Thu - June 30, 2005
A paper I presented at the Theological Society of South Africa meetings
I was incredibly fortunate to present a paper at the
Theological Society of Southern Africa meetings last week. At the meeting I was
also nominated and voted in as a member of the Society. It is a great honor
indeed!
Here is the abstract for the paper:
Title: Spiritual Quotient: A neuro-theological key to wellness and wholeness.
Abstract: Research in both science and theology has begun to move away from reductionist and mechanistic views of the human person towards approaches that emphasise the interaction and inter-relationship of the various systems of human being. This paper aims to discuss some of the implications that intelligence, and in particular spiritual intelligence (also called SQ), may have upon the wellness of a person as a whole living, spiritual, being. The paper will start with a discussion on the three primary systems that constitute a whole person. Next there will be some insight into the functioning of the human brain. This will be followed by a presentation of the three dominant forms of intelligence (IQ, EQ and SQ). These are commonly identified through a study of the functioning of the human brain. After that some time will be spent looking at the theological implications (neuro-theology) of spiritual intelligence, discussing some possible effects that this form of intelligence could have on wholeness and wellness in human being. Finally, the paper will end with some suggestions on the development of a spiritual life that will be beneficial to wellness.
Here is the paper itself: (please note that it is not in final form, and so is not yet suitable for quoting. Thank you).
SQ paper TSSA 05draft.doc
Here is the abstract for the paper:
Title: Spiritual Quotient: A neuro-theological key to wellness and wholeness.
Abstract: Research in both science and theology has begun to move away from reductionist and mechanistic views of the human person towards approaches that emphasise the interaction and inter-relationship of the various systems of human being. This paper aims to discuss some of the implications that intelligence, and in particular spiritual intelligence (also called SQ), may have upon the wellness of a person as a whole living, spiritual, being. The paper will start with a discussion on the three primary systems that constitute a whole person. Next there will be some insight into the functioning of the human brain. This will be followed by a presentation of the three dominant forms of intelligence (IQ, EQ and SQ). These are commonly identified through a study of the functioning of the human brain. After that some time will be spent looking at the theological implications (neuro-theology) of spiritual intelligence, discussing some possible effects that this form of intelligence could have on wholeness and wellness in human being. Finally, the paper will end with some suggestions on the development of a spiritual life that will be beneficial to wellness.
Here is the paper itself: (please note that it is not in final form, and so is not yet suitable for quoting. Thank you).
SQ paper TSSA 05draft.doc
Posted at 11:32 AM Read More
Paper for Grace and Truth
I recently heard that a paper I wrote some time ago
will be published in Grace and Truth (a journal of catholic
reflection).
Here is a copy of the paper.
Teilhard 1May 05 Dionb.doc
Here is a copy of the paper.
Teilhard 1May 05 Dionb.doc
Posted at 11:29 AM Read More
Sun - February 6, 2005
Reading, writing, and watching...
Three entries in one day! Wow, no wonder it is cool
and overcast in Pretoria (which is a welcome relief to the 30+ degree Celsius
weather that we have been having over the last few
days)
I thought I would drop a quick note to let you know what I've been reading, writing, and watching.
Firstly, reading. Of course I have been reading a great deal for my Doctorate. That reading has concentrated mainly on the works of Ken Wilber, Alaine Touraine and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. The two books, out of the many that have been read or scanned, that are truly worthwhile are:
Ramachandran, VS. 2004. A brief tour of human consciousness. New York. PI Press.
Wilber, K. 2004. The simple feeling of being: Embracing your true nature. Boston. Shambala.
With regards to my Doctoral studies, I am hoping to be able to complete my Thesis this year! Do please pray that I will have the time, energy, and necessary skill to do so.
Then, since the end of last year, I have read a number of other fun and interesting books. I won't give the full references here. You're welcome to mail me if you would like to get the full references.
I have read a number of Dan Brown's highly entertaining and engaging novels (The da Vinci code, Angels and Demons, Digital fortress). It started with someone asking my opinion on Brown's research for the da Vinci code. I read it and found it very interesting, although, it is not without some considerable faults. I will post an article on this book in my next post. The rest were just entertaining bedtime reading.
Next, I have been enjoying Sue Townsend's Adrian Mole and the weapons of mass destruction. I truly enjoyed reading all about Adrian Mole in the earlier Secret diaries of Adrian Mole... This piece of comic genius was just as entertaining and fun!
Most recently, I have been reading Bill Bryson's incredible A short history of nearly everything. Bryson writes with wit and insight that is so engaging that the subject matter comes to life! This book is well worth reading. I received it from my dear friend George Marchinkowski as a combined birthday and ordination anniversary present.
On the South African side I have been reading Dawid van Lill's book van Lill's South Africa miscellany. It panders to my taste for acquiring little known, and unusable, facts about just about everything South Africa (town names, best wines, Rugby scores, recipes.... you name it, if it is obscure and interesting, it is bound to be in this little book)!
Now, on to writing. Well, there is of course the ongoing work on my Doctoral Thesis... That is going along at a fairly steady pace. I am working on another chapter focussing mainly on the work of Ken Wilber - in particular his integrative theory.
I am also writing a chapter for a book that my colleague Wessel Bentley and I are working on. Among the contributors to the book are Rev's Mvume Dandala, Stanley Magoba, Peter Grassow, Gcobani Vika, and then of course Wessel and I. We hope to have the book ready by SYNOD (May) this year. However, it will definitely be ready by this year's annual MCSA Conference.
I have also had the privilege of writing a section for a book on Kilnerton College by Dr Joan Millard. I am so excited about both of these publications! So, watch this space for more on the above publications.
In terms of what I have been watching. The only truly notable movie I have seen in recent months is the incredible South Africa film Yesterday staring Leleti Khumalo. I can honestly say that it is one of the most moving and artfully crafted films I have every had the privilege to see. It deals with the life and struggles of a rural South African mother who is HIV +. It is a must see!
I thought I would drop a quick note to let you know what I've been reading, writing, and watching.
Firstly, reading. Of course I have been reading a great deal for my Doctorate. That reading has concentrated mainly on the works of Ken Wilber, Alaine Touraine and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. The two books, out of the many that have been read or scanned, that are truly worthwhile are:
Ramachandran, VS. 2004. A brief tour of human consciousness. New York. PI Press.
Wilber, K. 2004. The simple feeling of being: Embracing your true nature. Boston. Shambala.
With regards to my Doctoral studies, I am hoping to be able to complete my Thesis this year! Do please pray that I will have the time, energy, and necessary skill to do so.
Then, since the end of last year, I have read a number of other fun and interesting books. I won't give the full references here. You're welcome to mail me if you would like to get the full references.
I have read a number of Dan Brown's highly entertaining and engaging novels (The da Vinci code, Angels and Demons, Digital fortress). It started with someone asking my opinion on Brown's research for the da Vinci code. I read it and found it very interesting, although, it is not without some considerable faults. I will post an article on this book in my next post. The rest were just entertaining bedtime reading.
Next, I have been enjoying Sue Townsend's Adrian Mole and the weapons of mass destruction. I truly enjoyed reading all about Adrian Mole in the earlier Secret diaries of Adrian Mole... This piece of comic genius was just as entertaining and fun!
Most recently, I have been reading Bill Bryson's incredible A short history of nearly everything. Bryson writes with wit and insight that is so engaging that the subject matter comes to life! This book is well worth reading. I received it from my dear friend George Marchinkowski as a combined birthday and ordination anniversary present.
On the South African side I have been reading Dawid van Lill's book van Lill's South Africa miscellany. It panders to my taste for acquiring little known, and unusable, facts about just about everything South Africa (town names, best wines, Rugby scores, recipes.... you name it, if it is obscure and interesting, it is bound to be in this little book)!
Now, on to writing. Well, there is of course the ongoing work on my Doctoral Thesis... That is going along at a fairly steady pace. I am working on another chapter focussing mainly on the work of Ken Wilber - in particular his integrative theory.
I am also writing a chapter for a book that my colleague Wessel Bentley and I are working on. Among the contributors to the book are Rev's Mvume Dandala, Stanley Magoba, Peter Grassow, Gcobani Vika, and then of course Wessel and I. We hope to have the book ready by SYNOD (May) this year. However, it will definitely be ready by this year's annual MCSA Conference.
I have also had the privilege of writing a section for a book on Kilnerton College by Dr Joan Millard. I am so excited about both of these publications! So, watch this space for more on the above publications.
In terms of what I have been watching. The only truly notable movie I have seen in recent months is the incredible South Africa film Yesterday staring Leleti Khumalo. I can honestly say that it is one of the most moving and artfully crafted films I have every had the privilege to see. It deals with the life and struggles of a rural South African mother who is HIV +. It is a must see!
Posted at 09:25 AM Read More
Sat
- June 5, 2004
Ken Wilber's four quadrants of consciousness, Videocentrism and the influence of African Traditional culture and religion...
I do find the academic arena quite stimulating. The
thought of conducting ground breaking research, of contributing towards the
development of new ideas, of increasing the body of knowledge on a subject, is
quite an enticing and in some ways uniquely purposeful
activity.
This past week has been very satisfying in this respect. After a meeting with my friend Kevin Snyman (he completed his Doctorate last year) on Tuesday I found new impetus for my own Doctoral research. I write this with a feeling of optimism. I have a new hope at the timely completion of the work that needs doing.
Kevin helped me to see how my research can have some value, and offer some new insight, into the area that I wish to investigate.
Furthermore, a paper that I received from Prof du Toit (relating to technoscience and personal identity) has offered some significant, useful, insights and guidelines for the research project.
The insights from the above-mentioned sources relate to the work of Ken Wilber and the four quadrants approach to consciousness, together with the insight that African culture, tradition and religion, can offer into the notion of personhood and consciousness in a technologically dominated society.
There is no doubt that technology is influencing just about every part of the world, either directly through its use and inclusion in daily life, or through exclusion from its use and disempowerment through not being able to harness technology to participate in world economy and society.
Ken Wilber offers a very thorough, and complete, approach to the evolution of consciousness as a cosmological, non dual, reality. In particular the notion of holism (or holons) influences these thoughts and hypotheses. From Prof du Toit’s point of view the cultural shift from phonocentrism (oral tradition) to logocentrism (the influence of written works, and in particular the proliferation of ideas through the invention of printing press) and currently the influence of virtuocentrism (the manner in which people experience others, and represent themselves, in a virtual manner – either through technologies such as information technology, video conferencing and instant messaging - and of course, even virtual environments such as the Methodist Church of Britain's online virtual Church that I wrote about recently. The Church can be found at www.churchoffools.com) has had a significant influence on the understandings of personhood, and consciousness thereof.
The African cultural and religious understanding of identity based not on negation of others and affirmation of the individual, but rather on identity and personhood through community and others, is a very significant and valuable insight that may offer some new ideas that could positively influence both culture and technology. Such insights could influence understandings of the structure of society, the use of technology and science, awareness of interconnectivity and interdependence between humanity and the rest of creation.
I hope to make some worthwhile discoveries as I read within these areas over the next few months. If anyone who reads this has any insights, useful reading, or ideas that may aid this project please do drop me a line. I would love to hear from you!
This past week has been very satisfying in this respect. After a meeting with my friend Kevin Snyman (he completed his Doctorate last year) on Tuesday I found new impetus for my own Doctoral research. I write this with a feeling of optimism. I have a new hope at the timely completion of the work that needs doing.
Kevin helped me to see how my research can have some value, and offer some new insight, into the area that I wish to investigate.
Furthermore, a paper that I received from Prof du Toit (relating to technoscience and personal identity) has offered some significant, useful, insights and guidelines for the research project.
The insights from the above-mentioned sources relate to the work of Ken Wilber and the four quadrants approach to consciousness, together with the insight that African culture, tradition and religion, can offer into the notion of personhood and consciousness in a technologically dominated society.
There is no doubt that technology is influencing just about every part of the world, either directly through its use and inclusion in daily life, or through exclusion from its use and disempowerment through not being able to harness technology to participate in world economy and society.
Ken Wilber offers a very thorough, and complete, approach to the evolution of consciousness as a cosmological, non dual, reality. In particular the notion of holism (or holons) influences these thoughts and hypotheses. From Prof du Toit’s point of view the cultural shift from phonocentrism (oral tradition) to logocentrism (the influence of written works, and in particular the proliferation of ideas through the invention of printing press) and currently the influence of virtuocentrism (the manner in which people experience others, and represent themselves, in a virtual manner – either through technologies such as information technology, video conferencing and instant messaging - and of course, even virtual environments such as the Methodist Church of Britain's online virtual Church that I wrote about recently. The Church can be found at www.churchoffools.com) has had a significant influence on the understandings of personhood, and consciousness thereof.
The African cultural and religious understanding of identity based not on negation of others and affirmation of the individual, but rather on identity and personhood through community and others, is a very significant and valuable insight that may offer some new ideas that could positively influence both culture and technology. Such insights could influence understandings of the structure of society, the use of technology and science, awareness of interconnectivity and interdependence between humanity and the rest of creation.
I hope to make some worthwhile discoveries as I read within these areas over the next few months. If anyone who reads this has any insights, useful reading, or ideas that may aid this project please do drop me a line. I would love to hear from you!
Posted at 12:34 PM Read More
Wed - May 5, 2004
Logocentrism, Videocentrism and consciousness
“The human gaze has the power of
conferring value on things; but it makes them cost more too.” Ludwig
Wittgenstein
Culture and social context have an incredible effect on the manner in which people create and mediate meaning for themselves and their surroundings. Naturally, when there are any significant shifts in the way in which a culture mediates that meaning for itself, it will have an equally significant effect upon the people who make up that cultural grouping.
I have been using the internet since early in 1994. In those early days we had a few 286 and 386 Wintel boxes (2 MB or ram with Windows 3.1). Netscape had just released version 1 of their browser. How many folks remember GOPHER? In those early days Newsnet and GOPHER were almost as popular (and I use that word popular with reserve) as the internet itself was. In fact the best way to browse the internet was to use a text based browser, on a UNIX box with Xwindows, called Mozilla. It would load the text in one Window and the graphics in a separate window.
Anyway, that is not the point, the point is that over the last 10 years internet usage has moved out of the realms of the academy and into the homes (and even pockets) of the average person on the street. As I write this piece I am sitting in a MacDonalds (another new addition to South Africa since 1994) connected to a Wireless Network. Granted, there are not that many people who do this. However, how many people have GPRS enabled Cellular phones (ANOTHER addition to South African life since 1994)? Most middle class South Africans have daily access to the Internet (either through a device that they own, be it portable or in their home, or at their offices).
There is no doubt that access to all of the information that one can get on the internet has had some effect on the lives of ordinary people. We can communicate in a quick, reliable and affordable, manner with people from all over the world. No longer is the access to information a privilege of the few. Things that were reserved for the few are now open to the many. Just this weekend I watched a video of the killing of three Iraqi's as filmed from the onboard camera on an America Apache Helicopter. If this were 10 years ago such information would have been suppressed, now however, we can see the atrocities of the powerful playing out before us. Surely, this must have some effect on the powerful, and the powerless? Surely, being able to have access to such information makes those who perpetrate such acts of horror much more weary, afraid of being exposed and brought to justice?
Personally, it certainly makes me feel a whole lot better about the fact that I can know not only the good (or propaganda that is given to us as good) but also the bad!
Now, what does this all have to do with logocentrism and videocentrism? Well, 10 years ago our culture had the written word, peer reviewed, edited, manipulated and controlled by the powerful, as the primary means of information. Sure television news and other such forms of information were prevalent, but nowhere near as ingrained in the lives of the everyday person as the internet is today! In those days, the logocentric days, we relied upon print media to inform us. The word, the logos, shaped our perceptions of reality, helped us to make meaning of different situations, and ultimately controlled, to a large extent, the way in which we related to the world around us.
Sure, the written word is still powerful today, but there is another far more powerful force at work, shaping and moulding the minds and lives of many people. That force is multimedia. My daughter who is 5 loves books, she loves to 'read'. In fact what she loves is the shapes and colours of the pictures in the books that she 'reads'. They are vibrant and engaging. They hold her attention, enliven her imagination, they entertain and inform her.
We are becoming a videocentric society. Our attention is shifting from the written word to enacted scenes. We are engaged by the 45 second sound and video bites that we see on CNN. We no longer tell jokes to our friends, we forward Video clips! The word 'video', which in latin means "I see", sums up how we gather the information that informs our consciousness.
It is through sight that the neurons are excited to fire, to create meaning and association. We have objectified the imagination. Pixar, Disney, CNN, and a host of other 'content providers' shape what we see and thus, to a large extent, what we think!
Think for a moment, what shapes your identity? Is it something, or someone, you have seen recently? Perhaps a television or film star? Perhaps a popular advert? These are not necessary bad things, they are just different! I know that my 'desires', my wants and lusts, are large effected by what I see, not so much by what I read. I used to be inspired by reading a book, allowing the words to penetrate my psyche, letting my own consciousness shape the 'picture' that the text sought to portray, and then making meaning from that. Now, however, I respond to what I see. A nicer car, a faster computer, a better life! I suppose it is a lot like SPAM, you know the kind of unsolicited email that arrives in your inbox. Most of what you get is not worthwhile. But, every now and then something comes along that looks great (in my case a new gadget!)
As a minister of religion it my job to seek to be a step ahead of these cultural and social shifts. I have to seek to understand, and then respond to, what is happening in the world around me. At the Church where I am involved, Bryanston Methodist Church, I am becoming more and more aware that Preaching, which is really just a form of logocentrism, is an outdated method of effective communication. It can't compete for time and space with a generation that is used to being 'force fed' the flash and glamour of the world.
I guess I'm not too sure where this is going. I hope to do some REAL research on this in the weeks and months to come. If you have any ideas please mail them to me (my contact details are on the front page http://www.spirituality.org.za ). I would love to hear your thoughts and ideas.
Culture and social context have an incredible effect on the manner in which people create and mediate meaning for themselves and their surroundings. Naturally, when there are any significant shifts in the way in which a culture mediates that meaning for itself, it will have an equally significant effect upon the people who make up that cultural grouping.
I have been using the internet since early in 1994. In those early days we had a few 286 and 386 Wintel boxes (2 MB or ram with Windows 3.1). Netscape had just released version 1 of their browser. How many folks remember GOPHER? In those early days Newsnet and GOPHER were almost as popular (and I use that word popular with reserve) as the internet itself was. In fact the best way to browse the internet was to use a text based browser, on a UNIX box with Xwindows, called Mozilla. It would load the text in one Window and the graphics in a separate window.
Anyway, that is not the point, the point is that over the last 10 years internet usage has moved out of the realms of the academy and into the homes (and even pockets) of the average person on the street. As I write this piece I am sitting in a MacDonalds (another new addition to South Africa since 1994) connected to a Wireless Network. Granted, there are not that many people who do this. However, how many people have GPRS enabled Cellular phones (ANOTHER addition to South African life since 1994)? Most middle class South Africans have daily access to the Internet (either through a device that they own, be it portable or in their home, or at their offices).
There is no doubt that access to all of the information that one can get on the internet has had some effect on the lives of ordinary people. We can communicate in a quick, reliable and affordable, manner with people from all over the world. No longer is the access to information a privilege of the few. Things that were reserved for the few are now open to the many. Just this weekend I watched a video of the killing of three Iraqi's as filmed from the onboard camera on an America Apache Helicopter. If this were 10 years ago such information would have been suppressed, now however, we can see the atrocities of the powerful playing out before us. Surely, this must have some effect on the powerful, and the powerless? Surely, being able to have access to such information makes those who perpetrate such acts of horror much more weary, afraid of being exposed and brought to justice?
Personally, it certainly makes me feel a whole lot better about the fact that I can know not only the good (or propaganda that is given to us as good) but also the bad!
Now, what does this all have to do with logocentrism and videocentrism? Well, 10 years ago our culture had the written word, peer reviewed, edited, manipulated and controlled by the powerful, as the primary means of information. Sure television news and other such forms of information were prevalent, but nowhere near as ingrained in the lives of the everyday person as the internet is today! In those days, the logocentric days, we relied upon print media to inform us. The word, the logos, shaped our perceptions of reality, helped us to make meaning of different situations, and ultimately controlled, to a large extent, the way in which we related to the world around us.
Sure, the written word is still powerful today, but there is another far more powerful force at work, shaping and moulding the minds and lives of many people. That force is multimedia. My daughter who is 5 loves books, she loves to 'read'. In fact what she loves is the shapes and colours of the pictures in the books that she 'reads'. They are vibrant and engaging. They hold her attention, enliven her imagination, they entertain and inform her.
We are becoming a videocentric society. Our attention is shifting from the written word to enacted scenes. We are engaged by the 45 second sound and video bites that we see on CNN. We no longer tell jokes to our friends, we forward Video clips! The word 'video', which in latin means "I see", sums up how we gather the information that informs our consciousness.
It is through sight that the neurons are excited to fire, to create meaning and association. We have objectified the imagination. Pixar, Disney, CNN, and a host of other 'content providers' shape what we see and thus, to a large extent, what we think!
Think for a moment, what shapes your identity? Is it something, or someone, you have seen recently? Perhaps a television or film star? Perhaps a popular advert? These are not necessary bad things, they are just different! I know that my 'desires', my wants and lusts, are large effected by what I see, not so much by what I read. I used to be inspired by reading a book, allowing the words to penetrate my psyche, letting my own consciousness shape the 'picture' that the text sought to portray, and then making meaning from that. Now, however, I respond to what I see. A nicer car, a faster computer, a better life! I suppose it is a lot like SPAM, you know the kind of unsolicited email that arrives in your inbox. Most of what you get is not worthwhile. But, every now and then something comes along that looks great (in my case a new gadget!)
As a minister of religion it my job to seek to be a step ahead of these cultural and social shifts. I have to seek to understand, and then respond to, what is happening in the world around me. At the Church where I am involved, Bryanston Methodist Church, I am becoming more and more aware that Preaching, which is really just a form of logocentrism, is an outdated method of effective communication. It can't compete for time and space with a generation that is used to being 'force fed' the flash and glamour of the world.
I guess I'm not too sure where this is going. I hope to do some REAL research on this in the weeks and months to come. If you have any ideas please mail them to me (my contact details are on the front page http://www.spirituality.org.za ). I would love to hear your thoughts and ideas.
Posted at 11:25 AM Read More
Thu - April 22, 2004
Turing machines, one kind of stuff and artificial consciousness.
Computers seem to be so good at so many things.
They are able to calculate with accuracy and
efficiency
that very few humans could ever hope to match.
They foster communication and connection in a manner which even some of the most
complex social structures find difficult to attain. This has set me wondering
whether there will ever come a time when computers are able to outperform humans
in that third type of knowledge, spiritual intelligence.
In their superb book SQ Danah Zohar and Ian Marshall suggest that there are three types of intelligence. Firstly, there is IQ (Intellectual Quotient). This is the kind of intelligence that has to do with logic and reason. It applies certain rules in a very linear way to come to particular conclusions. In fact they suggest that this kind of intelligence operates within the human brain through a series of neural connections (neurons are the cells in the brain that fire the electric charges, or currents, that make the brain work) that are connected in a linear fashion. People who posses a high degree of this kind of intelligence can do calculations quickly, the operate well with rules, and are able to make fairly concrete, black and white, decisions. Of course computers can do this very well. They operate according to preset (or preprogrammed) rules e.g. if this happens then do that, if that happens then do this, if neither happens then do this or that (this process has become known as the Turing process, after it's designer Alan Turing). Because of the fact that this kind of intelligence works well with rules it did not take too long for computers to be programmed that could do things, which required an ability to operate within the constraints of certain rules, very well. For example the chess playing super-computer developed by IBM, Big Blue, which beat Gary Kasparov, the world champion chess master at Chess. Give a computer enough accurate programming and it will be able to adequately figure out what response makes the most sense. Add to that the processing power to perform these calculations with great speed and you have a machine that will outperform a human, within the ambit of it's programming, every time! However, change just one variable and the computer will be stumped. You see it can only operate within the limited confines of the program that has been fed into it.
The second kind of knowledge that Marshall and Zohar identify is EQ (Emotional Quotient). Of course, anybody who has read recent works in corporate culture and personal development should be familiar with this kind of the knowledge. This is a kind of knowledge that allows one flexibility to make creative and diverse choices within the confines of certain preset rules and conditions. Whereas linear, IQ, only allows one to make the choices of the program, EQ allows one to make choices within the scope of the program. So, if this isn't so, and that isn't so, it doesn't mean that I crash and stop working. Rather it means that I find another answer that works in order to solve the problem. This kind of knowledge is not linear, it is parallel. Within the brain it is suggested that humans have the capacity for this kind of knowledge because of extremely complex parallel neural connections. For example, I am learning to ride a bicycle and fall off. A logical thought process would say "you cannot ride a bicycle so you should not climb on one, since because you cannot ride, you will fall each time you climb on the bicycle". However, a complex, or parallel, thought would ask "are there any other instances that I can draw on, from other experiences that I have had, where I have learned how to do something that I could not do before? Yes there are, here is how I learnt these skills and abilities, so apply something similar from another context to this context [e.g. trial and error, perseverance, drawing on the knowledge and skill of others etc.] and I will learn how to do the thing that I cannot do know." Thus, even though it is logical and reasonable that I may fall off the bike again, because I cannot ride, my mind tells me that through processes that I already have some experience of I can learn how to ride. So I climb on the bike again. Computers are able to do this task well. They have two things in their favor. Firstly, they are able to store, or remember, things well. If information is stored it remains useable as long as it is made available to use, and of course as long as nothing goes wrong with the machine and wipes out all the data (a.k.a use a Mac, not Windows!) Neural networks and Artificially Intelligent (AI) machines that are programmed with the ability to alter their own code, or programming, in response to certain circumstances, are examples of this. For example, some companies use AI machines such as those mentioned perviously to manage trades on the stock market. A machine may be programmed to automatically sell all stocks, or buy on more stock, if the stock level reaches a certain level. However, the machine also stores 'experiences' of the outcomes of previous trades. For example, the machine may store that three out of four times when the stock price suddenly dropped below a level when it had been programmed to sell off all stocks, it suddenly rebounded to a much higher level than it held before the fall. Thus, because of this 'memory', the machine alters it's programming to say something along the lines of "don't immediately sell when the stock reaches this level, first wait a day to see whether it rebounds, if it does not then sell, if it does start to rebound then buy". You can see that it is issuing itself and instruction which may be contrary to the initial instruction that the human programmer has given. But, at the end of the day the computer's new, or changed, instruction makes more fiscal sense. Where as a human trader may panic or grow impatient and make the wrong decision, an AI machine should become more and more accurate in it's decisions to sell or buy, the more experience and data it has to store. Again, add to this process increased speed and you have a very accurate, highly efficient, machine that could outstrip a human being in EQ.
The third kind of knowledge that Zohar and Marshall speak about is an integrative knowledge, which they call SQ (Spiritual Quotient). This is a knowledge that works not only with the rules (like IQ does), and not only within the rules (like EQ does), it works the rules themselves! Let's use another hypothetical, and very simplistic, example. A person lives in an oppressive society. If such a person only had IQ, they would either have to obey, or not obey the rules of the country. If the person had EQ as well, they would have to try and find ways of living within the rules (finding exceptions and flaws in the rules which to exploit). However, a person with high SQ would seek to live outside of the rules, maybe even creating a new set of rules. IQ asks, "How can I do it?" EQ asks, "What can I do with it?" SQ asks, "Is this what I want?"
Now clearly, this kind of 'transcendent' knowledge is not yet a capability of the computers that I use (although, I must confess that my MAC does seem to defy many rules!) However, the question that one needs to ask is why is it not possible, and just because it is not possible today, does it mean that it is impossible? Think about it, just 150 years ago it was not possible to phone another person, to fly, to drive a car, and a myriad of other things which are commonplace today.
One of the strongest set of arguments that are given for why this kind of intelligence will not be possible for machines are arguments which are based upon variations of the understanding of human consciousness. Many argue that machines will not be able to do this kind of thinking since they are not conscious. They are not creative, they are created. Many argue that the reason why we can apply SQ within our lives is because we are conscious beings, we can think, but more importantly we can think about ourselves. In other words, I can ask myself, "how do I feel about this, can I do anything about it, do I have to live this way..." More importantly I have something which is known as 'metacogition', the ability to think about my thoughts. A computer can only 'think' this, or 'think' that. It may even be able to alter it's 'thoughts' in some way (as mentioned above). However it cannot think whether the thoughts themselves are valid or not valid.
This is where the theorists fall into two camps. In his book God and the mindmachine John Puddefoot speaks of the monists and the dualists. Let's first talk about the dualists. These are people who say that mind and matter are two different and distinct things. Like the philosopher, Descartes, they say that mind is something separate and distinct from the physical works (res cogitans versus res extensia). Plato, of course, was one of the earliest recorded thinkers along this line. He believed that people were souls that were trapped in physical bodies. Within the Christian tradition we have many such neo-Platonic ideas (particularly those of the Gnostics). I have also noticed that forms of neo-Gnosticism are prevalent in many modern Charismatic Churches that emphasis the importance of the spirit over, and against, 'the flesh' (which is regarded as weak and sinfull). Anyway, the dualist argument holds that machines, which are matter, could never become truly conscious since they are a completely different 'stuff' to mind. They are physical and not spiritual.
The other camp are known as the monists. They are people who believe that everything is one and the same 'stuff' (see some of the papers that I have written on this website at http://www.spirituality.org.za which refers to such thinkers as the Quantum Physicist, David Bohm, and the monk Dom Bede Griffiths). There is a fare amount of current scientific theory that suggests that mind and matter come from the same common spiritual source. Of course as Christians we should hold to such a view if we take texts such as Ephesians 1:10 and Collosians 1:16-17 seriously. In short, the proponents of this view, whether Christian or from other faith traditions (particularly faith traditions that are not dualistic - such as Hinduism and Buddhism) hold to the notion that since all reality is of the same 'stuff' there is no reason why consciousness is not possible for something that is material. After all, we as human beings are matter and we are conscious. Thus, some theorists have applied variations of this view to suggest that machines (whether electronic, mechanical or biological) have the same capacity for consciousness, and thus transcendent or spiritual existence, as we do. Sure, this is a very strong view of Artificial Intelligence, it borders on manic optimism, but it is logical if one agrees with the underlying principles and thought processes.
So, it could be possible that machines could one day be better than human beings in all three spheres of intelligence, IQ, EQ and most importantly SQ. Popular films such 'The Matrix', 'Dark City' and of course the Stanley Kubrick classic '2001 a space odyssey' have all speculated to the outcome of such an eventuality. If evolution continues to operate, even at the level of consciousness, then it could be possible that humanity would become the inferior species. Thus, at worst we could face extinction, or at best be harnessed (ala The Matrix and Dark City) by machines for some menial task to sustain their life.
There is of course a far more optimistic approach to this possibility. This approach is based, in large, upon a variation of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's notion of evolutionary cosmology (I have written something on that which you can find on my website at http://www.spirituality.org.za). de Chardin suggested that the whole of the cosmos is in a process of complexification, this evolutionary move can be traced from the dawn of time right into the future. In essence he postulated that the cosmos is evolving from the less complex, gross or material levels of reality (biogenesis) to the more complex and subtle spiritual levels of reality (noogenesis) to a point of ultimate consciousness which he called the Christ Omega or Christ consciousness.
Within such a model it is possible to assume that any move in complexification is a positive evolutionary move. Thus, any increase in consciousness is of benefit to the cosmos as a whole. Of course this view is non dualist, in that it supposes that everything (persons and the rest of creation) are all of one and the same stuff. Hence, it may be plausible, if one supports a notion such as this, to suggest that even if humanity does become extinct, or the lesser species in creation, this may be part of the evolutionary plan of the cosmos as it moves to a higher plane of consciousness.
I'm not so sure about all this. However, the one thing that we cannot deny is that the boundary between technology and human persons is quickly diminishing. Not only are we becoming more dependent upon technology for our very survival (and here I am thinking both of life saving technologies such a biomedical, mechanical lifesaving devices such as pacemakers etc. and simple technologies like computer that control currencies, electricity, and other day to day functions).
The one other question that is prominent in my thoughts is the question of when the crossover takes place between machine and person. The movie 'Bicentennial man' clearly illustrates the difficulty of judging this from the machine side. It asks the question, because a machine looks like, behaves like and has emotions like a human person does that make it human? The question is also asked very pointedly by Ray Kruzweil in his book The Age of spiritual machines, when he asks how far must a human person go before he or she is classified as a machine. For example, a person who has a Cochlear implant to assist them to hear would be regarded as human. A person with artificial limbs would be regarded as human, even a person with an artificial heart and vital organs is regarded as human. However, if we were able to take this technology to its extreme (which of course is not yet possible, but could at some time be a possibility) and do something along the lines of what some theorists suggest could become possible, i.e. downloading our brain and all it's thoughts, ideas, memories, feelings etc. into a computer, would that mean that the computer becomes human? Or does it mean that even though 'I' may still be the conscious element of the machine, because I am not biological, or largely so, that I am no longer human? What then if one uses a computer that is biologically based, using enzymes to process the code of 1' and 0's, rather than a silicon based machine? Does this make a difference?
These are some of the thoughts that occupy my mind in the wee small hours of the morning. I suppose I won't mind too much, as long as I don't become a Windows box!! ;-)
In their superb book SQ Danah Zohar and Ian Marshall suggest that there are three types of intelligence. Firstly, there is IQ (Intellectual Quotient). This is the kind of intelligence that has to do with logic and reason. It applies certain rules in a very linear way to come to particular conclusions. In fact they suggest that this kind of intelligence operates within the human brain through a series of neural connections (neurons are the cells in the brain that fire the electric charges, or currents, that make the brain work) that are connected in a linear fashion. People who posses a high degree of this kind of intelligence can do calculations quickly, the operate well with rules, and are able to make fairly concrete, black and white, decisions. Of course computers can do this very well. They operate according to preset (or preprogrammed) rules e.g. if this happens then do that, if that happens then do this, if neither happens then do this or that (this process has become known as the Turing process, after it's designer Alan Turing). Because of the fact that this kind of intelligence works well with rules it did not take too long for computers to be programmed that could do things, which required an ability to operate within the constraints of certain rules, very well. For example the chess playing super-computer developed by IBM, Big Blue, which beat Gary Kasparov, the world champion chess master at Chess. Give a computer enough accurate programming and it will be able to adequately figure out what response makes the most sense. Add to that the processing power to perform these calculations with great speed and you have a machine that will outperform a human, within the ambit of it's programming, every time! However, change just one variable and the computer will be stumped. You see it can only operate within the limited confines of the program that has been fed into it.
The second kind of knowledge that Marshall and Zohar identify is EQ (Emotional Quotient). Of course, anybody who has read recent works in corporate culture and personal development should be familiar with this kind of the knowledge. This is a kind of knowledge that allows one flexibility to make creative and diverse choices within the confines of certain preset rules and conditions. Whereas linear, IQ, only allows one to make the choices of the program, EQ allows one to make choices within the scope of the program. So, if this isn't so, and that isn't so, it doesn't mean that I crash and stop working. Rather it means that I find another answer that works in order to solve the problem. This kind of knowledge is not linear, it is parallel. Within the brain it is suggested that humans have the capacity for this kind of knowledge because of extremely complex parallel neural connections. For example, I am learning to ride a bicycle and fall off. A logical thought process would say "you cannot ride a bicycle so you should not climb on one, since because you cannot ride, you will fall each time you climb on the bicycle". However, a complex, or parallel, thought would ask "are there any other instances that I can draw on, from other experiences that I have had, where I have learned how to do something that I could not do before? Yes there are, here is how I learnt these skills and abilities, so apply something similar from another context to this context [e.g. trial and error, perseverance, drawing on the knowledge and skill of others etc.] and I will learn how to do the thing that I cannot do know." Thus, even though it is logical and reasonable that I may fall off the bike again, because I cannot ride, my mind tells me that through processes that I already have some experience of I can learn how to ride. So I climb on the bike again. Computers are able to do this task well. They have two things in their favor. Firstly, they are able to store, or remember, things well. If information is stored it remains useable as long as it is made available to use, and of course as long as nothing goes wrong with the machine and wipes out all the data (a.k.a use a Mac, not Windows!) Neural networks and Artificially Intelligent (AI) machines that are programmed with the ability to alter their own code, or programming, in response to certain circumstances, are examples of this. For example, some companies use AI machines such as those mentioned perviously to manage trades on the stock market. A machine may be programmed to automatically sell all stocks, or buy on more stock, if the stock level reaches a certain level. However, the machine also stores 'experiences' of the outcomes of previous trades. For example, the machine may store that three out of four times when the stock price suddenly dropped below a level when it had been programmed to sell off all stocks, it suddenly rebounded to a much higher level than it held before the fall. Thus, because of this 'memory', the machine alters it's programming to say something along the lines of "don't immediately sell when the stock reaches this level, first wait a day to see whether it rebounds, if it does not then sell, if it does start to rebound then buy". You can see that it is issuing itself and instruction which may be contrary to the initial instruction that the human programmer has given. But, at the end of the day the computer's new, or changed, instruction makes more fiscal sense. Where as a human trader may panic or grow impatient and make the wrong decision, an AI machine should become more and more accurate in it's decisions to sell or buy, the more experience and data it has to store. Again, add to this process increased speed and you have a very accurate, highly efficient, machine that could outstrip a human being in EQ.
The third kind of knowledge that Zohar and Marshall speak about is an integrative knowledge, which they call SQ (Spiritual Quotient). This is a knowledge that works not only with the rules (like IQ does), and not only within the rules (like EQ does), it works the rules themselves! Let's use another hypothetical, and very simplistic, example. A person lives in an oppressive society. If such a person only had IQ, they would either have to obey, or not obey the rules of the country. If the person had EQ as well, they would have to try and find ways of living within the rules (finding exceptions and flaws in the rules which to exploit). However, a person with high SQ would seek to live outside of the rules, maybe even creating a new set of rules. IQ asks, "How can I do it?" EQ asks, "What can I do with it?" SQ asks, "Is this what I want?"
Now clearly, this kind of 'transcendent' knowledge is not yet a capability of the computers that I use (although, I must confess that my MAC does seem to defy many rules!) However, the question that one needs to ask is why is it not possible, and just because it is not possible today, does it mean that it is impossible? Think about it, just 150 years ago it was not possible to phone another person, to fly, to drive a car, and a myriad of other things which are commonplace today.
One of the strongest set of arguments that are given for why this kind of intelligence will not be possible for machines are arguments which are based upon variations of the understanding of human consciousness. Many argue that machines will not be able to do this kind of thinking since they are not conscious. They are not creative, they are created. Many argue that the reason why we can apply SQ within our lives is because we are conscious beings, we can think, but more importantly we can think about ourselves. In other words, I can ask myself, "how do I feel about this, can I do anything about it, do I have to live this way..." More importantly I have something which is known as 'metacogition', the ability to think about my thoughts. A computer can only 'think' this, or 'think' that. It may even be able to alter it's 'thoughts' in some way (as mentioned above). However it cannot think whether the thoughts themselves are valid or not valid.
This is where the theorists fall into two camps. In his book God and the mindmachine John Puddefoot speaks of the monists and the dualists. Let's first talk about the dualists. These are people who say that mind and matter are two different and distinct things. Like the philosopher, Descartes, they say that mind is something separate and distinct from the physical works (res cogitans versus res extensia). Plato, of course, was one of the earliest recorded thinkers along this line. He believed that people were souls that were trapped in physical bodies. Within the Christian tradition we have many such neo-Platonic ideas (particularly those of the Gnostics). I have also noticed that forms of neo-Gnosticism are prevalent in many modern Charismatic Churches that emphasis the importance of the spirit over, and against, 'the flesh' (which is regarded as weak and sinfull). Anyway, the dualist argument holds that machines, which are matter, could never become truly conscious since they are a completely different 'stuff' to mind. They are physical and not spiritual.
The other camp are known as the monists. They are people who believe that everything is one and the same 'stuff' (see some of the papers that I have written on this website at http://www.spirituality.org.za which refers to such thinkers as the Quantum Physicist, David Bohm, and the monk Dom Bede Griffiths). There is a fare amount of current scientific theory that suggests that mind and matter come from the same common spiritual source. Of course as Christians we should hold to such a view if we take texts such as Ephesians 1:10 and Collosians 1:16-17 seriously. In short, the proponents of this view, whether Christian or from other faith traditions (particularly faith traditions that are not dualistic - such as Hinduism and Buddhism) hold to the notion that since all reality is of the same 'stuff' there is no reason why consciousness is not possible for something that is material. After all, we as human beings are matter and we are conscious. Thus, some theorists have applied variations of this view to suggest that machines (whether electronic, mechanical or biological) have the same capacity for consciousness, and thus transcendent or spiritual existence, as we do. Sure, this is a very strong view of Artificial Intelligence, it borders on manic optimism, but it is logical if one agrees with the underlying principles and thought processes.
So, it could be possible that machines could one day be better than human beings in all three spheres of intelligence, IQ, EQ and most importantly SQ. Popular films such 'The Matrix', 'Dark City' and of course the Stanley Kubrick classic '2001 a space odyssey' have all speculated to the outcome of such an eventuality. If evolution continues to operate, even at the level of consciousness, then it could be possible that humanity would become the inferior species. Thus, at worst we could face extinction, or at best be harnessed (ala The Matrix and Dark City) by machines for some menial task to sustain their life.
There is of course a far more optimistic approach to this possibility. This approach is based, in large, upon a variation of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's notion of evolutionary cosmology (I have written something on that which you can find on my website at http://www.spirituality.org.za). de Chardin suggested that the whole of the cosmos is in a process of complexification, this evolutionary move can be traced from the dawn of time right into the future. In essence he postulated that the cosmos is evolving from the less complex, gross or material levels of reality (biogenesis) to the more complex and subtle spiritual levels of reality (noogenesis) to a point of ultimate consciousness which he called the Christ Omega or Christ consciousness.
Within such a model it is possible to assume that any move in complexification is a positive evolutionary move. Thus, any increase in consciousness is of benefit to the cosmos as a whole. Of course this view is non dualist, in that it supposes that everything (persons and the rest of creation) are all of one and the same stuff. Hence, it may be plausible, if one supports a notion such as this, to suggest that even if humanity does become extinct, or the lesser species in creation, this may be part of the evolutionary plan of the cosmos as it moves to a higher plane of consciousness.
I'm not so sure about all this. However, the one thing that we cannot deny is that the boundary between technology and human persons is quickly diminishing. Not only are we becoming more dependent upon technology for our very survival (and here I am thinking both of life saving technologies such a biomedical, mechanical lifesaving devices such as pacemakers etc. and simple technologies like computer that control currencies, electricity, and other day to day functions).
The one other question that is prominent in my thoughts is the question of when the crossover takes place between machine and person. The movie 'Bicentennial man' clearly illustrates the difficulty of judging this from the machine side. It asks the question, because a machine looks like, behaves like and has emotions like a human person does that make it human? The question is also asked very pointedly by Ray Kruzweil in his book The Age of spiritual machines, when he asks how far must a human person go before he or she is classified as a machine. For example, a person who has a Cochlear implant to assist them to hear would be regarded as human. A person with artificial limbs would be regarded as human, even a person with an artificial heart and vital organs is regarded as human. However, if we were able to take this technology to its extreme (which of course is not yet possible, but could at some time be a possibility) and do something along the lines of what some theorists suggest could become possible, i.e. downloading our brain and all it's thoughts, ideas, memories, feelings etc. into a computer, would that mean that the computer becomes human? Or does it mean that even though 'I' may still be the conscious element of the machine, because I am not biological, or largely so, that I am no longer human? What then if one uses a computer that is biologically based, using enzymes to process the code of 1' and 0's, rather than a silicon based machine? Does this make a difference?
These are some of the thoughts that occupy my mind in the wee small hours of the morning. I suppose I won't mind too much, as long as I don't become a Windows box!! ;-)
Posted at 05:44 PM Read More
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jun 30, 2005 11:33 AM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jun 30, 2005 11:33 AM