The aim of the second presentation “Looking for Dragons in Kansas” is to explore the question that, if interactions exist among the ecological, the cognitive, and the virtual, in terms of mind, how might we start to understand what these processes are and their significance in terms of real world contexts? Fractal geometries have been found within patterns that are found everywhere; from the self–organization of brain processes (Mac Cormac, 1996) to termite mounds (Eglash, 1999). Fractal is a word used to describe the irregular patterns found in nature. Mandelbrot (1983), who coined the term fractal, stated:

"I conceived and developed a new geometry of nature and implemented its use in a number of diverse fields….The most useful fractals involve chance and both their regularities and their irregularities are statistical. Also, the shapes described here tend to be scaling, implying that the degree of their irregularity and/or fragmentation is identical at all scales." (p. 1)

Fractals can be heard as sound (e.g., Solomon, 2002), as well as displayed visually (e.g., Sprott, 1993; Abraham et al., 2001; Spehar et al., 2003). Understanding communication as having space filling properties (in terms of listening to the sound of a fractal, as well as the visual display of a fractal) may support an understanding of interactions occurring among ecological, cognitive, and virtual systems. For example, fractals, as present (1) in the physical world, (2) in the living nonhuman world, (3) in human contexts, and (4) in online and wireless environments, provide a unifying element among all environments. Integrating fractal geometry and incorporating a complexity measure provides a viable method to begin to understand this exploration.

McLuhan (1999) described number as the extension of our sense of touch. It is our "most intimate and interrelating activity" (p. 107). As touch (the sensation of feeling as both a physical and a living interaction), the mathematical includes non-cognitive existence and is universally accessible (that is, we touch the earth and the earth touches us). Consistent with the rationale offered in the first presentation, an aesthetic approach is supported. Abraham, Sprott, Mitina, Osorio, Dequito and Pinili (2001) have found that the aesthetic preference of fractals appears to encompass universal properties. (See also: Sprott (1993) & Draves (2004)). Recently, Draves, Abraham, Viotti, Abraham and Sprott (2008) compared the fractal preference of 6,400 automatically generated fractal images (that they termed electric sheep) by about 20000 Internet users. The results showed that the average fractal dimension preferred by users was between 1.5 and 1.8. The data also showed “an inverted U-shaped curve in the relationship between aesthetic judgements of flames and their fractal dimension” (Draves, et al, 2008, p. 1243, Abstract). This function was also evidenced in the work of Abraham et al. (2001). Abraham (personal communication, February18, 2009) pointed out “the inverted U function is not in the aesthetic as much as being cognitively mediated by the perceived complexity (homogeneity/ heterogeneity) of the images”. The inverted U function may therefore help to distinguish between cognitive and neuronal processing in terms of living systems.

Research studying fractals and aesthetic preference within the context of naturally generated fractals, cognitively generated fractals, and mathematical computer generated fractals is a new phenomenon. Spehar, Clifford, Newell, and Taylor (2003) compared aesthetic preference among first, naturally occurring fractals such as trees, mountains, and waves, second, the fractal paintings of the artist Pollock, and third, computer generated mathematical fractals. The results obtained showed that humans maintained a consistent aesthetic preference of the fractal images with respect to a specific fractal dimension across all fractal images independent of which category the image belonged to. “Given that fractals define our natural environment, identification of the fractal characteristic determining aesthetic preference could be of fundamental importance in understanding the way in which our perception in general and our appreciation of art in particular are shaped by the world around us” (Spehar et al., 2003, p. 819).

While their research is still in its early stages, the results reported by Sphar et. al. (2003) support the existence of a patterned interaction (or interface) between self and the natural world. The demonstration of “an aesthetic preference for a particular fractal dimension across images of distinctly different origins (e.g., natural, cognitive and virtual)” (Spehar et al., 2003, p. 819) implies the possibility of an already existent mathematical aesthetic, embedded in the natural world. An aesthetic, because it is grounded in the real world, embodying the potential to be extended into virtual space through the use of online and wireless environments.
In summary, the position being taken in this presentation is that technologies do indeed have an impact on living nonhuman systems and this impact or interaction can be evaluated in terms of mind. Integrating the work of Abraham et. al. and the work done by Sephar et. al. provides one context for understanding this phenomenon. For example, are there measures, associated with systems theory and fractal geometries, that are representative of mind and engagement at each level of logical typing; including at the level of disease and/or viral evolution.