Interesting idea. Given your example and line of thoughts and given the number of options available to modern Eastern world humans, our consciousness should have been and continue to expand at an unprecedented rate at the moment, wouldn't it? Do you imply this is causing an evolution of our intelligence? Is our consciousness actually expanding?
Well, there are two distinct questions here and I think the answer is yes to both. I think the human system as a whole is getting objectively more intelligent. As a result of our entire system becoming more intelligent, any one human in the system has the "option" to become more intelligent than any human that lived in the 19th or even 20th century (for example). And yes, I also think our increased options allow for a dramatic expansion of our consciousness. I think the reason this isn't obvious at the moment is because of our temporal isolation from the humans that lived before us. But the average human in any previous century would just not have had the knowledge, information, or options to contemplate reality and existence in the same way that we do now. I'm more confident in my assertion regarding intelligence, because in my theory it is something I have given more time. The commentary on enhanced consciousness is also, I believe, promising, but I would need to discuss it with some philosophers to be sure.
Explore what passed for literature in the seventeenth century, and show me today our Miltons, our Voltaires, Our Mexwells. Where we have gained breadth we lost depth. If you want to temporally un-isolate yourself, dive into William Durant's "The Story of Civilization" (or its like, though little will compare.)
I think the only difference is saturation. In the seventeenth century, having the ability to write, meaning to actually have the materials to do so, wasn't as ubiquitous as it is now. This privilege was reserved for those that were trained to write, had a proven knowledge for their subject etc. Today, anyone with a blog is a writer and therefore the talents of our "writers" seems diminished. However, my guess is that humanity has always and will always have with it fantastic writers, artists and great thinkers.
This is an unfair statement. I do not judge intelligence by the number of works someone subjectively deems as classical. I am attempting to understand the nature of systems intelligence. A cybernetic approach to understanding how intelligence manifests itself. I believe individual intelligence to be - to some degree - an illusion. Don't presume you know what I have, or have not read.Explore what passed for literature in the seventeenth century, and show me today our Miltons, our Voltaires, Our Mexwells. Where we have gained breadth we lost depth.
If you want to temporally un-isolate yourself
Last, thanks for pointing me here. I read many of your articles and have thought similarly about many of the issues you write about. As far as a theory of consciousness, I think you have accurately described a way to measure such an intangible subject. I have often thought of consciousness in a similar scope, but from an information-processing approach. Everyone is born with a similar capacity to learn and evolve their own consciousness, assuming they are interacting with the world at large and not tied up in some dark room. Surely such a person would struggle greatly when released into a world of things they have had no interaction with. For each option that is available to a self-aware individual, there must have been some foundation of learning and information processing to make that option available. The person sitting in the dark room all their life has had no chance to develop a portfolio of options. That is why I believe a good metric for consciousness is memory and information processing ability (not unlike a computer). If you can measure the amount of information that is captured and processed by an individual on some scale of time, you have a direct measure for intelligence and consciousness. This idea is not mine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory), but I find it to be extremely elegant. So now we can measure the conscious ability of all creatures on some scale. However, I think this can be extrapolated even further. Take, for example, the extreme example of a rock. A rock has no active information processing capability. It has no brain, no nervous system, no cells, and for our general purposes is completely inanimate and illiquid. However, even the rock contains some information about the universe, which is has gathered simply by existing and taking up a portion of space. A crystal, for example, contains information about chemical structures. Again, this is a form of passive information processing and has little to do with what you are discussing. I simply want to point out there there could exist a spectrum from the information that an inanimate object contains all the way up to something that is actually capable of processing information actively; a conscious. That is a little off point, however. You bring up in other posts how our individual conscious are evolving into a more unified meta-consciousness. The appropriate question to ask now is how should we categorize this meta-concious? Is it simply another tool or extension of ourselves, or could it even be listed as a higher-level conscious on the spectrum of information processing? If so, where does this put ants? Should we consider the ant on the conscious spectrum and the colony higher on the same spectrum? Thanks for reading.
Appreciate it, and always love to discuss evolution :-) I too find looking at aspects of intelligence, consciousness, etc. as in some way fundamentally caused by information-processing (i.e., non-random information about the universe that was been acquired via evolutionary process in response to knowable environmental stimuli). This appears, at least to me, to be fundamental and very important. I'll have to do some deeper reading of Information Theory. My ideas have been largely informed by building with evolutionary and systems theory. I think what is useful about using a rock as an example is that it may contain information (as everything in the universe does), but that information is random. It tells us nothing. The rock can solve no problems. It is merely subject physical law (entropy). I am deeply interested in crystals. What is different between the "behaviour" of a crystal and the behaviour of a very simple organism? Are crystal anti-entropic? Any perspective would help me immensely. I am certainly leaning towards humans causing a meta-system transition. If it occurs such a transition would see the emergence of some higher-level order. I would suspect this higher-level order to be more complex than the brain and to possess its own consciousness. I suspect that we are the first stage of "evolution waking up" in this sense. I am really not quite sure how our consciousness will interact with or influence the higher-consciosness produced. Of course, I think our consciousness will be largely based on technological substrate during this transition so we will already be profoundly different and able to experience things that we currently cannot fathom. What the higher-consciousness does or how it perceives us is really beyond what we can know... I would argue. I guess that is why the technological singularity is still a prudent and useful concept.I read many of your articles and have thought similarly about many of the issues you write about.
I have often thought of consciousness in a similar scope, but from an information-processing approach.
For each option that is available to a self-aware individual, there must have been some foundation of learning and information processing to make that option available
even the rock contains some information about the universe
A crystal, for example, contains information about chemical structures
how should we categorize this meta-concious? Is it simply another tool or extension of ourselves, or could it even be listed as a higher-level conscious on the spectrum of information processing?
Correct, a rock does not solve problems so it doesn't fit into the paradigm of consciousness in the scope we are talking about. I am just considering the fact that there is some inherent informational quality to it in a minimal sense. As for crystals, check out these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(statistical_thermodyna...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091209134633.ht...
Very simply, the lattice structure that spontaneously arises from high pressure and temperature can reach a zero-entropic state. You may be able to consider this one of the simplest and earliest forms of spontaneous order. What do you think of this? Just as with all systems, if you pump it with enough energy, it will lead to higher levels of complexity and order. As for the singularity, I think it makes sense to use the concept as the jumping point for the next "breakthrough" in the evolution of life, but as something more powerful than speciation. The new order created by the meta-system transition (or phase transition) will result in (whether we know it or not) giving up some of our more primitive freedoms so that we may reach a higher level of order and complexity as a whole species, not unlike the development of the first multi-cellular organisms. Humanity went through a similar transition when we started to coalesce into cities. We suddenly became subject to a larger set of social laws which guided our behavior. This was essential for the new order and higher living standards we now benefit from.
In the ScienceDaily article: The authors go on to say that: This is quite puzzling to me. How can intricate order be produced non-randomly, just through entropy? Is it just as you say, because of certain temperatures and pressure? So in that case are crystals simply the product of the right chemical elements being aggregated in an environment with certain temperature and pressure present? I agree, although I have had my questions about whether the term singularity is useful. I think as long as we stick to a very clear definition of what we mean by singularity, we should continue using it... but it is still problematic and not a metaphorically consistent with a physical singularity. I see the technological singularity and the global brain as mutually consistent concepts that should develop in tandem for the next metasystem transition. I struggle to understand how one could happen without the other also happening. I have yet think about the sacrifice of certain freedoms in such a context before, but I really think you're right. Great point. Whenever a higher-level of order is achieved, previous freedoms are sacrificed for the collective. It is interesting to see how they interact and perhaps some further insight could be achieved by researching the relationship between individual and collective freedoms over time in human civilization.This is the first result showing such a complicated self-arrangement of hard particles without help from attractive interactions such as chemical bonds
We knew that entropy on its own could produce order, but we didn't expect it to produce such intricate order. What else might be possible just due to entropy?
As for the singularity, I think it makes sense to use the concept as the jumping point for the next "breakthrough" in the evolution of life, but as something more powerful than speciation.
The new order created by the meta-system transition (or phase transition) will result in (whether we know it or not) giving up some of our more primitive freedoms so that we may reach a higher level of order and complexity as a whole species, not unlike the development of the first multi-cellular organisms. Humanity went through a similar transition when we started to coalesce into cities. We suddenly became subject to a larger set of social laws which guided our behavior. This was essential for the new order and higher living standards we now benefit from.
I think the word you're looking for is "probability", though this alone does not salvage your hypothesis. Amongst the many aspects to consider, would consciousness not be better associated with will than intelligence? Is awareness a meta-model of information (inference) or a fractalian bio-dynamic field effect produced by our organism? Intelligence, so much has been said on this subject. I hope you will persue it before hobbling together your own definition. Consider these factors: Information theory (intelligence is intrinsicly linked to the manipulation of information), game theory (the application of intelligence is demonstrated by making effective determinations), cognitive theory (along the lines of Marvin Minsky, this will outline automata componentry exhibited in intelligent systems), and theorists in the realm of behavioral intelligence (Howard Gardner has great things to say on classes of intelligence, as there are many; Psychological strategies for both informational and emotional intelligence are well layed out by those such as Keirsey, Myers-Briggs, etc.) After ingesting all that (and so much more), one may be prone to say things like "intelligence may be any effective strategy for [accurately] perceiving, managing, manipulating, or acting upon information." Merely being exposed to "options" (or "opportunities" or "probabilities" for that matter) does not fully account for this set of concepts. Back to consciousness. I'll leave you with this:
The Universe is an infinitely dense point of information. A super amplitude of probability, along which time dilates giving rise to the cascading state collapse of "now". Consciousness models this phenomena. In this way, we did not evolve [in the first place] consciousness evolved (we are its vessel.) As with all dynamic systems, there is the aspect of "capacitance." As such, our self system has a variable degree of capacitating effect, which gives rise to this wonderous emergent phenomena. While having limits, they are far from what would be found without a life of refining them. Keep building, its a good exercise.
Well I didn't discuss my theory of intelligence directly in the article. How closely intelligence and conscious are linked is not quite obvious to me yet. And this post was mostly used to help me explore the idea of consciousness a little more myself. I do not want to pretend like I am an expert on the subject. I have read extensively on the topic of intelligence; and will be dedicating most of my Ph.D thesis to the topic. I did not "hobble" together my own definition. I feel as though everyone's definition at the moment is insufficient and does not explain the fundamental aspect of the nature of intelligence; so I am going to construct my own. I have discussed it with various professors and have yet to find a hole in it. I am confident it will at least provoke conversation. I like this perspective a lot. Very interesting way to look at it. Well yes. I agree. As I state in the article, I believe consciousness both develops and evolves. Thanks for your thoughtful response.would consciousness not be better associated with will than intelligence?
Intelligence, so much has been said on this subject. I hope you will persue it before hobbling together your own definition
The Universe is an infinitely dense point of information. A super amplitude of probability, along which time dilates giving rise to the cascading state collapse of "now". Consciousness models this phenomena
we did not evolve [in the first place] consciousness evolved (we are its vessel.)