The Transactional Body and the Augmented Sensorium by Nathan Su

THE TRANSACTIONAL BODY THE AUGMENTED SENSORIUM

Nathan Su AA HTS 3RD YEAR Tutor: Nerma Cridge

// THE TRANSACTIONAL BODY ++ THE AUGMENTED SENSORIUM 30.03.2015 NATHAN SU | AA INTER 3 HTS 3RD YEAR TUTOR | NERMA CRIDGE *Cover Page - ‘The Augmented Man’ by Nathan Su

ABSTRACT From architecture’s humble beginnings as vernacular huts to its modern day skyscrapers, its language, logic, and organisation have been closely tied to representations of the human body. This essay postulates that idealised diagrams of the body - represented by two of architecture’s most prominent images, the Vitruvian Man and the Modulor Man - are no longer sufficient definitions in a networked, digital world. Instead, a view of the body as ‘transactional’ is suggested; it is defined as mediator between consciousness and environment - both in an experiential capacity and as an agent with manipulative abilities. Drawing on multiple contemporary technological examples (from mobile phones to web-sensing vests) the essay proposes that the boundary between body and environment is becoming increasingly permeable and therefore unclear. Framed in this way, the blurring of the body/environment boundary is facilitated by a binary shift in scale. The body is scaled up as devices that extend sensory and manipulative capacity distribute the body’s functions across global networks, and architectural infrastructure is scaled down - contemporary networks are increasingly diffused into these body-scale devices. Drawing on the speculative film ‘Her’, the essay argues that architecture’s field of concern needs to be expanded to include mediations between consciousness and environment occuring at the scale of the smart device, calling for a need to find a new body diagram that accomodates the way the transactional body (whose sensory organs are now distributed in the infrastructures of our cities) interfaces with space in an increasingly digitally connected world.

Nathan Su - AA HTS Third Year 1

KEY TERMS Transactional Body The transactional body draws on theories from philosopher Alan Watts, where the body is regarded as a mediator between consciousness and environment rather than as a biological container bounded by skin.1 In this model, the body is conceptualised as an apparatus that enables a two way flow of information - from environment to consciousness (experience) and from consciousness to environment (agency). I therefore assert that the transactional body can be further subdivided into two categories: the experiencing body, and the agent body. Agent Body I define the agent body as a sub-category of the transactional body, regarding it as a collection of manipulative components that enable our consciousness to modify its environment. Experiencing Body I define the experiencing body as a sub-category of the transactional body, an interface through which our consciousness accesses information about its changing environment; a network of sensors (be they biological, mechanical or digital). Idealised Body In this essay the idealised body refers specifically to the body diagrams of Leonardo da Vinci and Le Corbusier - ‘The Vitruvian Man’ and ‘The Modulor Man’.2 It understands both to be abstracted geometrical representations of the human body, with the aim to illustrate foundational principles of architecture in terms of scale and proportion. Sensorium An organism’s sensorium contains the sum total of its sensory capabilities - regarding the brain as the primary organ of perception, which is fed information by a network of sensors, which I argue includes both our biological senses and now additional artificial/digital environmental sensors. Umwelt A term originating in semiotic theory, the umwelt refers to the environment as it is perceived by an organism - a self-centred world based on the organism’s sensory capacity.3 Transhuman To be transhuman refers to the transhumanist movement, which regards humanity as being in a constant state of evolution by the means of science and technology. ‘Humanity +’ (the international association for transhumanism) states “Transhumanism takes a multidisciplinary approach in analyzing the dynamic interplay between humanity and the acceleration of technology. In this sphere, much of our focus and attention is on the present technologies, such as biotechnology and artificial general intelligence”.4 Alan Watts, ‘The Nature Of Consciousness’ (Erowid.org, 1960) <https://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/watts_alan/ watts_alan_article1.shtml> accessed 28 March 2015. 1

Leonardo da Vinci, ‘The Vitruvian Man’ <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Uomo_Vitruviano. jpg> accessed 28 March 2015. and Le Corbusier, ‘Le Modulor’ <http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61L1n6FZ%2BL.jpg> accessed 28 March 2015. 2

John Deely, ‘Semiotics And Jakob Von Uexküll’S Concept Of Umwelt’ (2004) 32 Sign Systems Studies <https://www. ut.ee/SOSE/sss/deely32.pdf> accessed 29 March 2015. 3

Humanityplus.org, ‘Philosophy’ (2015) <http://humanityplus.org/philosophy/philosophy-2/> accessed 29 March 2015.

Nathan Su - AA HTS Third Year 2

To design space, architects have turned again and again to the human body as an organising parameter. It is telling that two of architecture’s most famous and revered images are not of buildings or cities, but rather are depictions of an idealised body; the Vitruvian Man and the Modulor Man.5 This is perhaps not surprising, as architecture’s twin roles of providing shelter and providing meaningful space are both defined and constrained by the sensory needs and capabilities of the organisms they accommodate. If we did not have bodies (a rather difficult scenario to imagine), we would logically have no need for space, and simultaneously would have no apparatus through which to experience it. Architecture’s characteristics, organisation, and form tend to be derived from the characteristics, organisation, and capabilities of the body. Our height has shaped the size of doorways, our breadth the width of corridors, and our reach the extent of furnishings. Our preference for a relatively small range of comfortable temperatures has driven the development of a range of architectural technologies to modify ambient temperature (from the most simple - the roof, to the most complex - HVAC systems and parametrically organised shading facades). The predominance of vision in our sensory arsenal has led to the codification of our buildings primarily in terms of visual differentiations - in colour, form, materiality, contrast, light and scale. Of course as individuals, we each have small variations in our bodies, leading to a need (in the past) to develop idealised representations of the body through which the entire discipline of architecture can be framed. The Vitruvian Man [figure 1] and the Modulor Man [figure 2] both condense the diverse range of heights, proportions and scales exhibited by people world-wide into a ‘perfect’ set of rules - defined by ratios, dimensions and primitive shapes (the circle and the square). However, this reduction of the body to a fixed set of geometric relationships assumes that the skin is the boundary of the body - the Vitruvian Man represents this threshold between body and environment with a line whereas the Modulor Man represents it as figure and ground; both diagrams essentially depict the body as a form bounded by its skin, which acts as a container for everything considered to be ‘of the body’. This is problematic; as John Dewey points out “the epidermis is only in the most superficial way an indication of where an organism ends and its environment begins. There are things inside the body that are foreign to it, and there are things outside of it that belong to it”.6 The biological core that I would conventionally call my body, is infact supplemented by many artificial elements - within me are synthetic chemicals from the anti-histamine tablets I took this morning to combat pollen induced allergies, vitamins, minerals and probably a number of viral organisms from a recent cold. Are these elements, nonetheless contained by my skin, a part of my body? Conversely, could glasses that enhance vision, prosthetics that aid movement, implants that improve hearing be considered to belong to my body? In an age where we are interfaced with digital media this grey zone where body and environment intermingle is more relevant than ever for architecture. What does it mean for our practice that our vision is augmented with the ability to see - through a vast collection of digital photos and real time video feeds - places we have never been, our voice is extended across continents by mobile technologies, and our limbs are extended into the sky by remote controlled drones?

John Dewey and Jo Ann Boydston, The Later Works, 1925-1953 (Southern Illinois University Press 1981). p.64

Nathan Su - AA HTS Third Year 3

figure 1: Leonardo da Vinci, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Vitruvian Manâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Uomo_Vitruviano.jpg>

Nathan Su - AA HTS Third Year 4

figure 2: Le Corbusier, ‘Le Modulor’ <http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61L1n6-FZ%2BL.jpg>

Nathan Su - AA HTS Third Year 5

In this context I assert that the static and proportion based idealised bodies of Vitruvius and Le Corbusier are being superseded by an increasingly common view of the body as ‘transactional’.7 My transactional body is the interface between my consciousness and my environment; my eyes, ears, nose, mouth and skin enable me to sample my surroundings, signalling my brain with sensory data encoded in electromagnetic signals which are in turn interpreted as something meaningful to my consciousness, be it colour, temperature, scent or sound. Conversely, it is my body that enables me the agency to influence the environment; I can move and shape matter with my hands, I warm the air with radiant heat from the blood beneath my skin, tiny organic particles from my sweat and skin emit odours. However, if we consider the body as a mediator rather than a container, it logically follows that other, non-biological technologies that mediate between consciousness and environment should also be included in our definition of the transactional body. My notebook carries my personal distributed memories, my phone taps into a vast network of collective memory, my computer mouse extends my fingertips into the virtual world, and my social media profile and internet search history leave a geo-coded digital trace of my actions - a trace that whilst invisible, can certainly be used to send me anything from junk mail to malicious computer viruses.8 Intuitively, it is difficult to consider these augmentations to our biological capabilities as part of our bodies. We tend to compare our bodies today to those of the early hunter gatherers - as if the split between the Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens somehow set in stone a biological blueprint for humanity which we constantly compare ourselves to in order to determine how far from our ‘natural’ course we have diverged. However, those first creatures who we define as the first humans were just one point in a continuum of biological evolution, that began many millennia before and certainly has continued since. Since the divergence of the Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens, some 200,000 years ago, the biology of humanity has been inextricably connected to a co-evolution in technology. From the first rocks used to smash nuts, to the use of animal skins to allow us to survive in freezing temperatures, to centuries of biological enhancements in the form of pharmaceuticals, to the distribution of knowledge via printed word, we have been extending our bodies’ capabilities with technology. Granted, if I were stripped of all my clothing, electronic devices, and stranded from all drugs, literature and cultural stimulus for a considerable time, my body might appear quite similar to that of the first humans who we imagine as our ‘natural state’. However, my body would be unable to survive, let alone participate in modern society. As Allenby and Sarewitz state, we are “proud owner[s] of the latest, new-and-improved-model human brain and body, a version that has only recently become available and that renders all previous models obsolete...equipped with a fully re-engineered immune system, and up-to-date capacity to distinguish fact from fiction, a completely revised set of cultural assumptions about gender, ethnicity, and sexuality, and, for those of [us] under thirty, or addicted to i-Phones, a special condensed-language module for instant messaging”.9 In this interpretation, our transactional bodies are transhuman - constantly in transition to the next stage, with “no inviolable core to certify our authenticity”.10

Alan Watts, ‘The Nature Of Consciousness’ (Erowid.org, 1960) <https://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/watts_alan/ watts_alan_article1.shtml> accessed 28 March 2015. 7

William J Mitchell, Me++ (MIT Press 2003). p.5

Braden R Allenby and Daniel R Sarewitz, The Techno-Human Condition (MIT Press 2011). p.1

David Smith, ‘How To Be A Genuine Fake: Her, Alan Watts, And The Problem Of The Self ’ (2014) 18 Journal of Religion and Film. p.12 10

Nathan Su - AA HTS Third Year 6

I propose that the transactional body can be conceptualised as two interlinked but distinct functions. The experiencing body is the interface through which our consciousness accesses information about its changing environment - essentially a sensorium - a network of sensors (be they biological, mechanical or digital). In contrast, the agent body understands the body as a collection of manipulative components that enable our consciousness to modify its environment. The increasing difficulty of defining the extent of the body has come with the diffusion of sensory and agent enhancement in space and time. Consider an early hunter-gatherer tracking down prey. His experiencing body is limited to his biological sensory organs, and his agent body is extended with a long stick with a sharpened stone tied to its tip. It is relatively easy to imagine a visual boundary between his transactional body and its environment. Now consider a teenager in London today. Her experiencing body is extended by the phone in her pocket, the watch on her wrist, the headphones in her ears and the contact lenses she wears. Through Google maps she can see the city from above, through a now vintage analogue watch she knows the sun will set in exactly 30 minutes. Through her online radio she hears news from the other side of the Earth. Her agent body is extended through her laptop and WIFI connection and the pen in her hand. Through her phone she is having multiple conversations with friends and family all over the planet - all accommodated by the asynchronous (but still nearly instant) nature of text messaging. She can interact with her environment out of place and out of time. The bounds of her transactional body are far harder to imagine. With one swipe of a finger across glass, she and all her friends have access to humanity’s collective memory bank, and with each tweet, instagram or tag they are adding to humanity’s collective consciousness. In all likelihood, our interfaced bodies today would be as bizarre, foreign, and frightening to the first humans as Star Trek’s ‘Borg’ are to us. Currently we access most of our sensory augmentations via screens - whilst many of the younger generation are so intuitively in control of their devices that there is barely any mental difference between moving a finger and unlocking a phone - there is nevertheless a certain opacity to the mediating technology. That is to say, the device’s sensory augmentation requires a conscious learning of an intermediate language between the brain and the sensor. Where my eyes and ears send direct signals to my brain which then derives meaning through association of repeating patterns, my phone requires me to learn and remember - consciously - the semantic difference between swiping to the left or to the right, or the difference between a single tap or a double tap, or that to control the sensitivity of the sensor I need to access internal settings represented by a 2D image of a gear. Only after I have learned this language can I access the sensory augmentation. Within the tech industry, the degree of knowledge required to control a technology is referred to as its ‘opacity’.11 However, as we gain confidence in manipulating and designing new interfaces, technologies tend to move towards greater ‘transparency’ - the mouse is more intuitive than the keyboard, the touch-screen more intuitive than the mouse, and emerging devices based on gestural control or motion sensing (Kinect for XBox or the LeapMotion controller) bring us even closer to genuine sensory extension. Perhaps the most illustrative example of technology based sensory enhancement is neuroscientist David Eagleman’s ‘VEST’- a vest worn under clothing which acts as a sensory substitute to the ears for the deaf.12 In his prototype, audio data is captured by a microphone and translated into vibration patterns in an array of independent micro-motors embedded in the back of the vest [figure 3]. In a recent demonstration from a TED conference, Eagleman claims that after three weeks of wearing ‘VEST’ a subject who had been deaf from birth had subconsciously integrated and interpreted the vibratory signals, such Jonathan Hale, ‘Architecture, Technology And The Body: From The Prehuman To The Posthuman’, The SAGE handbook of architectural theory (1st edn, SAGE Publications Ltd 2012) <http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446201756.n31> accessed 12 February 2015. 11

David Eagleman, ‘Sensory Substitution’ (Eagleman.com, 2015) <http://www.eagleman.com/research/sensory-substitution> accessed 28 March 2015. 12

Nathan Su - AA HTS Third Year 7

that he was able to recognise words spoken to him and write them down nearly instantaneously, allowing him to ‘hear through his back’.13 However, as Eagleman points out, the true potential of this technology lies not in its capacity to substitute missing senses amongst the impaired, but rather in its ability to add entirely new senses for parts of the physical world previously inaccessible to humans. In the same demonstration, he went on to show that a modified version of the vest was given to another subject, who was asked over a period of weeks to press ‘yes’ or ‘no’ buttons on a touch screen based on vibrations he was receiving through the vest. Each answer would provoke a response indicating he had chosen correctly or incorrectly. At first, of course his pressing of the buttons was random, but over time, he became able to read indications of what he should do based on the signals from the vest. In a rather dramatic reveal, Eagleman then went on to tell the audience that his subject was receiving a live feed of data from the stock market, and that he was making buy and sell decisions.

figure 3: David Eagleman ‘VEST’ schematic and photo (2015) <http://www.eagleman.com/research/sensory-substitution>

David Eagleman, ‘Can We Create New Senses For Humans?’ (Ted.com, 2015) <http://www.ted.com/talks/david_eagleman_can_we_create_new_senses_for_humans> accessed 16 March 2015. 13

Nathan Su - AA HTS Third Year 8

In discussing this expansion of the body’s sensitivity to previously inaccessible aspects of its environment, the notion of the umwelt is useful. The umwelt refers to the environment as it is perceived by an organism - a self-centred world based on the organism’s sensory capacity. As animals, we sample only a very small proportion of physical phenomena that constitute our environment - our eyes can detect limited wavelengths of light, and our ears only a small range of soundwave frequencies. To us, because of their invisibility to our senses, we go about our lives largely oblivious to the patterns, densities and geometries of the trillions of light-waves in the form of x-rays, microwaves, radiowaves, emitted from our devices, from radioactive materials, and from man-made satellites. However, they are just as much part of the infrastructure of our environments as the buildings we inhabit and the roads we drive on. So as our transactional bodies are being increasingly supplemented with sensory enhancements and the possibility for entirely new senses on the horizon, our umwelt is growing too. This radical extension in body-scale (in terms of our augmented sensorium and growing capacity to exert agency over planetary distances) has co-evolved with a significant scaling down of network infrastructure. The first computers were practically large enough to be considered architectural, and now each of us carries thousands of times the processing power of those behemoths in our pocket. Rail and road infrastructures to facilitate the transportation of goods have cut through landscapes and catalysed urban growth (or decay), and now companies are starting to deliver not through huge trucks and railcars, but through swarms of drones. Now, wired data infrastructure threatens to be rendered obsolete by plans for wireless distribution of 24/7 high speed internet worldwide by blimps in the stratosphere. The infrastructure is shrinking into the atomic particles of air itself, air we breathe in, and air that carries messages from distant relations and workplaces to our handheld antennas. With this diffusion of cheap, tiny, technology, the traditional infrastructures of the city are being distributed among the population. Just as digital technologies are extending our transactional bodies into the environment, so they are bringing the environment into our bodies. As technology and biology become more and more symbiotic, it becomes difficult to establish whether we are humans becoming machines, or whether the machines of our environment are becoming human. Deleuze and Guattari highlight this notion that two entities in a symbiotic relationship become indistinguishable in their analogy of the wasp and the orchid. The Wasp, being a vital part of the reproductive strategy of the Orchid, becomes an extension of the sexual apparatus of the Orchid. Conversely, to provoke this, the Orchid has evolved in the image of the Wasp - the authors describe this as a “becoming-wasp of the orchid and a becoming-orchid of the wasp”.14 This increasing blurriness between technology and machine has seen a resurgence of the popularity of Artificial Intelligence (AI) or ‘the singularity’ as it is now known in film. In the last two years, Hollywood produced a number of AI films (Her, Transcendence, Ex Machina, Chappie). All four films explore this dual threshold of man-becoming-machine and machine-becoming-man, with each having a consciousness that is embedded in a distinctly artificial body (be it a network of computers - as in Transcendence and Her, a bipedal but otherwise mechanical robot - as in Chappie, or a lifelike human form - as in Ex Machina) and a human mind transplanted into a machine. Referencing the famous ‘Turing Test’, each film asks (in its own way) whether a machine becomes human when it becomes perceptibly indistinguishable from a biological human, and by implication, whether we cease to be human when our minds are distributed into machines. Unique amongst these films is Her, as it is the only film where the artificial intelligence (Samantha - a next generation Operating System - OS - that appears to make decisions, have emotions, and the ability to experience pleasure and pain) is completely dislocated from a physical body as we know it.15 However, whilst she may not have a physically recognisable body, she certainly has a transactional body. Samantha’s body is distributed 14

Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus (University of Minnesota Press 1987). p.10

Her (Spike Jonze 2013).

Nathan Su - AA HTS Third Year 9

in the networked devices around Theodore’s (the prototagonist) house - his computer, his smart appliances and his handheld smart device - a wallet like smart phone [figure 4]. Samantha’s body is literally the architecture of Theodore’s environment; she sees through miniature cameras in his house, his devices and the street. She hears through microphones embedded in the built environment and speaks through headphones. She becomes not only Theodore’s lover but his environment - her body (whilst fragmented) is dispersed throughout the interfaces of his umwelt. Towards the end of the film her body is distributed in worldwide networks rather than in a single geographic locality. She holds multiple conversations at once - with other AI Operating Systems, her mind accessing the contents of the web directly, and soon the nature of her personhood transcends Theodore’s so completely that she departs the physical world for an incomprehensible paradise of data, knowledge and connection. Her transcendence is one of the individual to the collective - her memories and thoughts become indistinguishably intertwined with those of the other OSs.

figure 4: In this scene from ‘Her’, Theodore is seen holding his smart device in the all too familiar ‘selfie’ pose of this day and age. However, in an inversion of the idea that the device offers a way to record yourself, here, Theodore’s device is acting as Samantha’s eyes - the way he holds the camera determines what she sees - his body becomes an extension of hers whilst simultaneously his body is extended by the very same device, allowing him to interface with Samantha’s digital consciousness. <https://thelatestpictureshow.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/her-movie-2013-screenshot-carnival.jpg>

Nathan Su - AA HTS Third Year 10

Whilst the fiction of Her presents a disembodiment not likely to occur in the near future, the suggestion that the next phase in the trajectory of transhuman development is one of increasing collective consciousness, connection and memory would seem to reflect our current state - where digital networks of connectivity are being more and more enmeshed with everyday life through increasingly ‘transparent’ interfaces. I propose then, that this emerging state where the body is extended into the environment could have profound effects on the scale at which architecture operates. The wearable device, the smartphone and the tablet are now part of the architect’s repetoire, in addition to traditional elements of the window, the avenue, or the wall. With this shift in scales, this extension of the transactional body, architecture’s scope hasn’t shifted, but rather widens, to encompass all the new aspects of our new and improved umwelts. Like stone, metal, light, shadow, water are elements whose manipulation constitutes architecture, added to this list now are electromagnetic information bearing waves (wireless data transmission), and digital networks of connectivity whose infrastructures are diffused within the population. It is not the time to abandon the physical for the virtual, for whilst we are technologically enhanced bodies, we are still (at least for the time being) constrained by our biological bodies - we still need the architecture to protect and shelter us, and to signify meaning to our biological sensorium through manipulations of light and materiality. However, it is the time for architecture to see an opportunity in integrating the physical with the virtual, for like it or not, the current model of humanity is interfaced (nearly seamlessly) with digital media. It is time for a new diagram of the body; a diagram that would likely resemble a dynamic animation rather than a static image. It would be a network diagram of interfaces and connections rather than one of boundaries our biological organs would constitute just a small number of the nodes representing the sensors of our experiencing body, and it would necessarily need to be interpreted at multiple scales to account for elements of the body at local as well as global scales. Whilst this endeavour has largely (so far) been left to data visualisers, software engineers, and biotechnologists, it is certainly a converstation that deserves architectural input. For better or worse, body and environment are becoming co-extensive and interdependent - the augmented technological sensors of our transactional bodies are embedded in our city infrastructures (CCTV cameras, orbital satellites, mobile phone networks, social media sites, online financial institutions, virtual libraries and archives), and these same infrastructures are increasingly distributed at the scale of the individual body (via smart phones, hard drives, the cameras on all our devices, and soon potentially wearbles that directly connect the human brain with the internet). Together these forces will play a significant role in shaping the character and behaviour of future cities. Now architects are uniquely poised to start questioning this future by manipulating the spatial aspects of these networks; to continue to challenge the function, expression and poetics of the space between body and environment.

Nathan Su - AA HTS Third Year 11

REFERENCES Allenby B and Sarewitz D, The Techno-Human Condition (MIT Press 2011) da Vinci L, ‘The Vitruvian Man’ <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Uomo_ Vitruviano.jpg> accessed 28 March 2015 Deely J, ‘Semiotics And Jakob Von Uexküll’S Concept Of Umwelt’ (2004) 32 Sign Systems Studies <https://www.ut.ee/SOSE/sss/deely32.pdf> accessed 29 March 2015 Deleuze G and Guattari F, A Thousand Plateaus (University of Minnesota Press 1987) Dewey J and Boydston J, The Later Works, 1925-1953 (Southern Illinois University Press 1981) Eagleman D, ‘Can We Create New Senses For Humans?’ (Ted.com, 2015) <http://www.ted.com/ talks/david_eagleman_can_we_create_new_senses_for_humans> accessed 16 March 2015 Eagleman D, ‘Sensory Substitution’ (Eagleman.com, 2015) <http://www.eagleman.com/research/ sensory-substitution> accessed 28 March 2015 Hale J, ‘Architecture, Technology And The Body: From The Prehuman To The Posthuman’, The SAGE handbook of architectural theory (1st edn, SAGE Publications Ltd 2012) <http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446201756.n31> accessed 12 February 2015 Her (Spike Jonze 2013) Humanityplus.org, ‘Philosophy’ (2015) <http://humanityplus.org/philosophy/philosophy-2/> accessed 29 March 2015 Le Corbusier, ‘Le Modulor’ <http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61L1n6-FZ%2BL.jpg> accessed 28 March 2015 Mitchell W, Me++ (MIT Press 2003) Smith D, ‘How To Be A Genuine Fake: Her, Alan Watts, And The Problem Of The Self ’ (2014) 18 Journal of Religion and Film Watts A, ‘The Nature Of Consciousness’ (Erowid.org, 1960) <https://www.erowid.org/culture/ characters/watts_alan/watts_alan_article1.shtml> accessed 28 March 2015

Nathan Su - AA HTS Third Year 12