Member 1096
48 entries
511847 views

 RSS
Exploring the edge.
Immortal since Dec 19, 2007
Uplinks: 0, Generation 2

K21st
The Global Brain
"It is not guilty pride but the ceaselessly reawakened instinct of the game which calls forth new worlds." (Heraclitus Reloaded)
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Spaceweaver’s favorites
    From syncopath
    eChoes ...
    From gamma
    Underground life in 2013...
    From Xaos
    Conversations With...
    From Wildcat
    Re-Be-Coming Human...
    From Xaos
    The Aesthetic Ground (the...
    Recently commented on
    From Wildcat
    Tilting at windmills or...
    From Wildcat
    Some nothings are like...
    From whiskey
    "A Case For The...
    From Xaos
    Conversations With...
    From Wildcat
    Archeodatalogy - Entwined,...
    Spaceweaver’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    The great enhancement debate
    What will happen when for the first time in ages different human species will inhabit the earth at the same time? The day may be upon us when people...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.

    Here is an interesting introduction to the history of the concept of accelerating change, found in Acceleration Watch website.

    On the idea of progress in antiquity:

    To consider the origins of the idea of accelerating change, we should briefly go back to a much earlier one, that of progress itself. As Historian J.D. Bury reminds us (The Idea of Progress, 1920), the idea of progress in any human domain other than spiritual (e.g., social, intellectual, technical), versus stasis, moral decline, or cyclic fluctuation, has been a quite recent emergence in human history. We see no evidence for it at the start of human civilization in Mesopotamia with the Sumerians, circa 3,500 B.C.. Surprisingly, it was missed entirely by Greek civilization during its "Golden Age" of imperial democracy and scientific flowering, 500-300 B.C. Even the rise of the Roman empire was not explicitly (e.g., in the written record) associated with progress! Consider the historical context. Great empires had a long history of rising and falling. Most intelligent folk simply could not believe in the idea of continual progress when the pay for the Roman soldier was a fixed number of denari for the last three centuries of Roman rule (e.g., 100-400 A.D). The idea became further untenable in the West as Rome itself collapsed, as city sizes shrunk, and as Europe entered long political and ideological eras of escalating warfare and repression.


    And a bit later...

    The idea finally infected the public consciousness during the European Enlightenment (mid 17th and 18th centuries), beginning with such thinkers as Renes Descartes (Discourse on Method, 1637), Blaise Pascal (Pensees, 1660), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. A century later, American philosopher-statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin would greatly strengthen and extend Enlightenment ideals and ideas in the political domain. Technological progress in particular was promoted by such scholars as Anne-R-J Turgot, Reflections on Formation and Distribution of Wealth, 1766, who noted the "inevitable" march of technological progress that had occurred even during Medieval Europe. Peripheral observations on the inexorable quickening of technology also appeared in Adam Smith's writings (1723-1790). In An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, 1793, the transcendentalist philosopher William Godwin predicted that advancing knowledge and information dissemination must lead to the ascendancy of mind over matter, including a shrinking of the importance of the state relative to the individual, an eventual “total extirpation of the infirmities of our nature,” and extension of human life “beyond any limits which we are able to assign.” Curiously, he also predicted the decline of biological procreation as part of this transition, a phenomenon that has been observed in all first world countries in recent decades.


    The first appearance of the Law of acceleration

    All of this set the stage for a historian by the name of Henry Adams, who in the 1890's began documenting the rapid development of science and technology at the turn of the century. It was Adams, observing the profound new forces of the dynamo, the internal combustion engine, and the railroad, who was apparently the first in the written record to explore the idea of the inevitable acceleration of progress leading to a coming global "phase change" (commendably, he even used this physical analogy) in environmental dynamics. A century later, the mathematician and science fiction author Vernor Vinge would aptly term this phase transition a "technological singularity."

    Adams was the great-grandson of U.S. President John Adams (the second President of the U.S.) and grandson of John Quincy Adams (sixth President of the U.S.), so he had daunting shoes to fill. He rose to this challenge by becoming one of the most thoughtful historians of technology that we have yet had. Adams', The Education of Henry Adams, 1918, is considered one the greatest autobiographies in U.S. history.

    Adams technological singularity insights first appear in rough form in "A Law of Acceleration", an essay written in 1904 in which he first surmises the existence of "A law of acceleration, definite and constant as any law of mechanics, [which] cannot be supposed to relax its energy to suit the convenience of man."


    Read the rest of it here
    Sun, Jan 6, 2008  Permanent link
    Categories: Singularity, Accelerating change
    Sent to project: Polytopia
      RSS for this post
      Promote (4)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (2)
     
    The following article is long and quite condensed; I have therefore divided it into five posts I will publish in the coming days. This is the first part. Enjoy:-)

    Prologue

    ON APRIL FOOLS' DAY 1998, within hours of reading U.S. patent application No. 08/993,564, the Honorable Bruce Lehman did something no other commissioner of patents had done in the 200-year history of America's oldest government agency. He stepped before a cluster of microphones and announced that the patent would never be approved. No half-human "monsters" would be patented, Lehman declared angrily, or any other "immoral inventions."

    Legal scholars — accustomed to an office bound by statute to remain silent until patents are approved or rejected — were shocked. Forgoing the traditional 18-month review period, Lehman had issued a marching order to his staff to reject a patent application they had barely read, rather as if a judge had instructed a jury that the defendant was guilty before the trial began. Furthermore, to support his decision, Lehman cited an 1817 court ruling that excluded inventions "injurious to the well-being, good policy, or good morals of society." But patent law had long since been amended to say that if an applicant could claim constructive use for a patent, he or she could not be denied simply because there might be dangerous or unethical uses of the invention.

    "Even attorneys who worshiped the system were horrified," recalls former patent examiner Peter di Mauro, who has since left the agency. Research biologists and biotech executives also felt blind-sided, hearing in Commissioner Lehman's outburst a threat to the hard-earned clearance they had won from the Supreme Court 18 years earlier to patent "anything under the sun made by man" — even living organisms.

    Strange as it may seem, the inventor, Dr. Stuart Newman, a soft-spoken developmental biologist and professor at New York Medical College in Valhalla, New York, completely agreed with Lehman that his invention defied the boundaries of human morality. It's why he filed for the patent. And it's why, six years later, as the biomedical community holds its breath, he and the Patent Office remain locked in a legal battle that may redefine what we mean by "human."

    (Qouted from "Gods and Monsters" by Mark Dowie, Mother Jones Magazine Jan 2004)

    Technology is a manifest of human nature

    Advancements in biotechnology are bringing a great and profound change to our doorstep. The technological miracles we can already glimpse today are but the tip of an iceberg of what will become available in the not so far future. From designing new synthetic life forms that will become the foundation of a new industry unimaginable in its potential, to full scale genetic engineering of enhanced humans (what one SF writer dubbed geneering). The impact of biotechnology on the future, and the ethical aspects involved, are already the subject of numerous heated debates that gain more and more public attention.

    A question frequently arising in the ethical debate around genetic manipulation is whether or not genetic manipulations are “normal” or “natural”. Religious thinkers often bring up their side on the issue in the form of a theological argument that dealing with the so called ‘code of life’ and manipulating it diverts from the “Godly plan” thus should be abandoned or at least tightly restricted. On the other extreme of the spectrum there are those who claim that scientific progress is inevitable thus there is no real question about it being natural or not, godly planned or not. This is a kind of “technological fatalism” which avoids the ethical issue altogether.

    A more balanced approach I would like to outline here is humanistic in the sense that it addresses the issue from the perspective of human nature. What I mean here is seeing the state of affairs of humanity as a system of tensions between an actual condition and an idealized image. This system of tensions is a huge driving force, driving individuals as well as whole civilizations to expand, to cover gaps. The gaps between what we actually see when we look in the mirror and what we desire to see there. As such, this drive is a reflective drive, it arises from consciousness, and essentially it drives the expansion of consciousness. Expansion is a human trait, and it influences all spheres of human activity. Science and technology are simply particular yet powerful manifests of this trait.

    By no means am I coming to assert that these particular manifests are the most important marks of being human, neither are they acknowledged as the only path possible for the future of humanity. Nevertheless, at this stage of human existence we cannot but recognize science and technology as profound aspects of human civilization and an organic part in the praxis of human existence. As such biotechnology is not different from agriculture, transportation, or urbanization. All these and many more are expressions of the human endeavor to become more than himself, and if human nature is thus recognized, the impacts of technology are to be accepted as natural in the context of human existence.

    Critical to my approach is the (optimistic) belief that at any stage in the evolution of mankind it is within the capability of the human, at least in potential, to resolve the ethical conundrums emerging from his motion of expansion. Moreover, these emerging conundrums are points of reflective friction through which the human dynamically redefines the shape of his own identity and the meaning of her existence. I would further say that not only biotechnology is an organic aspect of what a human being is at this point in the story of mankind, but also that the ethical questions emerging in conjunction to biotechnology are critical factors in the evolution of humanity.

    I will remark however, that my belief in the capability of the human as asserted here does not necessarily imply a successful culmination. It is very difficult to predict now whether humanity is on the verge of a breakthrough or an evolutionary dead end. Yet, it clearly seems that biotechnology and the ethical issues it raises, is on the critical path of humanity's future evolution.

    Identifying the ethical issues

    It is not my purpose to address specific ad hoc ethical issues, but rather to describe a vista of the more general riddles we are about to tackle in our biotechnological future. Here I will focus on four core issues:

    A. The choice of responsibility.
    B. Redefining human identity.
    C. Biology and social order.
    D. The evolutionary prospect of an ethical criterion.

    Continue to Part 2.
      Promote (7)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (3)
     


    From the Wikipedia:
    A given set of tiles, in the Euclidean plane or some other geometric setting, admits a tiling if non-overlapping copies of the tiles in the set can be fitted together to cover the entire space.

    A given set of tiles might admit periodic tilings, tilings that remain invariant after being shifted by a translation. (For example, a lattice of square tiles is periodic.) It is not difficult to design a set of tiles that admits non-periodic tilings as well (For example, randomly arranged tilings using a 2×2 square and 2×1 rectangle will typically be non-periodic.)

    An aperiodic set of tiles (as in the picture above), however, admits only non-periodic tilings, an altogether more subtle phenomenon.An ordering is non periodic if it lacks translational symmetry, which means that a shifted copy will never match exactly with its original.



    The Penrose tiles are an aperiodic set of tiles, since they admit only non-periodic tilings of the plane.


    Any of the infinitely many tilings by the Penrose tiles is non-periodic.


    I find this kind of patterns both fascinating. When we look at one locally, there is always an impression of regularity, of some pattern that repeat itself and thus easy to grasp. But, when the eye tries to cover a larger portion of the pattern, there is always a disturbance, a kind of a surprise, for we find that in fact it only seems to repeat itself but never really does. It looks as if part of the pattern can let us grasp the whole of it, but soon we discover how eluding it really is.

    I have this thought that aperiodic tiling is how things become interesting to us. When we experience something new, we try to 'tile' it with all our known concepts and memorized experiences. If we succeed, we soon enough categorize the new experience, archive it, and lose interest. If we fail, we most often feel disconnected to the experience and soon enough we tend to discard it altogether.

    But if we succeed to 'tile' the new experience with our previous preconceptions, yet we get this peculiar and subtle arrangement of aperiodic patterns, then, something else happens. We become interested. We gain enough grasp of the subject matter, yet its edges are always eluding and demand more variations. The theme is clearly there, yet... not quite. We become interested.

    For a long time, I was thinking about how we use physical space as a metaphor for our mental spaces, and how geometrical tiling is, in a manner of speaking, analogous to the way we organize our experiences. It is fascinating that certain sets of tiles would admit only aperiodic tiling. Here is a thought: certain sets of concepts would admit only interesting organization of mental spaces and experiences. How about creating such a set?

    Life is interesting. :-)
    Mon, Dec 31, 2007  Permanent link
    Categories: Mental spaces, Geometry
      RSS for this post
      Promote (6)
      
      Add to favorites (6)
    Create synapse
     


    A modern interpretation of the ancient mystery of squaring the circle :-)
    Sat, Dec 29, 2007  Permanent link
    Categories: digital art
      RSS for this post
      Promote (2)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Create synapse
     
    In everyday experience, it is quite intuitive to expect simple systems to present simple behaviors, while complex systems present complex behaviors. There is of course no single definition to what complexity is, there are many interesting ways to think about complexity, and perhaps I will dedicate a post to it sometimes in the future. For now, let us use a simplified idea of the term: A behavior of a system can be understood as a dynamic correspondence relation between its inputs and outputs. The complexity of a system corresponds more or less to how difficult it is to implement the simplest computer program that fully simulates this behavior.

    Thinking of it, when we try in everyday life to figure the behavior of a system whether it is a washing machine, a new gadget, or even a fellow human, we usually try to create a model, to find a pattern that will help us to predict what responses should we expect to what stimuli. We 'push the buttons' and see what happens. And if the same happens for the same buttons, we figure the pattern. The more regular and repetitive the pattern, the easier for us to figure it, and the easier it is to devise a computer program that reproduces the pattern. This is how our intuitive sense regarding complexity is translated into the more formal language of pattern and algorithm. Even if we leave computer aside, we can still gain a fairly clear sense of complexity by asking ourselves how difficult would it be to provide the simplest verbal description of some given behavior. The longer this description becomes, the more complex is the described phenomenon.

    It is quite straight forward to make the analogy that higher complex behavior corresponds to more computation, and simple behavior corresponds little computation. Even if we use only verbal descriptions of a system or a phenomenon, the length of a description is a measure of the computation we make in our heads to describe the said system or phenomenon.

    Another assumption that we use quite intuitively in everyday affairs, is that complex behaviors are generally produced by complex mechanisms, that is by complex structures. Complex behaviors if so means/correlates to complex structures, while simple behaviors means/correlates to simple structures. In computers, for example, structure can be roughly translated to algorithmic structure, that is how complex a program is.

    Since we generally tend think about intelligence in terms of complexity of behavior, there is here an immediate implication that intelligence arises in corresponding complex structures. If we think about artificial intelligence for example we usually think about it in terms of the complexity of computers and algorithms that we might need to give rise to such intelligence.

    About five years ago Stephen Wolfram, a maverick mathematician and scientist, published in his book "A new kind of science" a controversial hypothesis that challenges the intuitions mentioned above. It is called 'The principle of computational equivalence'. The essence of the suggested principle is that there is no such correspondence between complex behaviors and complex structures (or computations), or in other words, as Wolfram shows in a few appealing cases, very simple structures can give rise to an extremely complex behavior. Not only this, in fact there are some special simple computational structures that can give rise to behaviors of any degree of complexity. Still in other words, it means that systems with different degrees of complexity, from very simple to very complex are actually computationally equivalent or structurally equivalent.

    Why it's interesting? If Wolfram is correct, and there is amounting evidence that he is, it means that there are general limitations on our ability to understand and to predict the behavior of systems. When we think about the concept of understanding in regards to a phenomenon or a system, we usually mean figuring the pattern of that system's or that phenomenon's behavior. We also think about it in terms of scales of complexity, that is complex systems can 'understand' (figure the pattern of behavior) of more simple systems, but not vice versa.

    We scale and measure intelligence in terms of figuring complex patterns. But the principle of computational equivalence shatters this idea. If a very simple system can present a behavior which is computationally equivalent to a very complex system, there is no way that our understanding of 'understanding' stands. It means that what we came to understand from the universe are all those very particular phenomena where the patterns of behavior are of limited complexity, while the vast majority of the universe cannot be described in terms of limited patterns thus is not open to the kind of understanding and research we work with.

    Since patterns and formula are the very instruments by which we predict the future behavior of all phenomena, it seems as a consequence that most of the universe is forever unpredictable, because most behaviors are too complex to describe with a limited pattern or a limited computation.

    Think about this: The universe might be deterministic in principle, however in practice we cannot fully figure its pattern. Moreover, no matter how intelligent we or our machines might become, the principle of computational equivalence leaves much space(most of it actually) to the unknown.

    Think about this as well: According to the principle of computational equivalence, understanding boils down to raw computational power. There are no machines that are in principle more clever that the machines that we already have (including the human brain). The difference will eventually be (actually has always been) a difference of speed, the ability to compute faster what everybody else can compute anyway. The universe at large cannot be fully computed by part of it, and if so, given this principle, we can never fully understand the universe, not even ourselves. There are only tiny bubbles of understanding within the vast chaos of patterns.
      Promote (9)
      
      Add to favorites (3)
    Synapses (4)
     
    AtomFilms.com: Funny Videos | Funny Cartoons | Comedy Central

    Take a look at this short movie “They’re made out of meat”, (aprox 8min) based on a short SF story by Terry Bisson. It’s a fun thought provoking film and an excellent starting point. There are those inter galactic super intelligent aliens, meeting over a diner table to reflect their recent findings in this corner of the universe. Their indisputable conclusion is that we humans are made of meat, and as they say who wants to meet meat? Indeed so, I could not agree more, but still I was left more than a bit puzzled as to shallowness of their particular investigation, after all they are supposed to be super intelligent aliens… So how come they did not ask themselves something like: What is this meat made from? Or, how does meat think being just meat?

    Well, there is not a simple answer to this riddle, but fact is that meat thinks, and much more than that as well, and though we humans seem to be made of meat, actually this is not what we are made of, for meat itself is made of information, and information computes itself into being, into living, and into thinking and much more as well. So, contrary to what it seems, we are not made of meat, not at all, we are made of information, and for that matter not only us, but pretty much of everything else.


    This is not an easy idea to grasp; probably it is much more difficult than admitting our “meat” nature. One example of trying to do just that is the Wachowski brothers’ film The Matrix. The Matrix depicts a virtual universe full of life and activity, full of sensations and thoughts, of hopes and desperation, of mystery and love, of the unknown and the exploration of the unknown, in short, full of everything a real world, a real humane world should be full with, and yet… underlying this colorful totally immersive universe there are actually vast quantities of raw digital information streaming in endless rivers into vast oceans of computation giving rise to that very colorful world, the world of the Matrix. The message is that cold impersonal ones and zeros stand at the basis of it all. Everyone but very special few, live in the Matrix totally subject to its all encompassing immersive nature, a perfect illusion. Only those few chosen ones, those uncompromising minds daring to penetrate the veil of what meets the eye, discover that it is all a vast illusion made of an endless stream of information, green characters on the background of a black terminal screens, a vast impersonal computation. They, of course escaped the Matrix into a so called real world, a world of flesh and emotion in contra distinction to the digital illusion. It is much less colorful and cozy, yet what a small price to pay for reality, for freedom from the digital illusion? (Well, not everyone was thinking it is a small price). And there is our hero Neo, not only that he can go into and out of the Matrix like the others who escaped, but he is somehow capable to manipulate the Matrix from within at its basic computational level rendering in his hands virtually infinite powers in the world of the Matrix. Neo masters the Matrix, and is capable to bend its physical laws as well as any other law according to wish. Information gives him virtually godly powers. The story of the Matrix, apart of its particular superficial narrative stages the new drama of the information age: We, human beings, are greatly terrified to discover that all, including us, is made of information, and simultaneously not a bit less powerful is our desire for the godly powers this very discovery bestows, and simultaneously we are terrified from the very prospect of gaining such immense powers.

    The Matrix is an excellent metaphor to the way we start to understand the universe around us for the last few decades. But let us not fall into the shallowness of our eccentric aliens from “Close encounters of the meat kind”, let us try to better understand this metaphor and what it stands for. The Matrix is operated by powerful machines for the purpose of imprisoning humans, but what were the machines made of? And for that matter what were the humans, the real humans fighting the machines, made of? And the green characters flowing over black screens, being at the basis of the Matrix universe, what are they made of? One might conveniently answer any of the conventional answers: Machines are made from machine stuff that is cogs, and pistons, electronic circuits, and such. People are made of living stuff, that is, well… meat of different kinds. All of this, both living stuff and machine stuff is made of molecules and atoms etc, and the green Matrix characters streaming on the screen (machine stuff) are electronic impulses which are made of energy etc. Every school boy nowadays knows (or should know) that these electronic impulses are bits of information, software being run on computers. What are computers? These are machines specially made by meat stuff from machine stuff to operate and process information. Is that so? It is intuitive and compelling to think that everything is made of something else, but how deep are we willing to penetrate with our intuitions?

    As long as information is associated with books and magazines, with computers and the internet, we are quite comfortable with it. As long as information is something we can acquire or communicate to others, all is well. As long as we understand information as something that facilitates our existence, such as where can we find things we need, or how to solve problems we encounter, we are fine. As long as information is an instrument helping us to make sense of the world around us and perhaps of ourselves, we may like it or dislike it but we live with it and we live well. Some say better, others beg to differ on that, but that is not the point of this article.

    As long as we believe we understand something we feel comfortable with it, so we may believe we have enough understanding of what information is so we can be comfortable with it. There are however aspects of information we are not comfortable with, aspects that we do not understand and we tend to disregard them as long as we can. We keep on believing we understand information, but we do not. Not because we cannot, but rather because understanding information to the fullest invites an inner change, most probably a radical and profound one. We usually are not comfortable with changes, so we delay understanding as much as we can. Perhaps it is the property of meat that thinks… Is that so?

    What I aim at here, is to catalyze understanding. Understanding is a kind of computation, a way by which information moves, unfolds, and evolves. In fact, understanding is a kind of computation that catalyzes itself, it is the way by which information evolves in ways which are truly wondrous almost inconceivable. But we will return to that later. I believe that as much as it may feel disconcerting, it is becoming absolutely necessary for us to get to understand information much deeper than our contemporary understanding. It is necessary that we will become conscious actors in the drama of the information age taking place on the stage of our lives, for actors we already are whether we like it or not. Let me present some information about information that will make the case.

    In our more or less conventional thinking, we describe our immediate world in terms of configurations of matter and energy within a space-time continuum. Matter, energy, space and time interact in (presumably) lawful manner which we generally call physics. I will not get here into the vast amount of details that have been discovered about our physical world, and even the vaster amount that is yet to be discovered, I would just remark that there is very little awareness and even less general acceptance to the fact that all our cutting edge physical theories point consistently towards one fundamental insight; that all matter energy and space-time dimensions are but informational states, that all physical laws and dynamics at the most fundamental levels are computations. Our universe seems to be made of information computing itself into existence. Not only matter, energy and the fundamental forces that hold everything together are relentless computations of dynamic information states, but space time continuum itself is a kind of computation. Some theories, like string theory postulate extra spatial dimensions as many as eleven or more, and at that level space-time and matter-energy as we believe we know them are computationally interchangeable, for all of them are related informational states within a computation.

    We may dismiss all these as the wild dreams of eccentric professors who spend too much of their time in their closed offices and laboratories. But their dreams if they are indeed dreams are penetrating almost any aspect of our immediate reality. Our cellular phones, the computers we read and write these lines from, are just two immediate and undeniable examples of how effective are information based theories in describing and manipulating matter and energy from the very small scale of electronic devices to the very large scales of reliably transmitting information over large distances. All this is already happening here and now, but it is only a modest prelude to the revolution of nanotechnology that will soon allow the manipulation of more and more information within ever diminishing scales of space and time to a point where the very fabric of the universe will become directly accessible as our informational playground. Are we all to become “Neos” of the new information age?

    In fact, the nanotechnology revolution has already happened long ago, actually very long ago about 4.5 billion years on this planet, long before humans evolved. We call this revolution Life. At that point, out of mere chemical compounds which in themselves are lawful information configurations and computations, a new phenomenon emerged: the first autonomous living cell, capable of replication and self preservation. That living cell manifesting in a vast quantity and variety of configurations is in fact a tiny molecular information machine manipulating and exchanging information with its immediate environment in an inexhaustible process of computation we call life. Just a few decades ago we have discovered this wonder, and no matter how much knowledge and information was gained about this phenomenon called life, we still are far from digesting the full implications of this discovery. We discovered that underlying the complexity of all life processes, life’s variety, and the immense complexity of relations and interactions between life forms, is one single computing machine called the living cell. Amoebas are made of it, dinosaurs were made of it. Plants and worms, insects and mammals, and of course humans are all vast organized congregations of living cells. We deciphered the mystery of meat: Meat is made of tiny microscopic autonomous computing machines capable to manipulate information, replicate and sustain themselves as distinct and dynamic organizations of information. Meat indeed is made of information. Not only this, life is a computational process, and its basic computing unit is the living cell. At the core of each and every living cell there is an informational blueprint governing its complex dynamics, its genetic code encoded in the DNA.

    Again we may dismiss all these as the wild dreams of eccentric professors who spend too much of their time in their closed offices and laboratories. But again, our understanding of biological processes, the genetic code and its operation, are rapidly changing us and our world. Beginning in medical care, genetically engineered materials, plants and animals, and converging into genetic enhancement of humans to degrees we find hard even to imagine.

    Moreover, we have discovered that these autonomous computing machines we call living cells are engaging, within their environment, in myriad ways and fashions directed to gaining advantages towards their own persistence. We have discovered that this directed engagement is a universal computational process. We have discovered it is inherent in all life forms and is in fact the source of life’s diversity. We have come to know this general process as biological evolution. Evolution is a spontaneous meta-process inexhaustibly spawning new ways for life to persist. Evolution is the dynamics of information in the context of interacting autonomous (autopoietic) living systems. We have discovered that in the course of evolution, living cells have spontaneously coevolved into meta-cellular autonomous life forms. We humans are just one such life form. Our bodies are made of trillions of living cells cooperating and coordinating in a profoundly organized manner. Not only each of our trillions of cell is an independent computing machine, the whole of our body is a huge parallel computing machine still unparalleled by any product of technology. Its dynamical computation is our life at least in the biological sense. Everything our body does or capable of doing is a result of a computation. Once this computation’s coherence is disturbed, our body becomes sick. Disturbance beyond certain thresholds spells losing the autonomous persistence of the computation which means death. From an informational point of view however, sickness and death are a matter of scale and context. At no point a computation stops it just changes. Rogue living cells, for example, carry out computations which are not coherent with the overall informational organization of the whole organism. We call these cells cancer. We may overlook and dismiss this kind of description, but the concept of information is proving itself increasingly critical not only in understanding life but also in understanding sickness and death.

    At this point perhaps it becomes more apparent why information makes us uneasy. As long as it is safely organized in books or electronic memory banks, as long it is confined to various machines and communication networks, we are capable to keep a safe distance of sorts. But as we seem to start understanding the world at this point, not only all matter and energy and even space and time are information, life itself, evolution, and in particular our bodies and our lives and even our well being can be described as dynamic informational processes. Immediately, almost reflexively a question comes to mind: So what is left? As if we need to differentiate ourselves, to put a clear-cut line: Okay, till here it is all information, we can live with that somehow, but from here it is us, the real us that is. Is there a “real us”, or the Matrix metaphor is taking over and becomes an inescapable reality, a Matrix without an “outside”? What is this need to escape anyway, and from what exactly are we trying to escape? There is nothing to escape from would be my answer, yet one cannot overlook the complex ambiguity here. It needs a deeper discussion. Will we dare to tackle it and follow it to its logical end? And what would be that if we will?

    When we get to the question of what makes us humans unique living creatures, we can immediately point to one significant difference, which is language. We are the talking animal, and we are the cultural animal, and we are the technological animal, and we are the spiritual animal, we have minds unlike any other animals (so it seems at least). Of course, all these we can proclaim because we possess linguistic capabilities which allow us to describe ourselves and the world, and of course these very capabilities have allowed culture, technology and spirituality (I may be rebuked on that) in the first place. In us humans, yet another informational realm has emerged. It is the realm of descriptions, of symbols and gestures, of patterns and ideas that can be communicated and manipulated independently of our biological self. In this realm ideas have gained an autonomous persistence. We carry them in our minds, but they are in principle independent from any single carrier. Like genes which carry genetic information that facilitates all life processes and life forms, we came to recognize memes, informational entities capable of persistence, replication and evolution, which facilitate all cultural processes. Memes are the substrate of cultural engagement and interaction.

    We are in a process of discovering that our minds are informational spaces governed by dynamic computation. This process of discovery is at least two folded. One aspect of it is neuroscience, a branch in biology focusing on nervous systems of living organisms.
    Neuroscience is succeeding with increasing success to map mind processes into neural activities of the brain. It has become quite established that our mind is an informational process facilitated by the brain. Without entering into the details, more and more of our mental and emotional capabilities are being described and understood as neural processes, which are basically computational processes. Of course the popular analogy of brain being hardware while mind is the software is too simplistic; however it is indisputable that the brain is a complex biological computer. Through the constant flow of sense data, and culturally significant cues carried and communicated by gesture and language, minds are interactive and interconnected. They form a distributed computational network. This is why a single individual mind cannot be fully associated with a single brain. It operates and defines itself within a networked computational environment.

    The second aspect by which we recognize the mind as an informational space has to do with understanding the mind itself as a computational process over and above its neural platform. For this we have to consider two fundamental properties of mind. The first is self description, the second is reflective consciousness.

    We can understand mind as a computational process that persists by dynamically describing itself to itself. This self-describing dynamics is interactive with other informational spheres such as the biological and the physical, but not only. The degree and depth of this interactive engagement is an emergent property of the process of self description itself. These kinds of interactions give rise to experiences, as the mind reflects itself, in the course of self description, as being strongly immersed within the informational spheres it engages. This is more easily understood when relating to the biological (embodiment) and the physical (environment) spheres.

    Let me further clarify this point: The mind, being an autonomous computational realm, is the very informational substrate upon which emerges the virtual world it is immersed in. In other words, it computationally creates the very (virtual) reality within which it reflects itself to exist. This is why a mind is capable to create whole virtual universes. Here comes the interesting point of reflective consciousness: Reflectivity in the mind is a direct consequence of understanding mind as a computational process describing itself to itself. When I relate to a certain state of affairs as describing me or being identified as me, I am engaged in reflection. Reflective consciousness however is not necessarily present in the course of self description, though it is an inherent viable option. Again without entering into too many details, in the scheme presented above, reflective consciousness is a computational meta-process where a mind reflects not only the virtual universe it is immersed in, but the very computational process that brings this virtual universe forth. In more simple terms reflective consciousness is that state of mind when both what I think and how/why I think what I think are simultaneously present in the course of self description.

    Why is reflective consciousness important? Not only it is important, but I would claim it is the most critical aspect of the human phenomenon. Probably it could not exist without language, but I would not speculate on it here. Reflective consciousness is the hard kernel of what allows the human mind to understand, to discover, and describe the principles governing its virtual happening, and the patterns that connect and cohere the various aspects of the reality it is immersed in. When the mind reflects itself as being immersed in the physical information sphere, reflective consciousness allows us to form physical theories and principles, and by that to understand the physical world. It then allows us to build and devise tools based on these principles, and create technology. But this is only one relatively simple example. Reflective consciousness allows the mind to understand itself within any situation of self description, and this understanding is the key to freedom. For a conscious reflective mind can never become imprisoned or fixated within a single immersive situation. There is of course much more to it.

    We have come a long way from the simplistic Matrix metaphor. The mind as an informational entity is its own Matrix, and as such it is all encompassing. There is no point, for example, to relate to a physical universe as separate from the mind, and there is no point to relate to mind as separate from the physical universe. If we add to this analogy the extra ingredient of reflective consciousness, we can say that not only the mind is its own Matrix, it can play within itself as Neo was playing in the Matrix; Playing the game yet altogether out of the game. With reflective consciousness, we can “See” the matrix while being immersed in it.

    One additional point is to be emphasized here; the mind as an informational dynamics is an evolutionary entity. This basically means that the mind gives rise to a spontaneous meta-process that inexhaustibly spawns new ways for mind to describe itself to itself. Since mind persists as an autonomous computational entity by describing itself to itself, and since what persist better are those descriptions most interesting, it naturally follows that in the context of mind, evolution has the direction of gaining the advantage of interest.

    Most interesting of course is how the advantage of interest is gained, that is how the mind becomes interested, and how it becomes immersed in that which has gained the advantage of interest. It is my understanding that what selects for the highest advantage of interest is reflective consciousness. Therefore, the evolutionary potential of a mind is highly correlated to the degree and quality of reflective consciousness present in that mind. Reflective consciousness is for the informational sphere of mind, what natural selection is for the informational sphere of life; it facilitates the evolutionary process, giving it direction.

    The sense I am trying to convey here is that the information age everybody is talking about, does not start and does not end in the mere extended availability of information and the means to manipulate it. Indeed information becomes ubiquitous in every plane of our lives. Its availability is increasing with an immense speed which in itself is accelerating. But this is not what the information age is all about. The information age is a new evolutionary stage reaching swiftly its fruition. It is the age when we come to realize that the universe is information in a dynamic process of evolution. We come to realize that life is information in a dynamic process of evolution, and we humans are again information in a dynamic process of evolution. And though I spell those realms the universe, life and the human realm as distinct, this is only for the sake of emphasize, for indeed these realms are all one unified interconnected reality, made of information. It is an intelligent dynamic and evolving reality endowed with the possibility of reflective consciousness, and thus capable not only to observe itself, but to understand itself as well. To accept this reality and understand it is to my mind the true significance of the information age.

    So what is there to understand? First, that information is universal, and as such is has an evolutionary dynamics as I tried to sketch above. Second, that information in the course of this dynamics evolves into autonomous configurations of increasing complexity and by that it becomes intelligent. Third, that information in the course of its evolutionary dynamics, pushes towards reflective consciousness and understanding, understanding of itself while it evolves. Following this line of thought, the universe as a dynamic computation evolved towards sentiency and consciousness.

    The actual motion of the human mind towards accelerating its own evolution by means of understanding driven by reflective consciousness is becoming more and more apparent lately. This motion is predicted to culminate in what is contemporarily called The Singularity. Singularity is a state of affairs related to humanity where the evolution of intelligence and knowledge available to humans accelerates to such a speed that any prediction as to its future form or dynamics will become impossible. There are many contemporary ideas and theories concerning the Singularity. Already today, the rate of change introduced mostly by technological advancements into our lives is so fast, that it becomes very difficult to follow, and even more difficult to project even into relatively near future scenarios. The singularity is already happening upon us, and in a manner of speaking it is a natural process in the light of what we start to understand about information. As such, the Singularity is not something that suddenly has appeared in our horizon, though it may seem to be so. Singularity appears in our horizon as a consequence of understanding, and understanding is a fundamental nature of our mind as an informational dynamically evolving process.

    Let me return for a moment to that old almost instinctive question: So, if all is information, what is left? Nothing is left, and nothing needs to be left out. Stating the universality of information is not a reductive statement, aiming to deprive anything, and in particular human existence, from its unique distinctive essentiality. It is not a statement we need to distance ourselves from. Understanding the universe, life, and the human mind as evolving informational dynamics, is pointing towards a fundamental and essential reality, out of which, all complexity arises, and out of which, human existence, and in particular human’s inevitable evolution gains its proper perspective. When we come to understand something new about the universe or about ourselves, our knowledge is increased, and our informational state is enhanced. It is often believed and feared however that understanding something or explaining something automatically devalues it, as if the meaning associated with something is diminished once we understand it. It is my view that this fear from understanding is rooted, as I hinted above, in the fear from the change prompted by understanding. When our informational state is enhanced by understanding its dynamics naturally accelerate. This acceleration spells an increase in the pressure to change.

    What about human spirituality if so? As promised I am returning to this difficult to accommodate point. I hear rebuking voices: “We absolutely cannot accept a conceptual reality where the human soul and God himself are being encoded into ones and zeros!” It is not my aim here to argue for or against the existence of either souls or gods. Yet this kind of argument is often used against progressive ideas on the grounds of them being this or that version of reductionism and thus by definition diminishing or altogether eliminating essential values and moral responsibility, believed by some to be the exclusive territory of irreducible god fearing souls. There is no greater abuse of human reason and of human spirit than over simplification, expressing a complex idea, in short catch phrases aiming as if to distill a profound truth while in fact distorting ad absurdum the very idea being expressed. The whole point of writing this article is suggesting that information, as we only begin to understand, is a far more complex and profound concept than being described as merely something that is encoded into ones and zeros. Such a description is terribly partial and does not reflect at all the profundity of the concept if only for the reason that every instance of encoded information be it ones and zeros, or words and phrases, always exists in relation to a wider informational process that renders it meaningful in the course of its dynamics.

    To further clarify the point; let us look into a similarly absurd proposition: All poetry that was ever spoken or written, that will ever be spoken or written, are mere sequences of alphabetical characters. Does it render poetry less inspiring? Less emotionally invoking? Less beautiful? I think not. For poetry is not only its encoding, it is a complex product of a reflective process, and cannot be disassociated from it. Another example: All life (as we know it) can be rendered to mere DNA molecular sequences which are basically ones and zeros representation. Does our knowledge of the informational dynamics underlying all life processes make life less in any fashion? Less surprising? Less interesting? Less intelligent? I think not, for life being a dynamic informational process does not come to mean that it is deterministic, or complete. Life is not merely its encoding. DNA cannot be disassociated from the complex context of its expression.

    On the very same token, information is never just a sequence of ones and zeros. Though being quantified, whatever quantities and qualities are encoded, they cannot be disassociated from the context of the mind describing and being described by them. As such information is open ended, the reflected intelligent pattern that connects; A direct expression and mark of a universe emerging into conscious awareness.

    I do not know about the existence of souls and gods, and am not particularly biased towards the belief in their existence or non existence. However if souls and gods do exist at all, they exist as dynamic informational entities.

    I have reached this point without directly providing any definition to information. According to Wikipedia (in itself a monument of the early information age), the earliest historical meaning of the word information in English was derived from the act of informing, or giving form or shape to the mind. I find this meaning poetically appropriate though it is not a proper definition. At the advent of the information age, the accelerating increase in the availability of information and the means to process it is but a side effect, commonly and mistakenly accepted as the most significant aspect of this age. Information is first and foremost an extremely influential concept. It is not only giving shape to mind, but is becoming the shape of mind, and by that, as I briefly tried to show, it reflects on every single aspect of human existence. Moreover, information as a concept is a powerful transformative agent likely to change our most basic understandings of what being a human means, and as it seems it is likely to bring about such profound changes pretty soon as its dynamics are inherently accelerating.
    Wed, Dec 19, 2007  Permanent link
    Categories: Information, Information age, Evolution
      RSS for this post
      Promote (9)
      
      Add to favorites (3)
    Synapses (2)
     
    Wed, Dec 19, 2007  Permanent link
    Categories: Intelligence, Singularity, AI
      RSS for this post
      Promote (4)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (1)
     



    Wed, Dec 19, 2007  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
      Promote (7)
      
      Add to favorites
    Create synapse
     
          Cancel