[ExI] Re-framing Innovation re Consciousness
natasha at natasha.cc
Sun Dec 30 16:07:44 UTC 2007
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
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?
PhD Candidate, Planetary Collegium - University of Plymouth - Faculty
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...
More information about the extropy-chat