, "what I see with my own eyes is truth" is a reaction to this critique. And image is the heart of this worldview.

There is to be certain, linguistic dynamism today, but it is a reaction to the technologies of image. Even text, as it is presented in *spark-online is evidence of this. One of the self-conscious reasons that the text in the magazine is presented alongside colourful graphics and stimulating photography, is that people (especially us) respond to image. Text is an absolutely critical part of new-media on the Internet. However, it is text+ that is the interesting thing about the medium.

I liken it to the rise of the periodical. Why is it that "quality" magazines such as the New Yorker present 19th century cartoons a la Punch magazine interspersed with its text rather than photographs? While the New Yorker has had a disproportionate influence upon the American intelligentsia, Time/Life magazine has had a wider cultural influence.

The New Yorker looks Victorian because it is. It represents the conservatism of the American intellectual elite and its vested interest in the perpetuation of the status quo--that is, a text based view of the world.

We ask a simple question: Why is there an aversion to image amongst the intelligentsia?

The answer: Because text is being challenged by technological change that perpetuates image over everything else. Professors everywhere beware... If no one reads, there won't be a need for the academy.
No academy = no tenure...

The reaction by the established intelligentsia to the invention of the Printing Press (or moveable type to be more precise), mirrors in some ways, the protestations of the Neil Postmans of the world.

We believe, however, that there is a more positive cultural response to the challenges posed by technological change. Mastering the Medium.

The Internet harnesses and mixes the power of image, with the rational discourse that text perpetuates and reflects best. (Alan Sondheim is himself part of this more positive cultural response, being a pioneer of Flash "theatre" and Internet writing).

When we explore, the result is generally a new truth. America didn't exist in Europe until Columbus "found" it (which is the essential criticism of all existential/post-structural thought--just because "America" didn't exist to Europeans as a concept of signification before its discovery by Columbus, doesn't mean that it didn't exist independently, and significantly, to the people who called it home prior to its invasion). Truth in image will not exist until it has been explored. The result of this exploration will obviously be new syntactical signification.

The medium is the message.

Robert Delamar

Postscript: We want to thank Alan Sondheim for his compelling criticism. You can read one of his plays: Lest We Forget, serialized in *spark-online 2.0-5.0.

Finally, *spark-online is discussing this very topic in the next issue of the magazine. The topic is IMAGE...

Submissions are due on March 5th send them to: rfdelamar@spark-online.com

posted March 10, 2000 08:37 PM            

What I pose to you, all of you, is that the internet, television, and film is not in a constant battle to overthrow textual media. In fact, by the very nature of the development of web design and the internet, these new mediums prove as a suppliment to textual information! Everywhere these days I run across discussions on Form vs. Function (a concept first coined by architectural master Sullivan who art historians question in his own accomplishment of his ideals). The battle between simplicity and intricacity, text versus image, is rampant online and fights its way into every site review. However, it seems that the key to the development is not looking at text being replaced, but rather that the eventual equilibrium between text and image (and sound) is reached in such a way that has so far been impossible in other media.

I will not go on forever since this is my first post to this forum and my first visit to the site. However, I look forward to reading more on this discourse.

posted March 11, 2000 01:48 PM            

The key to the debate of course, is the effect that image/substance, form/function, etc. has on human understanding, on human consciousness, that is, what it is that we human beings understand humanness to be.

If one looks at the effect Television has had on Western society since its inception, one staggers to think of the effect the Internet will have as it reaches its apogee.

Remember Gopher anyone? The Net started almost exclusively as a text based medium. Macromedia has now taken care of that.

posted March 16, 2000 01:08 PM            

Like Sandlily I also think that the net must find equilibrium btw text, image, sound... and should not shy away from being a new media and taking advantage of animation, moving picture.. Of flash.

But getting text and image, text and form, to connect, to unite even, should be the aim of every designer doing layouts for magazines, books -- anything with text. Books are more readable if a good font is chosen, if the layout helps make the text more readable. Even the form, size and shape of a book -- even the cover -- does effect at least my relation to the book.

When writing I hope for a good layout. I like to visualize my text, to know where it will end up. Now I am trying to be concise, leave space between paragraphs, because I know it will look better on the page it will end up on. Anyway, I don't want everything looking like a Word Document, I need to think further than what's on the screen (I tend to alternate fonts, currently I use Tahoma and Verdana in my Word).

Robert Delamar's sentence about text being image sounds about right to me.
Although that isn't quite what people have been talking about here about printed media versus television, film etc.

For a person like me -- both a keen fan of books, magazines as well as film -- the internet provides possibilities. There are ideas best materialised using a mix of media.

I forgot to mention comics.

posted March 23, 2000 07:04 PM            

It's not sufficient to simply assert that electronic consciousness exists without clearly explaining what distinguishes it from the normal kind of consciousness. On what basis do we know that electronic consciousness is in any way different from consciousness per se? You need to backing the assertion up with a convincing argument.

posted March 24, 2000 06:39 PM            

Two key points (I'd like to get into this but haven't the time, due to exam pressures).

1) Electronic Consciousness is not a new theory on the nature of "consciousness" per se, it doesn't attempt to stretch any known epistemolgical/metaphysical approaches to the subject. Rather, it is a historical signifier, a term of art, which attempts to label the effect of technology upon modern society. Thus, it pays homage to McLuhan more than anyone else.

2) Electronic Consciousness is predicative, or attempts to be so. Technology has not only, it will only continue to change the means of human communication. The means determine the message (according to McLuhan). Electronic Consciousness then steps in to say that the message, the result of the means, in its difference, then changes the messenger.

What we communicate, moreso than anything else, is indicative of who we are because it is the result of our conscious existence. Cogito ergo sum. Because of technological change we begin to speak in "images" or use vocabulary derived from our experiences with machines. This can't help but have a broader societal impact.

If we collectively think differently, as the result of our experience with technology, CONSCIOUSNESS the source of all human communication, the signifier asserting his or her power of signification, the means of relationship, then must necessarily be different.

The source of this change is electronic communication, the primary means of communcation today (after language).

posted March 27, 2000 04:54 AM            

The term first strikes me as a kind of consciousness which is in some way "electronic", as in email, ejournals, ezines, eshopping, etc. But consciousness is in an entirely different category of its own: it is not a text which has been reproduced in electronic format. I may be wrong, but I doubt consciousness itself can ever be in electronic form.

So perhaps it refers not to a kind of consciousness, but to consciousness of something which happens to be electronic. When I think of things electronic, it brings to mind devices such as transistors, microchips, any bit of circuitry which conducts electrons. But this can't be the intended sense, as consciousness of bits of circuitry seems to be too trivial to warrant any more attention than, say, electrical consciousness, or mechanical consciousness, or consciousness of any kind of technology.

Another sense of electronic is that of representation, storage, or transmission of information by electronic systems. This could well be closer to the mark. If so, is it the electronic systems which characterise electronic consciousness, or the information transmission? Would it really matter if the information was transmitted just as effectively, but via a different means than electronic? What I'm getting at is that the term "electronic consciousness" may connote something different from what it is being intended to mean in the context, because consciousness can't be reduced to a text.

It could be, of course, that the intended meaning is not done justice by the limitations inherent in the chosen terms. Perhaps I'm being too literal, too pedantic. Does that imply we (as in people in general) need to expand our understanding of the terms, so that they will come to stand for the stipulated meaning? Possibly, but I still find them conceptually difficult.

Technology has been altering consciousness, the possibilities of the human endeavour, for hundreds of thousands of years - ever since humans became distinguished from animals. It didn't just start with humans, of course, because evolution of all life forms is/was a process of technological invention, whereby life forms became equipped for certain activities by means of their own evolving bodies. Writing is a technology, speech also when it comes to that, and both are directly to do with communication of the contents of consciousness. The electronic technology we now have at our disposal is just the latest in an amazing line of innovations.

What I'm driving at here is the query: is there a unique kind of consciousness for every technological advancement that comes along? How do we know, how do we find out? I'm not at all sure, actually. If it alludes to "the effect of [electronic?] technology upon modern society", then objective studies can be done on people, and I'm sure they are being done, on ergonomic aspects of computers, keyboards, etc. But how do you measure the subjective effects, on consciousness itself? The only way I can think of is the phenomenological approach, or simply introspection into one's own thought processes. The problem there is the subjective bias, and the fact that people investigating themselves are notoriously prone to the powers of suggestion. It is just too subjective an enterprise to be rationally objective, and fundamentally reduces to personal choice. One person thinks there is such a thing as electronic consciousness, another doesn't. Each uses their respective experience, tendencies, affinities, education, etc. to reach opposing conclusions, and each is equally convinced he or she is right.

The means of communication may well affect or modify the message, but I doubt very strongly that it "determines the message". When I used to listen to 'long-player' records (as I still sometimes do), scratches in the vinyl would intrude on and interrupt the 'message' of the music. But it was still the music that predominantly held my attention. Similarly, when reading email, it is the communicative content of the message I absorb, not the technical details of the interface. The Internet certainly does affect the way people communicate, but not to the extent that it "determines" what they write. In writing this response now, it make no appreciable difference to its content how it will be transmitted: the technology makes it easy to send such messages virtually instantaneously, and that's wonderful, but it is me - my consciousness - that determines what's written. The content of this response just happens to concern electronic consciousness, but it could just as easily be something quite different.

In using the term electronic consciousness as I just did, without quotes, it becomes apparent that simple usage of a term is virtually enough to bring it into currency. So long as people keep using it, as in discussions like this, then it will probably survive and be perpetuated, at least for a while. Such is the way all terms come into being, like postmodernism: someone starts using it, and before you know it, everyone is, even if many don't understand what it's supposed to mean. However, I still think it's worth debating: it's not that I've got an axe to grind against this particular concept, just that my inherent nature is questioning rather than accepting.

Another possibility that came to mind is 'electronic unconsciousness', referring to the aspects of electronic communication that affect people without them being aware, as in subliminal advertising. Perhaps people are largely aware of the Web advertising they encounter, perhaps there are other insidious advertising techniques being developed to snare the unwary. You would probably see all that as part of electronic consciousness?

posted March 29, 2000 08:44 PM            

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I wasn't appreciative of the challenge. In fact, the notion of challenge is at the heart of any intellectual quest. So, my reference to throwing down the gauntlet, is in fact an oblique compliment. I will certainly be responding to your interesting notion of "electronic unconsciousness" in the coming weeks.

Interesting note, in my first draft of my reply to you above, I tinkered with the idea of raising the potency of Jung's collective unconsciousness as a possible explicator of the "electronic consciousness" idea. I removed it upon reflection, but your reply has *sparked my interest in the idea again.

Robert

posted April 18, 2000 04:07 PM            

I say this only because it strikes me that while text+image is the interesting and wonderful thing about the internet, as opposed to just text and perhaps static image in more traditional media, isn't text+image only ever going to be useful in certain fields of communication, I never had a philosophical debate about free will that could have been enhanced by images, indeed, many great philosophers throughout history have gotten on fine without them, ditto such things as the declaration of independence and other legislation enshrining the law in various countries.

I know I'm not really switched on to this literary theory type discourse here, but it strikes me that an awful lot of words have been written here in plain black and white, to persuade someone of a point that in a field of study notorious for its rejection of truth as any kind of absolute, the act of persuasion itself seems pointless.

Electronic consciousness. I wonder why we debate tags, did we settle on a given meaning for this term, only the ensuing point and counterpoint painted everything so mistily vague that I got quite confused. More worryingly, my life seems no worse for me not being clear on what the term means. Maybe I'm just stupid

Indeed, is there no way of making one's points a bit more appealing to those not so highly schooled in the theories on offer, after all, they must in some respect apply to everyone, and their expression here would alienate very many people from a discourse such as this.

I did feel that, while the tracing of Japanese linguistic development was interestingly outlined, I did wonder 'Yes, but so what' so Japanese language like all languages changes, what do we do now with this information, what does it mean, and what does it tell us. Its very interesting, I thoroughly enjoy learning new ideas, but I wondered to what use the arguments about what electronic consciousness is can be put, ditto arguments about this or that explanation for linguistic development, outside historical curiosity anyway.

Thanks,

posted May 11, 2000 07:06 PM            

'We now think and behave as people raised on TVs and Computers would be expected to think and behave; that is, our focus is primarily image rather than text based, and our behaviour reflects that which is presented in images rather than as text' - I agree, yes that our behavior and thinking are affected by TV's and computers, how could they not be, but the connotations behind the remainder of your statement - that we have somehow become slaves to image oriented media in this technological age - are, I feel, unfounded.

The statement brings to mind a cartoon strip I saw and remember from many years ago. The strip was 'Calvin and Hobbes' from the 'Daily Express' newspaper in the UK (for those of you not familiar with the strip it stars a young child, Calvin, and his cuddly toy tiger, Hobbes). In this particular strip, Calvin is watching some old pre-1960's TV show, he turns to Hobbes and observes that life in the old days must have been very dull, what with everything being black and white and all..... that is, until the discovery of LSD and everyone started to see in colour. Just as Calvin believes that life was in black and white before the invention of colour TV, so any statement that human consciousness or focus was textual before the advent of TV is equally unfounded.

Our very perception of the world around us is image based, our primary sense is sight and from the very beginning of history we have surrounded ourselves with images - representations of what we see (image from the Latin 'imago' meaning copy or representation). If images are representations of what we see, whether in the world around us or in the mind's eye or imagination, then what is text? Writing, at its most basic, is the method by which we record our thoughts and ideas by using symbols to represent the sounds of our speech. The very nature of image and text are linked and both are methods by which we communicate our thoughts to others in a lasting record.

If the very natures of image and text are intertwined then so are their roles on the development of human consciousness. The obvious example is that of the church and its frescoes, pictoral representations of the bible texts making them accessable to the, largely, illiterate populace. With the Rennaisance, paintings became more 'alive', the representations of Bible texts on the church walls were given a new three dimensionality and perspective, colours became more life-like and a sense of movement was introduced. For the first time the scriptures came to life for the church goers and who's to say, that if the technology had existed, instead of those beautifully painted masterpieces, we wouldn't have seen video walls installed in the churches of Renaissance Europe. The scriptures gave the model for behavior but what the congregation took home with them was the mental image of the paintings and the picture painted in their minds by the sermon - behavior was influenced by the contents of the text but the focus was image.

It isn't just in religion, however, that image has played it's role. The invention of the printing press didn't just allow for large scale printing of texts, it allowed for the reproduction and distribution of woodcut images too. Images of Turks impaling babies, native African and American savages preparing their next cannibal lunch and weird and wonderful creatures from far flung corners of the globe surely had more affect on the generally illiterate populace's world veiw than another reprint of The Prince. What has survived to us of Shakespeare's work are the texts which we labour over at school but for the people of 17th Century London it was the prospect of seeing these texts acted out on stage that had them flocking to the theatres in their thousands. Tell me, is theatre an example of image or text?

Television exploits our image based perception of the world rather than create it. Just as the Rennaisance paintings were so stunning for their realism, TV is a medium which represents life with striking visual and aural realism (when compared to painting at least). Take away the sound from TV, however, and what are you left with? At best something which looks good but, you've lost a significant part of the message. Try watching TV for any length of time in a language you don't know and it soon becomes tedious. After all what is the sound if not text? Remember text is just the earliest sound recording device. If we imitate what is presented to us by telivision, is our behavior influenced by the text (the script, the advertising slogan etc.) or the actual image?

The internet for its part has seen a return to text in its written form and juxtaposes writing with image, presenting them side by side in a way more visible than the relationship between text and image in TV. The internet, which started as a text based medium (yes I do remember Gopher), is still largely text orientated, only enhanced with images. As a medium it allows us access to the opinions of everyone from respected intellectuals to just about any Tom, Dick and Harry with computer access, we can find information on thousands of different subects from the comfort of our own home and what is more we can have our voice heard by a potential audience of millions - all through text. With literacy higher than it's ever been in history and this access to a vast body of textual information, both over the net and in books, and the ease with which we can communicate text, shouldn't we perhaps ask ourselves about the decline of the image in the late 20th century? And let's not forget just how difficult it is to produce an image as opposed to writing.

TV was accused of killing the art of conversation but while we still possess the power of speech I find this accusation a little ridiculous (I don't remember ever sitting with a table of friends in a bar in complete silence), TV news certainly hasn't killed off newspapers, in fact we tend to trust what we read in a respectable newspaper more than what we see on TV. The telephone had supposedly killed the art of letter writing, yet, here we are communicating in writing with friends and complete strangers alike, every day.

We perceive in images and for that reason surround ourselves with them and enjoy looking at them, but they will never replace text which remains the the most economic way of recording complex thoughts and ideas and communicating them to others. Next time you have to write an essay, a thesis, a report or your latest experimental findings try just drawing a picture instead and see what the response is - I hazard a guess it won't be too positive!

posted May 11, 2000 09:18 PM         

"We perceive in images and for that reason surround ourselves with them and enjoy looking at them, but they will never replace text which remains the the most economic way of recording complex thoughts and ideas and communicating them to others."

This brings to my mind the fact that text is simply patterned images that hold symbolic meaning, and that people understand for the same reason they understand oral language. Pointing out the obvious, I know, but it seems to me that images (not text images) are being incorporated more and more into human communications (contributing to the efficiency of recording ideas you mentioned).

When I pick up a book published by Alfred A. Knopf, I can count on the font being easy to read - this is not true of all publishers. In a sense, the font is as important as the content of the book. If I find a book with some very good information, but a miniature Gothic font (your average history book), I am more likely just to leave it on the shelf. This is an example of how text images (individual characters in the font) can affect the collective text, at least from my viewpoint.

Recently I visited a modern art museum in Chicago. Of the two pieces I could actually claim to understand, or at least connect with, one was a Warhol. And I could only understand his work because I had read about him extensively - my thoughts had begun with the textual thoughts of others, and had been extended to the image. The rest of the work I found was detached, completely alien to me. Most of the information I acquire comes from pop culture, so how appropriate that I should most appreciate pop art.

posted May 12, 2000 03:09 PM            

Philosophy is a different matter - it is text designed to be understood in a rational manner (as a reasoned explanation, the Greeks would say). But to say that philosophers can do "just fine without images" is bordering on ridiculous. No philosopher will ever make do on facts alone to transmit true knowledge, as it is incapable of doing so. If you have learned philosophy without ever having spoken or read in images, you've learned badly.

Finally, refuse to fall into the trap of believing that it is the media that surround us that are responsible for our losing the ability to converse or to write with skill. We, ourselves, are in full control of our minds and of our hands. We have a choice as to what we learn, and how we express ourselves. To those who say culture determines behaviour - that's not true. Culture gives us incentives to move in a certain direction, but can never make our choices for us. Choose to learn, choose to write, choose to read philosophy on your own time.

Electronic consciousness is a cute term, kind of like "Hello Kitty", but to say that the fundamental terms of our communication have changed is just plain wrong - also like "Hello Kitty".

posted May 13, 2000 03:31 AM         

"To say that the fundamental terms of our communication have changed is just plain wrong."

Granted. But they will change - just as soon as artificial life is created. And I sense that current forms of AI have at least altered communication at some level. For example, when you play chess or a card game with a human being, much of your strategy is based on your opponent's facial expressions, frequency of cheating, and overall demeanor. And the game is meaningful only in the sense that human contact is meaningful. Playing the same game with a computer, you lose much of that contact, and the game is reduced to pure strategy. Once the computer is found to be unbeatable, well, the entire concept is cast into the void of casualty. Connection or understanding is a prerequisite of communication - what happens when these cold, Al Gore-like computers acquire minds of their own ?

posted May 13, 2000 06:33 AM            

Or, have I made the assumption, a common thing I suppose, that language and images are different. If they're not, and I can see how you might say they're not, because we look at them with our eyes, (when language is written) then of course I've studied philosophical images.

I don't believe your point is that trite though.

I don't know, I've managed to understand a whole lot of philosophy in a whole lot of areas without once seeing a picture, Saul Kripke's arguments about naming and necessity, arguments about the mind body problem and ethics, and philosophy of science etc. have all taken place in great depth without images, as in pictures, or rather, just in language.

I do apologise though if by images and text you meant the same thing, symbols. My distinction was based on the more naive assumption that writing and pictures are different, that one was language and the other wasn't, I think its called naivety in some linguistic/semiotic type area of study. You may ascertain from this post I have much to learn in this area, though it doesn't interest me enough to bother I'm afraid.

This isn't to say of course that I am totally unaware of the power and importance of images to communication, just that when it comes to language alone, the pure use of one set of symbols and their meanings, you can cover just about any ground in philosophy far more effectively than you ever could if you weren't using language at all.

posted May 15, 2000 11:45 PM            

McLuhan felt that it was the means of transmission that created, defined, communication.

Television was an image technology. The Net uses both text and image. *spark-online consciously blends both, reflecting the confusion of the Net generally: Is it image or is it text? Just to be safe we've essentially added real time interactivity and movies (in the d-gallery) to what is really a print magazine, broadcast via the Net.

The point? How you say things defines what you say.

I'm thinking of the Robert Cappa photo (that of the man dying from a bullet through the chest in mid-flight), that essentially defined the Spanish Civil war.

What people remember about the Spanish Civil war is not the politics, not the fact that it was a dress rehearsal of the carnage to come later in the decade in the rest of Europe. No, a simple image. A photograph (Guernica does the same thing incidentally).

Photographs generally don't contain text. Yet in Cappa's image, thousands of words of philosophy, theology, pure speculation even, are synthesized into an image of human mortality. The image defines human understanding about war. That is, suden, brutal death.

Image. Text. Symbols. One doesn't supercede the others in importance. They are all part of our human experience, and define our humanness as animals imbued with reason. The ability to chronicle our human experience.

Historically, we've come to a point where our communication has changed. Television, radio, the Internet, have changed the nature of discourse. We still utilize text to tell our human stories, but it's ALWAYS supplemented with images today (especially in the popular media).

Electronic consciousness is an historical signifier. It simply describes this new communication.

McLuhan said that if you change the nature of communication, you change what is being communicated. If you change what is being communicated, you change the community in which the communication occurs (all communication being for the purpose of exchanging a narrative of human experience between humans in a community). If you change the community in which human beings exist you change humanness (community being the key definer of humanness).

Thus, electronic consciousness describes a new humanness.

Thanks for your comments above gentlemen.

"Iron sharpens Iron".

posted May 16, 2000 01:07 AM            

I encourage everyone to go rent Contact. Pay attention to the scene where the "God-guy" is on Larry King Live asking the world: "Even with all this new technology, are we any happier than before? People spend so much time seeking the one thing that will make them happy, buying endless things to try an satisfy some need, but is anyone of us better off because of it?" (That's the gist of it anyway). Pretty good question...