[ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness

[Natasha Vita-More]

At 08:24 PM 12/29/2007, you wrote:
>On Friday 28 December 2007 17:43, nvitamore at austin.rr.com wrote:
> > How would you reframe the concept of innovation in its relationship to
> > progress and change within the context of perception and its
> > transformation?
>
>Wow.  What an amazing question with such a detailed set of options.  Such
>rigorous thinking and precision of expression are becoming increasingly rare
>on chat lists.  Thank you!
>
>My personal interests go toward reframing the role of risk.  But that is not
>to imply what other people or organization should do.  That's just what I
>think is most important, interesting, and most neglected by many futurists.
>I see this as making progress toward workable solutions.
>
>The other options seem more toward promotion of existing solutions more than
>contributing to new solutions.  I think reframing innovation to recreate the
>familiar is a way to educate people on existing solutions.  I think reframing
>innovation to shake up creative activity improves consumer demand for future
>solutions.  And, I think reframing conceptual innovation enables the
>consumers to utilize the new solutions better.
>
>So, obviously, my viewpoint is skewed by my profession.  And these are very
>complex questions, so I may not be understanding all the meanings and
>ramifications of your presented options.  But I see the first option as being
>aspects of pre-innovation development, while the other options are aspects of
>post-innovation marketing.

Thank you Harvey, good point.  This is a difficult area because 
reframining something requires knowing everything about it in order 
to be able to find loopholes.  Alternatively, dealing with risk 
offers, as you say, may offer areas to explore.

Futurists usually don't engage in areas of human consciousness and 
human perception.  In fact, I don't think I have ever read a post on 
the Association for Professional Futurists email list that had 
anything to do with same.  Since consciousness and human perception 
are the topics of interest in the domains of media arts, 
cognitive/neural sciences, psychology, and AI and AGI, as well as 
nano-neuromacrosensing, this is the environment to start digging 
around for relationships between innovation in relation to risk and 
human consciousness and perception.

Perhaps the entire dimension of transhumanism proposes is risk in 
motion.  But if risk is the probability that something will cause 
injury or harm, it is not the correct concept.  I would not dare to 
enter an environment that probably will cause me harm.  On the other 
hand, I would enter an environment that could cause me harm if I was 
not aware of dangers.  So, I would opt for the possibility of injury 
or harm rather than probably of injury or harm.

Thus, there is a loophole in the pre-innovation development of 
observing an environment for its potential and possible injury or 
harm rather than assuming that the probability of harm will ensue.

What do you think?

Natasha


<http://www.natasha.cc/>Natasha <http://www.natasha.cc/>Vita-More
PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty 
of Technology
School of Computing, Communications and Electronics
Centre for Advanced Inquiry in the Interactive Arts

If you draw a circle in the sand and study only what's inside the 
circle, then that is a closed-system perspective. If you study what 
is inside the circle and everything outside the circle, then that is 
an open system perspective. - Buckminster Fuller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20071230/74163dd2/attachment.html>