Now What?

We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time. 

T. S. Eliot - Little Gidding

I have been writing for a long time about the concept of "supermind" and the "dragon". Groups of humans - armies, governments - have a life of their own and thrive at the expense of the humans that oppose them - even their own members.  These groups steal our identity and prevent us from thinking for ourselves. It's all true, of course, but what is new is the total acceptance of the situation. Comfort almost. This is the human condition. Our "minds" function as part of a whole. It may be a mistake to "analyze" - to break things down into pieces, but indulge me for a moment while I describe things that make up our "minds" that are usually regarded as something happening between our ears.

• The brain, especially considered as part of the body (Damasio). The function of the brain is primarily to support the organism - the efforts of that organism to thrive. 
• "Reality" - what "scientists" observe and explore. Quantum mechanics has taught us to think of "reality" as a set of shared observations and models - strictly speaking, that is what we "know". Actual "reality" (apart from what we can measure) always seems to be just out of reach.
• "Society" - from birth, we are knit into a human milieu. We parse reality in words we learn as children, we grasp and learn tools that reflect hundreds of thousands of years of invention and ingenuity.  

It is not wise to separate these three except for the purposes of discussion. The brain is "hard-wired" into the body and the body is a real thing - an object in reality. We cannot speak of any of this or learn the simplest task of existence without drawing on what we are told and shown by the people around us.

In short, our minds are not "our own", nor does it make much sense to insist that we "think for ourselves". Our minds are constrained by what they are - or, if you want, the fact that they are embedded in reality in a certain manner - a manner that is inescapable.

So what is new (and perhaps an echo of thoughts I have had for half a century) is to see all this at once.  This leads to experiences that are somehow kissed with new insight. For example, I see scenes of happy congregations hugging and greeting each other in a new way. I would normally harrumph in the background about how silly their beliefs are and shake my head at how amazing it is that so many people can all be so deluded about the core nature of reality. But now I see this as a whole and don't separate what is supposedly going in between the ears of the believer. What is going on is happening to everyone in the room and has roots that go back centuries. The "mind" at work is what I used to call "supermind", but what I have been missing is that the individual experience of mind is just what goes on in our own minds. We are mostly unaware that we are not "thinking" our own thoughts, not being motivated by our own motives, not intending what we individually intend. The process works so smoothly and so naturally that we know as little about it as do bees in a hive.

This perspective puts an end to the "supermind" blog. It is an error to think of mind and supermind separately, just as the behavior of bees makes no sense without reference to the "goals and intentions" of the hive. This insight also marks a new direction for this blog, which started out trying to find a rational, skeptical way forward in a sea of myth and misdirection. In a way, I see the name of this blog (The Christian Skeptic) as a theme to which I must now return, knowing that we are all in a state of tension between our "heritage" and what comes next. Skeptics, like Christians, don't "think for themselves".

Of course there are many, many layers involved in this process.  You can go on splitting and analyzing to your heart's content. For example, in "Behave", Sapolsky analyzes our reasons for doing what we do, going up the ladder of detail from the way nerves move our limbs to the way society tells us what is "right" and "wrong'. If nothing else, Sapolsky ties human behavior into the physical structure of the brain - everything from the chemistry of enzymes to the modular structure of brain "systems". The brain is a thing - an object in reality.

Drilling Down to Motivations

Sapolsky reluctantly concludes that there is no place for "free will" in his analysis. Perhaps that is because he, like others, is stuck with the image of the "self" as being some kind of puppet master between the ears of the individual. The truth is that the borders of "self" are extremely fuzzy, both in time and space. What happens in our heads is the result of an astronomically complex calculation whose inputs go back to the swamps when life first emerged - a point that structures Damasio's story of who we are - the Strange Order of Things. We have motives - feelings - that Damasio sees at the very root of being and Sapolsky confirms are rooted in biology - the term "computation" for this process is misleading. We are not computers.

In Damasio's account, to live is to thrive, which means that living things don't just "try" to continue their existence, the "try" to push themselves further into the future (persist). They reproduce, grow and grab all the resources they can to do it. In corporate turns (which Damasio hates), living things don't just break even, they make a profit. Damasio walks right up to considering human groups to be alive in their own right (since they satisfy his criteria for being alive), but balks at the conclusion since human groups overlap. For some reason, he feels that a single organism can't be part of two superorganisms at once. There is no particular reason for this criterion, which seems to emerge out of the blue - unconnected to any of his other arguments. In any case, as pointed out by one very early reader of the "Dragon" blog, it's mainly a matter of terminology. What is important is to recognize the actual relationship between the individual human and society, whether you call society "alive" or not.

Strangely, Damasio is quite willing to consider a beehive as alive (and even conscious) in its own right.  His arguments for this are convincing and I really don't see why they would not apply to human society, which is quite happy to "brainwash" its citizens so that they throw their lives away for the sake of their country or even corporate profits - profits that they themselves never see.

But the trick is to see that we are all brainwashed all the time. Otherwise, we could not speak, find our way around or feed ourselves. This is who we are, what we are.

Great sections of our brains are devoted to fitting our individual existence into the group. We have "speech centers" in the (normally) left brain devoted to generating and understanding speech. We have forebrain modules that are constantly doing "social" calculations to determine what is the socially appropriate thing to do (Sapolsky). On a more subtle level, our brains seem to work in such a way as to parse the world in terms of "objects" and "events" that lend themselves to verbal communication.  In other words, "language" is deeply embedded in the way our brains actually work - an insight spelled out in great detail in "Surfaces and Essences" - Hofstadter.

What is often overlooked is the fact that all this functions according to the laws of physics, chemistry, and geometry. We are embedded in a real world. It is commonplace to remark that we only see part of what is "out there". What is overlooked is that what we do see is actually "out there". One image I have in my head is the way our brains are packed into a finite volume but fold the surface to maximize the amount of cortical area. One imagines that we would have had big, spherical brains except that they would be unwieldy. It's just the way I see geometry placing constraints on what and how we think - who we are.

Along these lines, I see "society" and culture as a way of escaping constraints that we inherited from millennia of evolution - the "design concept" of individual organisms, reproduction and all that. Human societies "thrive" by a new mechanism - one involving "information" breaking free of its DNA shackles to exist out in the open as the blood and bones of human society.

My First Introduction To Zen

Key to this insight is the analogy between DNA - the "program" that determines the physical shape and behavior of an organism - with "Information", the physical, real-world "tools" that society uses to thrive. In the latter category are not just what is usually seen as "information" (books and computer files etc) but the physical creations of society, like telescopes, automobiles and language itself. When you sit behind the wheel of a car, you are being absorbed into the skills and thought processes of tens of thousands of people who invented everything from the dash ornaments to the theory of internal combustion. This is an insight that goes back to "Zen and The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance", a book I read when it came out (1974). The book is not about Zen or Motorcycle Maintenance, but I did take away the idea that a motorcycle is an idea cast in metal. I come back to the same place and know the place for the first time ...

It is worth noting that I come back to this idea having absorbed many of the key ideas of Zen. I'd say "motorcycle" actually extends Zen in an exciting way. Perhaps Pirsig, like the rest of us, knew more about Zen than we thought at the time. Specifically, the insights here vastly expand what we think of as "mind", "attention" and "consciousness". These are the central concerns of Zen. There is no particular reason why those who follow the path of self-discovery should be stuck with the metaphors created thousands of years ago.

Back in 1974, I would frequently point out that a man with an ax is as different from a man without an ax as a zebra is from a horse. Our tools accelerate evolution in a new way. But back then I didn't quite grasp that the tool exists in its own "space" - the supermind - that is using the man as much as the man uses the ax.

So it is that today, in 2018, I have the unusual comfort of having a big insight that has been bubbling up from below for half a century. It makes sense.

But now what?

Proto-Life

In this blog, I introduce two categories of "life" that may be regarded as controversial or "merely" a matter of definition. "Supermind" is at the "high" end. At the low, primitive, "old" end is "proto-life" - life before (or simply without) DNA ("before" being evolutionary speculation I avoid).

Here is a good presentation on work on "proto-life". I'll try to add more examples as I come across them.

Current work in this field can be regarded as an "existence proof": if there is any way we can make "life" out of non-living molecules, there may be others, one of which presumably actually happened. For my purposes, it's sufficient to see how such systems are possible, at least in theory. I leave the discovery of actual evolutionary processes to others. I avoid using "evolutionary fairy dust" to support the ideas put forward here. This blog does not put forward or support any particular theory about the sequence of events or mechanism of actual evolution here on Earth.

Among serious researchers in the field, "proto-life" is expected to exist in an environment (which can be seen as part of the proto-life system) which is:

• Not in equilibrium - the possibility of change is key;
• Liquid - hard for us to imagine life without some possibility of movement, but I'm not sure about this one ...
• Allowing making and breaking of chemical bonds - "metabolism"

For my purposes, it's sufficient to notice that the programming of this system - the rules that make it do what it does - are physical and chemical. There is no "abstraction" of the rules into some other medium like DNA. It's all chemistry and physics. On the other hand, the laws of physics and chemistry depend on something even deeper, which emerges again at the "top" of the pyramid in the supermind.

This is the subtle point, worth careful consideration. The "laws" of physics and chemistry are known to the supermind. They are a special case of "knowledge" that restricts (or should restrict) the "ideas" that make up the supermind. This means that each level of "mind" contains all the others below it. Another way of seeing it is that the supermind can't act in the world in ways that violate the laws of physics and chemistry.

As soon as we move "up" the pyramid of complexity to the DNA level, there is a separation between the "stuff" of the organism and the "stuff" of the "program" or guiding "software". DNA is a 4-letter code that just happens to be implemented in a huge molecule, but it is the code that matters. At the DNA level and levels above it, the "program" is abstract - "pure" information. It is also, interestingly, a "proto-language" that "talks" mainly about proteins. "Up" the pyramid a different kind of language will emerge that "talks" about a much wider range of things.

"Godel Escher Bach" is the book that made Hofstader famous.  Along the way to illustrating his central point (Godel's Theorem), the book this exposes the absurdity of computer intelligence simply by imagining that we switch the medium or "substrate" of the program from electronics to an ordinary book. He imagined, for example, someone using a huge rule book to translate Engish to Chinese by rote, then asking if this person (or the rulebooks)  "understood" Chinese. Somehow, when you think of the program running on a computer, there is a temptation to answer "yes" to this question. To Hofstadter, we owe the insight that the "substrate" of the "program" matters but not in the way we thought.

In the case of "proto-life", we can, indeed, separate the "meaning" of the "program" from the substrate. This is akin to Dennett's idea of a design without a designer. The "designer" is hidden in the "laws of physics" or, as the ancients would have put it, the "Tao". But, as they would have put it, there is danger in confusing talk about the Tao (even the "math") with the Tao itself. Broadly speaking, "proto-life" seems to emerge directly from the "Tao" with no programming needed.

Design Is In The Eye of The Beholder

A "design" is an abstract concept. We can speak of the "design" of the human heart without expecting to find a blueprint somewhere. Even in cases where we know there was a human designer, the design of a human creation remains even if no documents or memory of the design exists. We see design where we see purpose.

"Design" and "model" are closely related concepts and both may be seen to live in the same "space".

DNA can be seen to embody the design of a life form, but the physical embodiment of the design in the DNA is not essential. In fact the non-essentiality is a characteristic of models/designs. We could imagine creating a process that would produce all the machinery of the cell by some other means - even such a simple means as switching the chemical structure but not the "meaning" of one of 4 letters of the genetic code.

At the "mind" level of model and design, we know that our minds are somehow implemented in our brains, but we have assumed for millennia that this relationship is non-essential, most recently by imagining that a computer might have a mind. At this level, it is still difficult to imagine that our minds are, in fact, completely abstract and only implemented in our brains.

For the supermind, it appears that the "implementation" is ephemeral, like the structure of a hurricane. Of course, a hurricane is "real" but what makes it a hurricane (its "design") emerges from the physics of heat and water. Similarly, a "supermind" emerges when many human minds share attention and intention to act upon the real world. Take away that attention and the supermind vanishes. A philosopher might easily to say that the supermind doesn't exist at all, but that's like saying only heat and water exist: but not hurricanes.

---------

The concept of "design" here owes a great deal to Daniel Dennett, especially "From Bacteria to Bach and Back"

Human welfare and the four economies

My thoughts about the four economies have emerged from thinking about money and debt. Some writers, especially Graeber do a great job of sketching what money is (debt) and prying the concept away from "value". Graeber makes dire predictions about the fate of the world based solely on the nature of money. Graeber seems to think that, by the very nature of money, debt expands to choke the "real" economy - a phenomenon he calls "debt deflation".

I think that Graeber's misunderstands the way that money works and its relationship to the other economies we live in, most obviously value (which is constantly being created and destroyed) and information (which mostly grows at an exponential rate, contributing to a growing percentage of the value of everything we buy). However, Graeber's analysis is helpful in pointing out that many transactions involving money and the creation of debt take place entirely in the "money universe" without increasing value. In the big picture, this seems to increase debt relative to value, in effect, reducing the amount of value available to ordinary people. I'm not sure this analysis holds water when you realize that value doesn't obey the same rules as money. We usually acquire debt in order to obtain ownership (directly or indirectly) of something of value (other than money). "Net" value can dramatically change with ownership. The classic example is when the thing of value is a "plant" that can be used to manufacture things of value - value that exceeds the cost of production.

Graeber takes us on the intellectual journey of Marx and explains why things don't work the way Marx thought or even the way Marx wanted things to work. Borrowing money to "make" money is, as he says, a drag on the "real" economy and does little more than manufacture debt. The business of entire "finance" industry is based on the value of money for its own sake, resulting in the byproduct of growing debt floating around in the economy.

An example, dear to Graeber's heart, is real estate. One might argue that changing ownership of a house does not, as a rule, change its value. In practice, real estate prices (not values) tend to inflate and a lot of debt is generated in the process. Banks manufacture money for mortgages. For this reason, Graeber lumps real estate in with Finance as the bad guys. The insurance industry gets tossed in with the others for reasons I won't discuss (FIRE = Finance, Insurance, Real Estate).

I have my doubts about Graeber's analysis of a real estate transition.  Real Estate is a market like any other. The amazing thing about a market is that it matches every buyer who thinks something is worth X with someone who thinks that something is worth getting rid of and is, therefore, it's worth less than X. In other words, the basic mechanism of any market is based on fundamental disagreement over the value of the goods being traded. Both opinions are subject to feedback (what people think other people think things are worth and what other people think about what other people think ...), resulting in a classic example of a chaotic system. You get a mass movement of investment into real estate when people think it can't possibly lose money and massive losses (crash) when real estate does, in fact, lose value.*

Mandelbrot has convincingly argued that markets are inherently chaotic According to this line of thinking, price "inflation" is just part of a truly chaotic pattern, where collapse of "bubbles' is inevitable. Chaos is guaranteed by the "math" underlying the system. If true, this refutes Graeber's thesis, not just about real estate, but about finance, which is the core market that Maldelbrot uses an example. If Mandelbrot is right, the amount of money (and therefore debt) in the "system" can be expected to fluctuate wildly to the degree that a market for money itself exists. That's not what Graeber is predicting and the difference is hardly trivial. Sadly, Mandelbrot and Graeber give us two different pictures of Hell: A long strangulation of the real economy (Graeber) versus an endless sequence of fundamentally unpredictable crashes and booms (Mandelbrot).

The fundamental point of contact between the two theories seems to be in the mind of the "players". Graeber's theory is that debt is non-negotiable, collectable under any circumstance and independent of what people think. If true, this would tend to remove (damp) chaos from the system. In 2008, we learned that some opinions about some forms of debt can change overnight, resulting in the sudden disappearance of trillions of dollars of financial "assets" and the corresponding trillions in debt. I think Mandelbrot is closer to the truth than Graeber. The crash occurs when the "system" suddenly realizes that vast sums of "money" are based on uncollectable debt.

The response of the banking system to the 2008 crash is a separate issue, involving some fancy footwork by the world's central banks. This massively involves the "reserve" system, which doesn't seem to factor into Graeber's story about money (at least in his book on debt). "Reserve" money - what banks owe each other - is not connected to debt. It's more like a way of making sure that there are enough tokens in the right pockets to keep the whole thing running, especially a way of making sure that there is enough "cash" (IOU's from the Government) around to allow depositors to "withdraw" their money (transfer debt from the bank to the government) and pass it around between banks in a more or less frictionless way.

Putting it all together to understand the world we live in would seem to require an understanding of more than money and debt. In fact, it would seem to involve re-evaluating a lot of things. It's not surprising at all to find ourselves retracing the thoughts of Marx on the subject. He thought deeply about money, debt and value. But the role of information was completely ignored in his time and the universe itself seemed to be nothing but a passive store of raw materials. In our time, the universe is fighting back.

Money

Money is created in the modern economy precisely in the amounts of debt people (including governments) are willing to assume. Most people have no idea how "money" works, yet it can control their lives.

The physical form of money is hardly relevant. It may exist purely as information and it is, in a sense, pure information. A dollar is a fact. That fact is that a government (Canada, say) owes the bearer one dollar. That would seem to be a circular statement, except the "fact" is supported by the Government, which is not a figment of anybody's imagination. When a dollar is deposited in the bank, its factual nature changes slightly. Now it is the bank who owes the depositor one dollar.

As information, a dollar is a unit of debt. Somebody owes somebody a dollar. It's the "somebody's" that make it real.

Biology and Value - The "Real Economy"

Value relates to living things and makes no sense in the inanimate world. Value is always relative to a living thing. One animal's mother is another animal's food. Perception of value is not necessary for value to exist, although the domain of perceived value by humans is the case we will discuss here.

As humans, we constantly weigh up the value of things in our environment, creating an economy of made up of all the "stuff" that matters to us. In the value universe of humans, most stuff of value is owned by someone (or, as in the case of the "commons" by society) and the rules whereby ownership is changed are complex and interesting. Money can be involved and usually is, but when goods are exchanged for money, the amount of money in the system remains unchanged but the value can dramatically increase or decrease. One example among many is the purchase of mineral rights.

For example, when I buy a banana from the grocer, a bit of money moves from my hands to his and the ownership of the banana changes from him to me. As food, the banana has value to me. But if nobody buys it, the banana will rot and be without value to the anyone. Laying aside a few details, value is created when I buy a banana, even more obviously, when I pick it from a tree.

The biological forms we perceive and name can be somewhat arbitrary. It's important to identify the form you are talking about to make sense of the relative value. To illustrate this point, internal discipline is a value to a human organization - it contributes to the survival of that organization. However, it may not coincide with the welfare of individuals in the organization - in fact, it may be seen as a negative value by certain individuals. such as soldiers ordered into certain death.


Information

The information economy is increasingly important in the modern world. Information can be created from nothing, duplicated and shared. It is very similar to the "stuff" in the value economy in that its importance is solely in the eye of the beholder. But efforts to apply the concept of ownership to information reveal its slippery nature. If I share information with you, we both have it. In fact, the value of information often seems to grow the more people have it. It obeys its own unique rules.

Life itself is the transmission of information (DNA) to future generations. This all takes place in a physical world where one thing is not as relevant to that transmission as another (value) and the whole process is taking place in the real world, where the laws of physics cannot be circumvented.


Energy and the "Real World"

The entire natural world is all about the exchange of energy in countless forms. These exchanges take place according to rules and patterns of their own, irrespective of human value or even the presence of humans. Biology is a subset of this world, where information becomes important (DNA, evolution, stimulus and response).

"Stuff" - matter - participates in the energy economy. Stuff can be bought and sold as can energy itself, but the financial details do nothing to circumvent the rules of the energy economy, such as the laws of thermodynamics, conservation of matter etc.

We buy and sell energy as part of the "money" economy, often ignoring the physics and biology involved in these transactions. Underlying all such transactions is a loss, due to entropy, of the thing being traded. It's like a sales tax on every money transaction except that in this case, the tax is simply thrown away. "Production" of energy often involves irreversible destruction of value in the form of environmental destruction and other ways that the energy industry regards as "external" costs.

------------------
* Of course, many real estate transactions are not based on such "disagreement". The buyer simply pays a "fair price" for what the seller has and no longer needs. There is something "real" underlying the transaction. This is unlike purely financial trades, where some form of security is being traded.