Maybe the head is genetically engineered to produce sonar? In which case, "Eeeee! Eeeeeee!"

Genetically engineering speech out of females is a silly thing to do. Because that pretty much puts the onus of raising the children onto the males, something I suspect the chauvinist males wouldn't like very much. Because, hello, how do you raise a child without being able to bellow CHARLES WALLACE MURRY! RETURN YOUR BOTTOM TO MY VICINITY THIS MINUTE SO I MAY WHACK IT AT MY LEISURE! To say nothing of the warning child and/or car that they are in danger of colliding. To say nothing of being able to answer, "What's for dinner?" for the eleventy-millionth time. To say nothing of being able to moan loudly during sex.

Speech [and its non-auditory visual equivalents] am good. Large populations without capacity for speech am a really big pain in the butt.

Also, sex with people who don't understand "A little to the right, dear... OH, GOD, YES!" Probably not as much fun.

Burrell - seriously trying to rationalize it? You mean as in "this is a good thing". Or "this is route we should go".

As in, this is an intellectual puzzle worthy of contemplation: what would consciousness be like if it were completely separated from a physical body?

I’d also include in the same category things like cryogenically preserving someone’s head (separated from the rest of body) in the hopes of transplanting it onto another body and reviving it one day. Same idea vis a vis consciousness=identity=brain and brain alone.

But in a weird (and bizarre and horrifying)way it sounds like the ultimate in asceticism.

I think that’s part of it, Cindy. Or a kind of terrifying embodiment (so to speak) of the mind/body split. [As Jim says a bit later.]

I don't see anything male about the head in a jar thing ... it's about sentience, about consciousness, isn't it?

I just haven’t read any work by a woman treating the idea in the same way. I’d love to look at some, if you have any.

One of my favorite essays on the idea is by Lyotard of all people (given that he sometimes makes me want to throw the book accross the room). I think it's called "Can thought proceed without a body?" and he basically answers it "no," but in a very interesting way.

It's The Matrix, kinda, isn't it?

I’d have to say no. One of the most interesting things about The Matrix to me is that they don’t forget about the body at all. Its presence is key, both to the humans and the AI.

I don't find much about The Matrix story interesting, honestly, but for me the head in a jar/body in a factory things are similar -- it's about illusion first, and then what's outside the jar/pod.

With The Matrix they're contrasting your normal, actually disembodied state with the reality of being corporeal. To come out of the matrix means taking your brain out of the jar with the mind-world.

As for women dealing with the topic -- I have no idea. Admittedly, I have little cred in the typical-chick arena, but it never felt like a gender-related idea, not least of all because I find it interesting.

Head-in-a-box doesn't sound gender-specific. However, refining a woman down to the good bits (namely the uterus and torso) a la The Hellstrom Chronicles?

Icky. And Niven's genetically-engineered stupid women also deeply squickmaking.

IIRC, Niven has an ongoing long-time (30 yrs+) marriage to an anything-but-stupid woman.

but for me the head in a jar/body in a factory things are similar -- it's about illusion first, and then what's outside the jar/pod.

I don't understand what you mean, but my suspicion is that you and I are talking about two very different sets of questions here.

For me, the head in a jar is about assumed reality, and about a clearly defined mind/body duality.

What does it mean to you?

sits quietly in ita's corner of the room.

What I'm talking about is when theorists/scientists/philosophers start posing the question of whether or not the body is a necessary element to thought/life/consciousness.