FleshFactor FleshFactor


FleshFactor: Integrative mind by media

A E C  F O R U M - "F L E S H F A C T O R"

Integrative mind by media

The network-subjectivity, including all participants as dynamic nodes in
the social network of communication leads to an universally structured,
all including - in many directions infinite - pattern of human mind. 



The so-called postmodern identity is the result of media evolution.The
exciting paper "Dark Carnival" by Miller demonstrates formally and in its
content this status of consciousness. "Burdened with the weight of
previous creative work "(Emerson), "relish for copies and repetition,
reconfiguration, recycling of myths, replication, constellation of styles,
knowledge on pleasure of surfaces". (Miller).; Collective multi-vision of
the individual person, a complex system called SELF, unruly, polymorphous,
global, polyphony=3D fleshfactor (Sherman 16.5.1997); sexual confusions of
postmodernity (Little, 21.4.1997); "mixture of concepts from various
domains such as philosophy, metaphysics and science, a new kind of
fiction" (Grancher,25.6.1997); domain merging can be nourishing food for
thought (Pignon,28.6.1997). 


Postmodern identity is an evolutionary step but induces a very complex
social crisis. The ubiquity of several systems of values, traditions,
styles, dimensions of consciousness, a.s.o. without any common basic
fundament includes high potentials for social conflicts and confusions. 

The next evolutionary step will be the integration of ALL aspects in an
infinite new system, without negating any element in the palette and
harmonizing ALL in the new relational context. The question will be, to
which extent the global networks (information distribution) will be a
constructive instrument for this target.  Media per themselves are not
able to realize this status "of complete integration and simultaneous
representation of the human world as a single conscious entity" (Miller). 
The most dangerous and most efficient parts of global nets are used in
manipulating international financial transfers, reigning enormous segments
of world economy today (e.g. Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunication, SWIFT).

The mind-body conundrum, fleshfactor and evolution of epistemology: 

picture 2  A,B,C,D,E,F,G

                                                        A (white)
                                               {  B (purple)}
//{C[C1,C2] }yellow {D [D1,D2]}green {E}blue//   G, G1

Eckl (25.5.1997) asks: "My personal interest is in focusing on how this
special type of inner reality is created out of a "flat monitor picture"
environment. How actively sending light into your eyes, combined with
swinging speaker membranes sending waves on your body and in your ears is
building and in time is cultivating specific forms of pictures of reality. 
How are the perceiving organs -eyes and ears- taking in, and already
elaborating (creating selected materials for) pictures, when they take in
sensory information out of this two dimensional reality. And how brains
are calculating/distilling meaning and sense in and out of this limited
perceiving process. What role do all other "senses"  play within this
2-dimensional-framed perception-experience in front of a computer monitor,
and how are they linked through brain work within a created picture,
experience and impression of reality?" I find this the best entrance to
our reflections. 


Man/woman perceives the "exterior world" nature G (landscape,trees, ao.)
and society G1 (his/her family, the German language, the letters of this
contribution to the symposium, the screen of his/her computer). The
exterior world, nature G society G1 are not perceived immediately "as they
really are". We have no direct access to them. Directly accessible are
only the conditions of our body's E (blue) sensorial instruments,
meatbody, electronic body (sensory input, Miller 20.6.1997), interface 1,
influenced by the "unknown" G and G1. 

These sensorial conditions are operated within/by the fantasy/imagination
D(green), a kind of interface 2. By means of the imitating external
fantasy D1 (using the sensorial data) and the creative inner fantasy D2
(interface 3), the elements of which are free of the sensorial
implications, and with the help of concepts C(yellow) (interface 4), which
we partially possess since birth in our consciousness C1, partially
"learn"  in the social system G1, we are born in ,C2, as socially
condensed language systems, we are constructing and constituting a
subject-immanent perception, picture of the "external reality".  What we
are knowing from the "external reality" is only a subject-immanent
construction, not the "real reality", almost a dream, a "virtual reality" 
VR1, internal models (Robinson 2.6.1997), interior spaces of ideas,
feelings, episodes and events, patterns of resonances [a geometry or music
of ideas] (Robinson 5.6.1997)! Only the affect of external world to the
senses is coming from outside, the rest are creative activities in the
human mind. The essential difference between reproducing and creative
fantasy/imagination D1 and D2 is in the same way important as the
different kinds of concepts C1 and C2.  Our realities are in an extreme
degree a function of our different internal combination of D1,D2, C1 and
C2. Robinson (21.7.1997) discerns sharply between our concepts C1 and the
concepts which are condensed in social languages: "what we think we know
about how we think, or even to suppose that speech is fundamentally the
product of prior thought, even supposing we could say, what 'thought' was,
as something distinct from spoken or written language". Also Dinka Pignon
sees: "transmit our thoughts as they were before we put them into
language. Or are there any thoughts, that aren't language? Also our
feelings and the functions of our will are structured in the same way
(E,D,C). The important posting of Churchland about the interconnections
between traditional fields of reason and emotion shows the necessity to
reflect this problem more intensively. What are the dimensions A(white) 
and B (purple)? Also in this symposium we find the connection of human
mind with Divine spheres and categories. "A"  is the access to the
infinite and absolute spheres of the Divine Reason and B is the
possibility to perceive all diverse functions in human mind (E,D and C) as
related and connected with the Divine spheres (interface 5). 

If today a theory on the structure and functions of human mind,
consciousness, ratio or reason is presented, simultaneously also a basic
position concerning the possibility of reconstructing human mind by
machines, its place in the evolution of epistemology should be located.
The epistemological models can be classified according to the criterion of
abilities and limitations assigned to human mind. All positions in the
symposium have to fit in one of the submentioned theories of human mind: 

S1 Naive realism

(e.g. parts of Logical Empiricism). There exists a reality outside of
human mind, G, and we have an immediate access to it. We are comparing our
cognition of the "outside world" (E, D and E configurations) with this
world, if our sentences about the "outside world" are fitting to this
experience, we have, the sentences are true.

S2 Critical realism

(e.g. the 'late' CARNAL) Our cognition - also in natural sciences- is an
inevitable function of the concepts C, we are using in the perception of
the "outside world". We are getting different cognition (pictures, VR1) of
nature, also of our brain and its functions, if we are using different
conceptual frameworks and theories. In science we are using mathematical
and logical concepts (C1) but we have also to invent! new concepts
(theoretical concepts not derived from experience) to manage the sensorial
input E in the framework of theories "The difference between the results
is merely semantic, and reflects the vocabulary preferences of the
disciplines"(Fischer 1.6.1997) 

S3 Transcendental Idealism

(e.g. KANT and WITTGENSTEIN in the Tractatus) The "outside world"  is
generally created by human mind by means of basic concepts C1 and C2,
which construct the outside reality using materials derived from sense
impressions E and fantasy D1 and D2. We are creating the "outside world",
and we have no possibility to know, what "outside world" could be beyond
our subjective constructions.. 

S4 Transsubjective Systems

(e.g. PLATO, HEGEL, SCHELLING, JASPERS, theosophical an mystical systems
(e.g. , also visions in poetry as BLAKE or AUROBINDO in `Savitri`). Beyond
the human mind exists a Fundamental Essence "A"  (white in Figure 1),
containing all human minds and all "outside worlds". The Divine Mind is
accessible to human mind in a limited way. The structures of the Divine
Mind (Essential Science) represent the highest fundamentals of human

S5 Science of Essence (Wesenlehre) - KRAUSE

KRAUSE ( 1781-1832) presented the most precise transsubjective system in
the evolution of human reason at this planet, containing a deductive
conceptual Essential Science (Grundwissenschaft) deriving all fundamental
concepts of human mind from the Infinite Divine Reason. He also elaborated
the exact idea of the all-harmonic united mankind. 

We can give here only two glimpses:



                                        I               E

O  God as infinite and absolute essence
U  God as united with the universe
I  Spirit
E  Nature
A  Union of U,I and E, Mankind as inner synthesis


Hierarchy of infinities


        (   ----------------------------------------   (

        ( ---------------------------------------------- (

                                i                               e
      (  ----------------------(-----------------------  ((


Obviously the above mentioned types of epistemological schools represent a
sequence of evolutionary steps in the development of human mind. 

Review - positions of the symposium

I'll try to summarize the most outstanding opinions from 15.4.1997 to
28.7.1997, according to the school-types S1 to S5. 

Body E- (mind D,C)

Many scientists suppose that our mind is only consisting of
body-functions.  If we understand them, we can make a replica of our brain
and our senses. Equation to machines: "general dynamical properties of the
neural networks in special regions of the brain" (Churchland). Vanderburgh
(24.4.1997) "our intelligence is not just inextricably linked to the
physical, it is physical".  Hermosillo (22.5.1997) difference between
electronic body and meat body.  Cifuentes (29.5.1997) "meatbody as locus
and limit";  three factors:  meatbody/electricbody/metaphorical body. 

Little (21.4.1997) connection between mind and body". Farrel (22.4.1997)
world of animal nature/ the world of mind.  Critical Wilcox (31.5.1997)
"an evolution of vision beyond the imprisonment of the fallible senses
Weiser (26.5.1997) emphasizes, "that the concepts of "physics" is a poor
model of physics.  involvement of intuition, bodily knowing, culturally
and biased seeing etc." Hermosillo (30.5.1997) cannot share this "kind of
electronic easter, quasi-religious dimension of electronic. But Churchland
(30.5.1997) repeats: "I am a dynamic complex meat machine". 

Domingues (1.6.1997) sees the human configuration totally similar to
electronic technology. (In Germany especially schools around Metzinger).
For Cubitt (12.6.1997) "body" is a) an object, b) an abstract. "Identity
is a surveillance technology". Dinka Pignon (16.6.1997) "this vast longing
to be at one with the universe.".. development of the brain and the
/alienation from the environment.

Dean Pignon (20.6.1997) elaborates interesting aspects about the problems
theory of physics (chemistry and quantum mechanics in the neurons) and
theory of information (never ending loops and the traditional logical
problems of self reference of concepts have in the attempt to know
exactly, how our brain works, to find the possibility, to make a replica
of it). 

We have to add: We are constructing an internal model of the brain ( with
E,D and C) by using concepts constructed by the brain functions we try to
perceive. We are interpreting the functions of the brain by concepts,
constructed by the functions of the brain.  We cannot leave the dream and
the sphere of illusion we are dreaming about ourselves in this way. 

Grancher (24.6.1997) emphasizes the human ability, of evolving (creating)
own languages; machines (replicas) would never be able to generate new

Jleonhard ( 21.7.1997) demonstrates in a very basic manner, which
propensities the machine must have, Tom Sherman wants to be his "friend".
For the interface with the world it must have conceptual components of
perception, gaining 'life experience', emotional structures and inherent
wisdom. In our model Tom`s machine would have to be equipped with all
elements--conceptual abilities C (C1,C2) + fantasy/imagination, intuition,
creativity D(D1,D2) + sensorial apparatus E in thinking, feeling an
willing. Also Tom's cat has all this abilities, but not in the same way as
Tom, and the machine, he wants to be built. 

Williamson (25.7.1997) criticizes nearly universal inability today to
experience the earlier terms of the problem by physicians. 

Concepts (C)-Fantasy (D)-creativity( CDE)-intuition (ABCDE)

>From these more meat/electronic/body-nature- -weighted aspects and
positions we transgress now to "more abstract considerations"( Fisher
1.6.1997) in this difficult connection. "technicians"  ignore these
abstractions at their peril!" A limitation of the definition of
intelligence itself. (Fisher). 

The basic consideration (transition to S2) formulates Hermosillo
(23.4.1997): "nature" itself is a simulation, because "nature" is mediated
by perceptual instincts and filters, that have been mediated by
education."  Weiser ( 26.5.1997) continues:"But even in perceiving nature
through the mediation of my sense, I do get wet. The distinction is of
transpicience. Does the world shine through transpiciently, or is there
another world being simulated?" And Churchland (30.5.1997) replies: "I
don't understand what it means to say, nature itself is a simulation
(30.5.1997). Richard (20.6.1997) asks: "Is comprehension merely a
cognitive reflection of reality, a metaphor for something "out there", a
symbolic description that seems us a useful analytic and predictive tool?"
"Machine and flesh, the perceived and the conceived are infinitely
interconnected, the difference is merely semantic, and reflects the
vocabulary preferences of the disciplines." argues Fisher (1.6.1997).
Grancher (25.6.1997)  mentions Wittenstein's transcentality of logic as
basis of languages."Naming is also a process of construction of the real" 
states Cifuentes ( 2.6.1997) (S3). Hermosillo (2.6.1997) sees the
difference between flower as an idea and flower. Also "flower" is a
construct. The considerations, Robinson elaborates in the 5.6.1997 very
important subtle details as: sensory integration, shifting boundaries,
interior space of ideas, feelings, episodes and events; a geometry or
music of ideas, learning by connection of will, perception and imagination
in a self correcting, re-calibrating feedback loop. 

Our answer is: The perception of nature by means of E,D and C delivers a
"picture" of the outside world. But we are not able to know if "the world
shining through" shines so transpiciently, that we can assume, we perceive
it like it is structured "really", we are always confronted with our
interior VR-pictures, and we cannot compare them with the "real world",
the other world outside. That means Brace`s (22.5.1997) "incompatibility
between thought and the real." 

First and second natural environment

Stocker (8.4.1997) thinks,"that the tissues of our bodies and our minds
are saturated by the elements of a networked artificially intelligent
environment, this second 'natural' environment has become a reality to
which we relate so intimately, that a clear distinction between subject
and object ceases to be possible". As we mentioned above a clear
distinction between subject and object is generally impossible at this
point of analysis of our experience. 

At this step we can see, that the distinction between subject and object
is also a problem for our first natural environment. 

First natural environment =3D Virtual Reality1 (consisting of certain
constructs ABCDE). 

Second natural environment =3D Virtual Reality2 (consisting of other
constructions ABCDE; artificial 'nature' (Sherman 30.4.1997); VR2 are all
kinds of inventions and product of culture as works of art VR2a "imaginary
adventure, artistic experience (Piche 20.6.1997), science VR2s, inventions
and technologies VR2t and their results in human mind. Holzer (21.4.1997)
defines creativity as "collaboration of the rational sequential order with
the visionary, non linear activity of the creative processes, where
artists drive into new areas of content, technique, materials and tools.
"the creative process has always been primary and the source is a space
that is internal, infinite" (Farell 22.4.1997).

The combinations of VR1 and VR2a and VR2t lead to historically specific
types of individualities, to specific "extensions of the senses, changing
the way, we see ourselves and alter our sense of personal identity"
(Quotation 2.5.1997), to specific "synthesis of natural and technical"
(Farell, 22.4.1997). Also Kriesche (16.5.1997) sees the two threads of
development: technological (capital money, finance and information
industry) and cultural with mutual impacts to each other. 

The main question of fleshfactor symposium is: what are the implications
of network technologies to human individuality? Is it, as Sherman
(16.5.1997) presumes a kind of transition from an individual identity to
the "posthuman era", with a posthuman identity, a kind of collective
multi-vision of the individual person, a complex system called SELF. 
Unruly, polymorphous, global, polyphony=3D fleshfactor?" He postulates
(30.4.1997) "a special place outside or beside both natures, a special
zone reserved for humankind."  We will mention this outside place later. 

Sotillaro (20.5.1997) thinks the opposite: "The net homogenizes our
cultures. Individuals will have to strive to rely upon their own unique
attributes of "diversity". 

Creativity - VR2a,s, VR2t and their combinations

It is impossible, to explain the forces of human creativity without
analyzing and recognizing the important functions of fantasy/imagination
D1 and D2, and their permanent interface to concepts C1 and C2 , the
creativity at the scientific invention of new concepts in science, art and
technologies. And it will be the crucial question in times to come, to
which extent this forces and abilities can be copied in machines. "Deep
Blue" can defeat Kasparow, but "he" cannot explain me the content of a
newspaper, and he cannot construct a machine playing chess in the same

Naturally the creations in art (VR2a) and science (VR2s) are different in
many aspects from the creations of new technologies, practical tools,
instruments (VR2t). We cannot analyze it here.  Relation of logos and
techne (Vesna 19.7.1997). The forces of fantasy (D1,D2) are extremely
manipulated and canalized by the virtual illusionary worlds commercially
presented by cinema, TV, design and global nets. 

Theories about the concepts C1 and C2

The school of Logical Empiricism argues, that the structures of formal
logic i.e. the structure of formalized languages is the highest basis for
the foundation of science. (Wittgenstein`s sentence: "Die Logik is
transzendental"). The logical concepts CL are important elements for the
construction of inner realities.  Robinson (3.7.1997) is pointing out
other conceptual functions: analogic reasoning, large capacity associative
memory, natural language understanding, recognizing and discovering
patterns, machine vision, learning from experience but also poetic,
mystical and visionary ideation. Categories as likeness, affinity,
geometrically closeness in the mind. 

At this stage of analysis we cannot know, if the concepts of formal logic
are the highest logical concepts, we can (should) use, if we construct VR1
and VR2. 

Central functions of mind

Traditional epistemology found a region in mind, which can be called the
unity of self-consciousness, given beyond and before all thinking, feeling
and experience. This region transgresses also the idea of the "central
mechanisms" which transcended the division between the different senses
and language (Robinson 2.6.1997). Metzinger's and other philosophers
attempt, to eliminate this region as a self-produced illusion of our mind,
seems not to be successful. Dinka Pignon (9.6.1997) pointed out, that the
introspective nature of the individual is rather a fundamental
psychological property and existential need. 

If we have listed all functions of mind, and their interdependencies, the
question remains: how can we know, that our pictures of ourselves and the
outside world are structured, as we and the outside world are truly
structured.  We can say: It is not possible to know this, because we are
always living in evolutionary changing dreams. But human mind never was
content with this answer. There are also other solutions given in the
school-types 4 and 5. Truth is only to be found, if we can know, how we
and nature outside are being and structured within the absolute and
infinite Divine Essence. We can transcend also the categories of formal
logic and have access to the Categories od Divine Reason. A daring tenet
and everybody has to examine such theses itself. But they are not
"exhibiting historically regressive tendencies" (Dinka Pignon 28.6.1997). 

Contemplation, vision, Divine Reason, synthesis

Is it possible to harmonize the dichotomy between reason (C),
imagination (D) and emotion (F) Is the Kantian theory of reason to narrow?
(Churchland). Richard (29.5.1997) advocates a Duchampian Alchemy -the
synthesis of dualities- art/science; mind/body;  Spirit/Nature and
mentions (2.7.1997), Hockenhull (1.6.1997) has the vision of the
all-encompassing mind, the Final Anthropic Principle. 

Dinka Pignon ( 28.6.1997) proposes contemplation, with higher cognitive
value. Miller cites Bruno: "It is that sort of eye which sees all things
in itself, and is likewise in all things". 

Our insight has metaphorically to follow the all-including Divine
structure, beginning in the infinite and descending to more and more
finite elements and their hierarchical deduction. We are able to end up
with an infinite model. And we will be aware of being one mankind, united
with the all-encompassing Divine mind, without losing our autonomous
individuality. The human comprehension of the Divine Reason and its
infinite categories will always remain limited but qualitatively different
from contemporary human mind.  And the new media are able to support these

The replica of the human condition

As to the question, to which extend it will be possible, to reproduce man
completely with all the functions we listed above (A,B,C,D,E) by digital
medias and instruments, our answer is easy.  There will be infinite
possibilities to copy several partial abilities, functions in every
partial region. But it is impossible, to reproduce the human conditions
totally and with all integrative functions (connection of all abilities in
A,B,C and D). 

--Dr. Siegfried Pflegerl    <spflegerl@wk.or.at>



Essay I: "Sieht ihr Film rot auf rot?' oder der Riese Polyphem in
der BewuFtseinstheorie. Fortsetzung des Vergleiches zwischen MI
und KI."

Essay II: "Das Unendliche und die Grenze. Menschliche und
digitalisierte Intelligenz."

Essay III: "Grundlagen der digitalen Kunsttheorie."

Essay IV: "Das VR-Modell der All-Kunst (VR-RM-AK)."

Essay V: " Die Einheit der Menschheit und globale Datennetze".


All Essays are available in German free of charge at:  pcnews@atnet.at

to (un)subscribe  the Forum just mail to
fleshfactor-request@aec.at (message text 'subscribe'/'unsubscribe')
send messages to fleshfactor@aec.at

[FleshFactor] [subscribe]