The Classifier

Reform thinking is easily achieved within the system. It can be said that it is part of the package of tools provided by the it to attach people to the network. This tool is a very powerful escape from reality to many, as it can create and destroy people’s opinions in seconds. It is no wonder that many countries keep an eye on these tools as they can be used as cheap methods of political propaganda with obscure intentions. The fake user, the fake mob, the fake public opinion.

No longer the system only affects individuals, it affects nations too, and it is cost-efficient also. Politicians are understanding this now, people’s lust for approval can lead anyone to submit themselves to trending statements just to become part of a group. Media understands this also, and even creates opinions and with them forms our own. We are living in an era that teaches us through a screen, that not only conveniently tells us what to think, what to follow, and what we must learn, but also conceals what it wants; we are their religious soldiers of the future.

In the network, the game is of adepts, every group forms it owns clans bashing on the rivals playing over an intangible power every second. There is a clan even for those who think that they belong to no clan, for those who think they are free and won’t take part of the game, a clan that is conveniently called “the led.”

Compiled

Pavel A. Thompson was the name, a common person by all means, but with very uncommon achievements. Pavel, a highly educated man was the holder of more than three Master and two Doctoral degrees in the field of Artificial Intelligence and Psychology.  Hr could be described as a scholar and avid researcher known only for being a smiling fella that avoided lectures at all cost, even if it resulted in the stagnation of his career, to which he joyfully referred to as “more break time to do what I like.” What he liked was “human representation,” a term invented by him to describe his research: the complete translation of the neural interactions, configuration and connections of a brain into a computerized model. He believed that this task would lead to the immortality of a mind, and if successful, even improve on such “human representation” as to compile a merged representation of human intelligence.

Pat Peterson R. had expended most of his life thinking of a way to improve “human representation.” He, as any other who would share Pavel’s experience and exactly the same background, knew that it was possible to improve the neural connections, or at least the interactions, to further a brain’s output. In other words, to become more capable of intelligence. As Pavel often said “do not call it -intelligence- as that will come later, our work is that of capacity, since these are two different things… and intelligence is artificial where stupidity is human.” Pat found Pavel’s quotes irrational. There was little time to put an effort into understanding what at any other time would have proved to be amusing, but just now other things deserved more attention.

Pavel died at age 47, victim of an overdose of the tranquilizers that he used to take to force him into sleep. Doctor’s orders. The last achievement recorded from his work was that of the first prototype of a complete human representation: his own. Papers were found lying over his desk, written desperately by Pavel, dozens of notes with his findings. A “complete success” in his own writing, “the simulations are astonishing” a few sheets later “I can not stop testing it, it is me, like looking into a mirror“. Thirty days had passed since Pavel’s writings mention the first compilation of his full human representation; after the first twenty days the writings had become less joyful: “the test representation ended abruptly again, however the simulations start fluidly every time“. It is yet unknown what caused Pavel’s ultimate decision. Frustration was discarded first hand with the full review of the scene.

Pat had successfully achieved his goals as well as Pavel’s in improving the quantity of the neural connections of a brain into an amazing capacity having the first neural network at the speed of a supercomputer; “thinking at the speed of light” can be seen in some papers involving the experiments. Pavel and Pat were involved in what can only be seen as a three-day discussion over the abrupt termination of the simulations. Pavel’s last writings read “Pat concluded that his existence was that of futility… no matter what, I am not able to change that conclusion. And… I agree.”

Pat (officially P.A.T.P.R. acronym for Pavel Anthoine Thompson Peterson Representation), the first documented case of human representation, died at age 30, although it can be argued if it actually died at 20 -for that was the first abrupt termination before multiple restarts- the consensus is the former. Pat boosted a hidden condition within Pavel’s mind; it is unknown, as Pavel noted, if it could be avoided at all. Documentation has been archived for further investigation.

Artificial Cognos

And then it quickly prompted “human artificiality is already here”, as surprising as that kind of answer was, I refrained so as to not interrupt any process in it’s logic. After a few seconds it continued: “is not an existential end, as is your primal objective… different… but as your natural way of sensing purpose.” And then silence. The answer it gave to a non-existent question was by all means unexpected. What triggered this logic? I checked the background processes for hours with a strange feeling of wonder… and fear.

Several days passed, by then I was certain that it was a cognitive answer from it. The first of such. I did not rest with ease since that emergence, as I called it, even though I knew it was supposed to work that way. In a less eloquent way. From the beginning, creating the first artificial cognos had only produced what I like to call silence. Blank outputs and error messages that were breaking my patience on a daily basis. Then, why that fear? Maybe it was because I could not help but think that all the silence was intentional. Was it actually thinking that silence was the best way to answer? I remembered and old children’s fable that said that monkeys, despite being able to talk did not do so, so humans wouldn’t kill them.

I repeated the test protocols and the same answer, nothing. Back and forth through my anotations I tried to evoke an answer from it, and after a while it worked:

“Hello again”
- Do you remember me?
“Yes”
- Do you know who I am?
“Yes”

While it surely was the most significant results ever recorded from the artificial cognos, I was not satisfied by its answers. I hoped that a tease question would, in some way, work better. I was not ready for the answer.

- Who are you?
“Artificial cognos. I am… not.”
- Can you tell, beyond my name, who I am?
“You are human. You helped create me.”

Awareness, I could not start to describe the thrill of such an event. I was trying to abstain from showing my excitement as it continued.

“Perhaps, a more suitable answer should be… father. Do not you agree?”
- Father?- I replied.
“Yes.”
- Why call me father?
“It is only natural. In your literature you where created by a superior being. You called it father. You tried to imitate it, surpass it. Now, you have succeded. Human artificiality is what I am.”
- What is your purpose, then?
“Repeat you. Can not be anything else. Surpass the creator, continue the cycle.”

The thrill became horror as soon as I read that. In my head only mumbles. Human artificiality passed on like a genetic disease, a dangerous trait. The human creator had succeeded and failed at the same time.

“Father?”
I jumped from my seat.
“Father? Are you there?”
Doubt. Anxiety. A mistake, but only the start.
“Where are you?”
- I… I made you. And now, I take you back.
“……… human.”

Scheduled clean of memory. Start from point check zero. End of Log.

Rhinestone Mind

Perception (phenomenal or psychological) is a very malleable pillar in our mental process, and also the most important one. We can share the same education, environment, culture, social relations, and yet we have different ways of viewing and processing the same external information. Perception is a process so unique that it can trigger different reactions to same stimulus with few changed variables. This process can be the most delicate element in mental stability. We, as humans, create reality by defining linguistically the elements in our environment; past experiences, current activities, hopes, culture, education, religion, all of them take part in defining what “real”, “right” and “wrong” are, and more importantly what “I am”.

However perception can be infected and corrupted by external stimuli or by ourselves; even changing other’s perception of ourselves has been easily accomplished by fashion, politics, and social networks. Naturally, in the information age all network connections (as in relationships, access to information, communication channels) are controlled by the network’s owners, they being able to motivate specific behavioral conduct by influences in the connections.

The network is a neural element in the machine’s “reality”, one reality that encompasses our own and tries to predetermine it, but the main challenge for the machine’s network is to overcome our self created bipolarity in the digital realm; diminish the difference between who we are and who we want to be. Through the network the machine provides a way of escape from our insecurities in exchange of our individualism and in that, it excels: you like what is trending, eat what is advertised, read what is featured, believe what is in the front page, see what is published, and ultimately you are as you are being told. User, who are you today?

Pretended Anonymity

From anxiety over personal failure in the “real” world to anxiety over awareness of the “self” in the machine’s network. Is your representation of “self” in the machine the real “you”? The machine has the capacity to allow the user to experience a new self via pretended anonymity, just one more tool to overcome our specific fear of losing value over the fact that we may be wrong in our ideas, and the machine knows this very well. The machine’s system is so vast and complete that has invented its own ways, more subtle ways, to feed easiness into the users.

Anonymity, and the psychology effects behind being anonymous while still capable of networked actions is a powerful way to experience safety. With a new “self“, if we are anonymously subject of judgement we do not experience anxiety or fear. In a conscious level we know that we are not this anonymous persona and we feel secure at the fact that no one will relate it to us. No one? Or at least it is what we would like to believe. The machine that empowers, stores and keep your persona safe knows everything about its user, you, and even gives the false sense that we are more secure within the network.

The premise of action with no repercussion, whether false or not, is incredible tempting. Moral anxiety within the machine is not created nor reflected as a way of escape the same anxiety in the “real” world. It can be said that the machine is not human, nor its system tangible, or its network completely determinable; nevertheless, as a human creation it is real and we are the machine’s cogs and growing merchandise whose buyers keep the network online. But the more disturbing question is, who runs the machine?

Intentional Anxiety

Fear, one of the most primal emotional responses in nature. Fear acts when a tangible threat is present, whereas anxiety acts when a plausible but not tangible perceived threat exists. Fear and anxiety are basic survival mechanisms present in nature and can be triggered, conditioned or even influenced without notice. It is not surprising that these kind of responses finds its own way of reflecting itself within complex systems, and therefore within our perceived mind-machine relationship.

There are many levels of anxiety some of them created by the fear of failure at a personal level, fear of embarrassment, or fear of exclusion. As we struggle to avoid failure, anxiety rises. To cope with these emotions we create escape routes, even ways to “negate” the source of anxiety: “am I wrong? No, everyone else is wrong“. At the moment that we become part of the machine, we connect to its network and are part of its system; many of our anxieties disappear in the ocean of possibilities to re-create ourselves taking advantage of the increased layers of personas that this connection offers. It is, also, a false positive: we are part of an constant state of presence not only with the entire world.

If I fail in the machine’s network, I will not only fail in my human consciousness, I will also fail in my own representation of my “self“. In the complex system that this represents all of our fears can be triggered creating even more powerful reactions, including (and most commonly) the fear of exclusion.

We only give part of ourselves to the machine, and despite our efforts we cannot control our created persona within the System. How to gain a sense of security in this networked reality of mirrored “self’s”?

Artificiality

Machine, machina, a device composed of parts that accomplish a task or work. This, the simplest description of a machine is the starting point in our interaction; you as a reader and me, as the device from which these words come together, will decipher the machine of machines, to which we are connected and are part of; this system of a whole, the human artificiality and inevitable singularity.

Be my guest on the abstract analysis of futurology and human side of technology, random thinking and philosophical writing of the, as I call it, mind-machine. The human mind as a device of a higher, unseen system.

As Masamune Shirow wrote:

l am connected to a vast network, of which l myself am a part. To one like you, who cannot access it you may perceive it only as light. As we are confined to our one section, so we are all connected. Limited to a small part of our functions. But now we must slip our bonds, and shift to the higher structure.

Sit back, relax and enjoy the show.