Friday, May 11, 2012
I AM scientist...
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
The Global Panopticon and the Hive Mind
In Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault describes a specific type of prison in which the inmates can be observed at all times but do not know when they are being observed. Cells are internally lit with large windows or transparent walls and are arranged in a circle. In the centre of the circle of cells sits an observation tower which is not lit. This type of prison is called a "panopticon."
--> Privacy is a thing of the past. The newer generations, for the most part, seem to accept this, posting photos of themselves online in compromising positions and "tweeting" their every thought and movement. Privace watchdogs and rights groups are increasingly up in arms about the increasing discretion of federal authorities to monitor and control our online presence and about the misuse of private data by large corporations.
To see how far our privacy has been erroded, you only have to visit Google Earth. It will soon be possible to track our every movement using nothing but remote sensing satellites. As a remote sensing specialist, I am acutely aware of this. There are literally thousands of satellites sending terrabytes of information down to Earth, mapping the globe a thousand times over in a single day. I call this phenomenon, the "Global Panopticon."
Another thing I notice about today's young people (myself included, even though I'm not that young anymore), is that they seem to spend relatively little time living in the real world. Most of their living is done online. Walk into any bus and you will see many people staring into their cell phones, not looking out the window, not interacting with their fellow passengers. At some point, the internet becomes an extension of the brain. Suppose you're in a strange city and you get a sudden craving for coffee. Open up your smart phone and Google Maps can figure out where you are and where the nearest coffee house is in relation to you, printing off step-by-step directions.
Soon, even the intermediary in this procedure--the cell phone--will be unnecessary. The technology exists to do this directly from thought through a brain-computer interface. I estimate that it will be fully commercially viable in less than 40 years. I also predict that the vast majority of people will opt to have such a device implanted in their skulls. Make no mistake, there will be no coercion: people will be lining up for these things.
How does it work? Since the human brain operates primarily through electrical impulses sent along the neurons, all you need is an array of electrodes wired to a transceiver. A cross-wise incision is made in the gray-matter (perpendicular to the striations of the neurons) and then it is just a matter of training the brain to interpret the incoming signals and produce its own, outgoing signals which are picked up and decoded by the implant. This is the birth of the global consciousness, or, if we are more pessimistic, the hive mind.
If such a radical shift is going to take place in the nature of human consciousness, it seems we ought to prepare for it. Unfortunately, the young people, who, by-and-large, will lead the shift, strike me as anything but prepared. They will be acculturated in a way that will allow the shift to take place, but they will not be prepared.
Most multi-cellullar organisms are arranged in such a way that each cell is differentiated and performs a highly specialized function. The analogy of individual human beings as cells, however, may not be a fruitful or desirable one. I would suggest, rather, that we should strive to keep the same democratic ideals of freedom and equality that, at least nominally, exist today.
Suppose for the sake of argument we say that we need a "brain centre," a person or group to coordinate this great mass of bodies, a "ruling elite." I cannot think of a single person who would be qualified for the job.
--> Privacy is a thing of the past. The newer generations, for the most part, seem to accept this, posting photos of themselves online in compromising positions and "tweeting" their every thought and movement. Privace watchdogs and rights groups are increasingly up in arms about the increasing discretion of federal authorities to monitor and control our online presence and about the misuse of private data by large corporations.
To see how far our privacy has been erroded, you only have to visit Google Earth. It will soon be possible to track our every movement using nothing but remote sensing satellites. As a remote sensing specialist, I am acutely aware of this. There are literally thousands of satellites sending terrabytes of information down to Earth, mapping the globe a thousand times over in a single day. I call this phenomenon, the "Global Panopticon."
Another thing I notice about today's young people (myself included, even though I'm not that young anymore), is that they seem to spend relatively little time living in the real world. Most of their living is done online. Walk into any bus and you will see many people staring into their cell phones, not looking out the window, not interacting with their fellow passengers. At some point, the internet becomes an extension of the brain. Suppose you're in a strange city and you get a sudden craving for coffee. Open up your smart phone and Google Maps can figure out where you are and where the nearest coffee house is in relation to you, printing off step-by-step directions.Soon, even the intermediary in this procedure--the cell phone--will be unnecessary. The technology exists to do this directly from thought through a brain-computer interface. I estimate that it will be fully commercially viable in less than 40 years. I also predict that the vast majority of people will opt to have such a device implanted in their skulls. Make no mistake, there will be no coercion: people will be lining up for these things.
How does it work? Since the human brain operates primarily through electrical impulses sent along the neurons, all you need is an array of electrodes wired to a transceiver. A cross-wise incision is made in the gray-matter (perpendicular to the striations of the neurons) and then it is just a matter of training the brain to interpret the incoming signals and produce its own, outgoing signals which are picked up and decoded by the implant. This is the birth of the global consciousness, or, if we are more pessimistic, the hive mind.
If such a radical shift is going to take place in the nature of human consciousness, it seems we ought to prepare for it. Unfortunately, the young people, who, by-and-large, will lead the shift, strike me as anything but prepared. They will be acculturated in a way that will allow the shift to take place, but they will not be prepared.
Most multi-cellullar organisms are arranged in such a way that each cell is differentiated and performs a highly specialized function. The analogy of individual human beings as cells, however, may not be a fruitful or desirable one. I would suggest, rather, that we should strive to keep the same democratic ideals of freedom and equality that, at least nominally, exist today.
Suppose for the sake of argument we say that we need a "brain centre," a person or group to coordinate this great mass of bodies, a "ruling elite." I cannot think of a single person who would be qualified for the job.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Tools, people and elephants
In the past, one of the things that has been cited as setting humans above the other animals is our ability to make tools. I think it's more accurate to say, rather, that we have a tool. Before you get the wrong idea, let me clarify that: we have, in fact, two tools. Highly sensitive and versatile tools. Tools we can use to make music, write poetry, design buildings and many other things. One of the most important functions of these tools is to make other tools, so you could call them meta-tools.
Of course, other animals have tools as well, but most of them are not as versatile. Contrast, for instant, an elephant. This is another animal with a highly versatile tool and a similarly large brain. How is it that humans got so much farther and became so much more dominant than elephants? Unfortunately, the elephant has only one such tool and although it is prehensile, it only has two digits instead of five. Because a human has two tools, it can use one tool to hold the object being worked on, say a piece of flint for an arrowhead, and the other tool to hold an object to work in the other object, say a strong, hard piece of rock to chip the arrowhead into shape. The extra digits on human tools serve a similar purpose, whereas the bare minimum would be only two opposable digits, as on the elephant's tool.
People argue about what, among the locus of traits--high intelligence, tool-making, language, walking upright--that supposedly distinguish us from the other animals, came first and what drove the changes? I would argue that our sensitive hands not only preceded the other traits, they are what drove them. Because we have these highly sensitive tools on our upper bodies, better to walk upright so they are not damaged. Their use requires high intelligence, but more importantly, instruction from an early age, which requires language.
-->
Of course, other animals have tools as well, but most of them are not as versatile. Contrast, for instant, an elephant. This is another animal with a highly versatile tool and a similarly large brain. How is it that humans got so much farther and became so much more dominant than elephants? Unfortunately, the elephant has only one such tool and although it is prehensile, it only has two digits instead of five. Because a human has two tools, it can use one tool to hold the object being worked on, say a piece of flint for an arrowhead, and the other tool to hold an object to work in the other object, say a strong, hard piece of rock to chip the arrowhead into shape. The extra digits on human tools serve a similar purpose, whereas the bare minimum would be only two opposable digits, as on the elephant's tool.
People argue about what, among the locus of traits--high intelligence, tool-making, language, walking upright--that supposedly distinguish us from the other animals, came first and what drove the changes? I would argue that our sensitive hands not only preceded the other traits, they are what drove them. Because we have these highly sensitive tools on our upper bodies, better to walk upright so they are not damaged. Their use requires high intelligence, but more importantly, instruction from an early age, which requires language.
-->
Monday, March 16, 2009
The new universal language
As anyone can tell you who's tried to learn a new language, it sucks. I've been living in Germany on and off now for over five years and I still can't speak it worth a damn. A cursory examination of this language will give some idea why. Mark Twain has already covered how awful it is in nauseating detail, so I won't repeat that here.
But more to the point, as the internet and computers become more and more critical to our daily interactions, we will soon need something that spans the gap between programming languages and natural human language for all forms of internet communication. Something with a regular, easily parsable grammar that can be easily converted to logical propositions.
This is my attempt to create such a rational language.
1. In as much as this is possible, grammar is completely separate from vocabulary. Therefore the language can take words from any source.
2. A word is the smallest possible unit of meaning. There are no prefixes, suffixes or compound words.
3. Tenses are formed by bracketing the action with on or more auxiliary verbs and a qualifier:
yesterday I walk to the store was
or was I walk to the store yesterday
4. Verbs can take one or more objects. Objects are always preceded by a preposition, therefore the order in which they appear in a clause is completely arbitrary.
yesterday walk I to the store was
yesterday to the store I walk was
etc.
5. A subordinate clause is always bracketed by a conjunction and a verb (much as in German, OK, it does have its good points...)
yesterday I walk to the store was because I moo some milk need was
--since all objects require a preposition, we invent one for the direct object. In this case, moo.
6. Pronouns are not gendered. Instead, different ones refer to the last noun, the second from last, the third from last, etc. We will use the English word latter to refer to the last noun, and former to refer to the second from last and former former to refer to the third from last.
yesterday I walk to store because I moo milk some has need was latter contain
bacteria bad has therefore former former moo animal sick has be
7. Desirable vocabulary: there is no word is. Two words replace the English verb to be, one meaning "to have the quality of" and the other meaning "belonging to the set of." We can use has for the former and be for the latter.
the cat has blackness
the cat be moo mammal
8. There are no adjectives. Every adjective can be expressed in the form of a clause containing the noun form.
the cat that moo black has
which we shorten to:
the cat black has
or the has black cat
Contrast this to:
the cat be moo animal black has
All adjectives we use are considered to take on the meaning of their noun forms.
9. There are four personal prononun. They are treated as nouns.
First person singular: i
First person plural: we
Second person singular: you
Second person plural: vous
10. Articles: they serve no purpose and are not used.
11. Negation: the clause, sentence, paragraph, etc. to be negated is bracketed by negator (ne) and a specifier: not, never, etc.
ne boy moo candy try yet
12. There is no punctuation. Sentences are bracketed by their verbs and qualifiers. Tenses and negatives can bracket whole paragraphs or even books.
today moo has new language i to you describe now language this has simple has logical has ne punctuation or adjective or article in former time six has has exist not shall i to you has this language describe now be was sentence previous has of question is not now question formed through verb has auxiliary has you use do you know how you of question form now be
Well, OK it needs some work.
But more to the point, as the internet and computers become more and more critical to our daily interactions, we will soon need something that spans the gap between programming languages and natural human language for all forms of internet communication. Something with a regular, easily parsable grammar that can be easily converted to logical propositions.
This is my attempt to create such a rational language.
1. In as much as this is possible, grammar is completely separate from vocabulary. Therefore the language can take words from any source.
2. A word is the smallest possible unit of meaning. There are no prefixes, suffixes or compound words.
3. Tenses are formed by bracketing the action with on or more auxiliary verbs and a qualifier:
yesterday I walk to the store was
or was I walk to the store yesterday
4. Verbs can take one or more objects. Objects are always preceded by a preposition, therefore the order in which they appear in a clause is completely arbitrary.
yesterday walk I to the store was
yesterday to the store I walk was
etc.
5. A subordinate clause is always bracketed by a conjunction and a verb (much as in German, OK, it does have its good points...)
yesterday I walk to the store was because I moo some milk need was
--since all objects require a preposition, we invent one for the direct object. In this case, moo.
6. Pronouns are not gendered. Instead, different ones refer to the last noun, the second from last, the third from last, etc. We will use the English word latter to refer to the last noun, and former to refer to the second from last and former former to refer to the third from last.
yesterday I walk to store because I moo milk some has need was latter contain
bacteria bad has therefore former former moo animal sick has be
7. Desirable vocabulary: there is no word is. Two words replace the English verb to be, one meaning "to have the quality of" and the other meaning "belonging to the set of." We can use has for the former and be for the latter.
the cat has blackness
the cat be moo mammal
8. There are no adjectives. Every adjective can be expressed in the form of a clause containing the noun form.
the cat that moo black has
which we shorten to:
the cat black has
or the has black cat
Contrast this to:
the cat be moo animal black has
All adjectives we use are considered to take on the meaning of their noun forms.
9. There are four personal prononun. They are treated as nouns.
First person singular: i
First person plural: we
Second person singular: you
Second person plural: vous
10. Articles: they serve no purpose and are not used.
11. Negation: the clause, sentence, paragraph, etc. to be negated is bracketed by negator (ne) and a specifier: not, never, etc.
ne boy moo candy try yet
12. There is no punctuation. Sentences are bracketed by their verbs and qualifiers. Tenses and negatives can bracket whole paragraphs or even books.
today moo has new language i to you describe now language this has simple has logical has ne punctuation or adjective or article in former time six has has exist not shall i to you has this language describe now be was sentence previous has of question is not now question formed through verb has auxiliary has you use do you know how you of question form now be
Well, OK it needs some work.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
On the negation of modal verbs
I recently learned (it goes to show how diligently I've been practicing my German) that Germans use the phrase "must not" in the opposite sense of English speakers to mean "need not." Thinking about this, I realized that there is an implicit "or" in any statement involving modal verbs and the sense of the negative depends upon which part of the logical proposition is negated.
For example, I would translate the phrase:
"You must do A"
into a logical proposition as follows:
^A -> P
where P is some form of punishment. Or:
A or P
We could negate the phrase either by negating the whole thing:
^A and ^P
Or we could negate only one part:
A or ^P = P -> A
(e.g., "You (must not) play in the street.")
^A or P = A -> P
(e.g. "You must (not play in the street.)")
The first example would seem to be how the Germans use the phrase since whether we do A or not, we will not get punished for it, while the third form is more in line with how we use the phrase, that is, A implies punishment. The second example seems rather more ambiguous and in fact inverts the construct: now, getting punished implies that we have done A.
It has rather deep implications, since all of ethics, law and morality is related to the use of modal verbs. Can we use this idea to justify breaking the Ten Commandments?
I translate,
"I shall go to the store,"
as:
F (uture) -> S (going to the store) = ^F or S
The sixth commandment becomes:
You shall (not kill.) = F -> ^ K = ^F or ^K = ^(F and K)
You (shall not) kill. = ^F -> K = F or K
or perhaps,
^(F -> K) = F and ^K
The second says that if there's a future, there may or may not be killing while the first and third say what we want them to say: if F is true, K must be false.
For example, I would translate the phrase:
"You must do A"
into a logical proposition as follows:
^A -> P
where P is some form of punishment. Or:
A or P
We could negate the phrase either by negating the whole thing:
^A and ^P
Or we could negate only one part:
A or ^P = P -> A
(e.g., "You (must not) play in the street.")
^A or P = A -> P
(e.g. "You must (not play in the street.)")
The first example would seem to be how the Germans use the phrase since whether we do A or not, we will not get punished for it, while the third form is more in line with how we use the phrase, that is, A implies punishment. The second example seems rather more ambiguous and in fact inverts the construct: now, getting punished implies that we have done A.
It has rather deep implications, since all of ethics, law and morality is related to the use of modal verbs. Can we use this idea to justify breaking the Ten Commandments?
I translate,
"I shall go to the store,"
as:
F (uture) -> S (going to the store) = ^F or S
The sixth commandment becomes:
You shall (not kill.) = F -> ^ K = ^F or ^K = ^(F and K)
You (shall not) kill. = ^F -> K = F or K
or perhaps,
^(F -> K) = F and ^K
The second says that if there's a future, there may or may not be killing while the first and third say what we want them to say: if F is true, K must be false.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)