St. Petersburg, 2012
This text is not about the philosophy of the internet or the philosophy of the internet itself – philosophy and the internet are strictly separated: the first part of the text is dedicated to philosophy, while the second part focuses on the internet. The concept of 'evolution' serves as a linking axis between the two parts: the discussion will revolve around the philosophy of evolution and the evolution of the internet. First, it will be demonstrated how philosophy – specifically, the philosophy of global evolutionism armed with the concept of 'singularity' – inevitably leads us to the idea that the internet is a prototype of the future post-societal evolutionary system; then, the internet itself, or rather the logic of its development, will affirm the right of philosophy to discuss what might seem like purely technological topics.
Technological Singularity
The term 'singularity,' with the epithet 'technological,' was introduced by mathematician and writer Vernor Vinge to denote a particular point on the timeline of civilization's development. By extrapolating the well-known Moore's Law, which states that the number of elements in computer processors doubles every 18 months, he posited that around the year 2025 (give or take 10 years), computer chips would match the computational power of the human brain (of course, purely formally – in the assumed number of operations). Vinge stated that beyond this threshold awaits something inhuman, an artificial superintelligence, and we should consider carefully whether we can (and should) prevent this calamity.
Evolutionary Planetary Singularity
The second wave of interest in the singularity problem emerged after a few scientists (Panov, Kurzweil, Snuks) conducted a numerical analysis of the phenomenon of accelerating evolution, specifically the shortening of periods between evolutionary crises, or, one might say, 'revolutions' in Earth's history. These revolutions include the oxygen catastrophe and the associated emergence of nuclear cells (eukaryotes); the Cambrian explosion – the rapid, nearly instantaneous formation of diverse multicellular species, including vertebrates, according to paleontological measures; the moments of the emergence and extinction of dinosaurs; the birth of hominids; the Neolithic and urban revolutions; the beginning of the Middle Ages; industrial and informational revolutions; the collapse of the bipolar imperialist system (the disintegration of the USSR). It has been shown that the aforementioned and many other revolutionary moments in the history of our planet fit into a certain pattern-formula, having a singular solution around the year 2027. In this case, unlike the hypothetical assumption of Vinge, we are dealing with 'singularity' in the traditional mathematical sense – the number of crises at this point, according to the empirically derived formula, becomes infinite, and the intervals between them tend toward zero, meaning the solution of the equation becomes indeterminate.
It is clear that the reference to the point of evolutionary singularity hints at something more significant than the mundane growth of computer performance – we understand that we are on the brink of a major event in the planet's history.
Political, cultural, economic singularities as factors of absolute crisis of civilization
The specifics of the upcoming historical period (the next 10-20 years) is also indicated by the analysis of economic, political, cultural, and scientific spheres of society (conducted by me in my work ''): the prolongation of existing developmental trends in the conditions of scientific and technological progress inevitably leads to 'singular' situations.
The modern financial and economic system is essentially a tool for reconciling the temporally and spatially dispersed production and consumption of goods. Analyzing the trends in the development of network communication and production automation, one can conclude that over time, each act of consumption will be closely aligned with the act of production, undoubtedly eliminating the very need for the existing financial and economic system. In other words, modern information technologies are approaching a level of development where the production of a specific individual product will be determined not by the statistical factors of market consumption, but by the order of a specific consumer. This will also be feasible as the systematic reduction of labor time costs in producing a unit product will eventually lead to a situation where minimal effort—reduced to the act of ordering—will be required for its production. Furthermore, due to technological progress, the primary commodity is no longer the technical device itself, but its functionality—a program. Consequently, the development of information technologies points to both the inevitability of an absolute crisis in the modern economic system in the future and the possibility of a precise technological provision for a new form of aligning production and consumption. This transitional moment in social history can reasonably be termed an economic singularity.
Insights into the approaching political singularity can be gleaned from analyzing the relationship between two temporally separated management acts: the making of a socially significant decision and the evaluation of its outcomes – these tend to converge. This is primarily due to the fact that, on one hand, for purely production and technological reasons, the time span between making socially significant decisions and obtaining results is steadily decreasing: from centuries-decades in the past to years-months-days in the modern world. On the other hand, with the development of networked information technologies, the main issue in management will not be the appointment of the decision-maker but the assessment of the effectiveness of the result. This means we inevitably arrive at a situation where the opportunity to make a decision is available to anyone who desires it, and the assessment of the decision's outcome does not require any special political mechanisms (such as voting) and occurs automatically.
Alongside technological, economic, and political singularities, we can also distinctly talk about a cultural singularity: the transition from the total priority of successively changing artistic styles (with decreasing periods of their flourishing) to the parallel, simultaneous existence of all possible varieties of cultural forms, fostering freedom of individual creativity and individual consumption of the products of that creativity.
In science and philosophy, there is a noticeable shift in the meaning and purpose of knowledge from creating formal logical systems (theories) to the growth of integral individual understanding, leading to the formulation of what is known as post-scientific common sense, or a post-singularity worldview.
Singularity as the culmination of an evolutionary period
Traditionally, the discussion about singularity—both technological singularity, associated with concerns about human subjugation by artificial intelligence, and planetary singularity, derived from the analysis of ecological and civilizational crises—is framed in terms of catastrophe. However, from a socio-evolutionary perspective, the forthcoming singularity should not be viewed as the end of the world. It is more logical to assume that we are dealing with an important, interesting, but not unique event in the history of the planet—a transition to a new evolutionary level. That is, a series of singular solutions arising from the extrapolation of trends in the development of the planet, society, and digital technology indicates the completion of another (societal) evolutionary stage in the planet's global history and the beginning of a new post-societal one. In other words, we are facing a historical event comparable in significance to the transitions from proto-biological evolution to biological (around 4 billion years ago) and from biological evolution to social evolution (around 2.5 million years ago).
During the mentioned transitional periods, singular solutions were also observed. Thus, when transitioning from the proto-biological stage of evolution to the biological one, the sequence of random syntheses of new organic polymers was replaced by a continuous, regular process of their reproduction, which can be termed as the "singularity of synthesis." The transition to the societal stage was accompanied by the "singularity of adaptations": a series of biological adaptations grew into a continuous process of producing and using adaptive devices, that is, items that allow for almost instantaneous adaptation to any changes in the environment (it got cold—you put on a fur coat; it started to rain—you opened an umbrella). Singular trends indicating the completion of the societal The stage of evolution can be interpreted as the “singularity of intellectual innovations.” In fact, in recent decades, we have observed this singularity as the transformation of a chain of individual discoveries and inventions, previously separated by significant time gaps, into a continuous flow of scientific and technological innovations. This means that the transition to the post-societal stage will manifest as a change from the sequential appearance of creative innovations (discoveries, inventions) to their continuous generation.
In this sense, to some extent, we can speak about the formation (precisely formation, not creation) of artificial intelligence. Just as societal production and the use of adaptive devices can be termed as “artificial life,” life itself can be viewed from the perspective of continuous reproduction of organic synthesis as “artificial synthesis.” In general, every evolutionary transition is linked to ensuring the functioning of the basic processes of the previous evolutionary level in new, non-specific ways. Life is a non-chemical means of reproducing chemical synthesis; intelligence is a non-biological means of ensuring life. Continuing this logic, it can be said that the post-societal system will be an “unintelligent” means of supporting human intellectual activity. Not in the sense of “foolish,” but simply in form, having no relation to human rational activity.
Based on the proposed evolutionary-hierarchical logic, one can speculate about the post-societal future of humans (elements of the socio-system). Just as bioprocesses did not replace chemical reactions, but rather represented a complex sequence of them, and the functioning of society did not exclude the biological (living) essence of humanity—so too will the post-societal system not only fail to replace human intelligence but will also not surpass it. The post-societal system will function ON the basis of human intelligence and FOR the purpose of supporting its activity.
Using the method of global forecasting through the analysis of patterns of transitions to new evolutionary systems (biological, societal), we can identify some principles of the upcoming transition to post-societal evolution. (1) The preservation and stability of the preceding system during the formation of the new one – humanity will retain the core principles of its social organization after the evolution transitions to a new stage. (2) The non-catastrophic nature of the transition to the post-societal system – the transition will manifest not in the destruction of the structures of the current evolutionary system, but in the establishment of a new level. (3) The absolute inclusion of elements from the previous evolutionary system in the functioning of the subsequent one – individuals will ensure a continuous process of creativity within the post-societal system, maintaining their social structure. (4) The impossibility of formulating the principles of the new evolutionary system in the terms of its predecessors – we do not possess and will not possess either the language or the concepts to describe the post-societal system.
Post-Societal System and Information Network
All described variants of singularity, indicating the forthcoming evolutionary transition, are connected in one way or another to scientific and technical progress, specifically to the development of information networks. Vinge's technological singularity directly hints at the creation of artificial intelligence, a supermind capable of encompassing all spheres of human activity. The graph that describes the acceleration of planetary evolution reaches a singular point when the frequency of revolutionary changes, the rate of innovation emergence, presumably becomes infinite, which can logically be linked to a breakthrough in networking technologies. Economic and political singularities – the convergence of production and consumption acts, the alignment of decision-making moments and the assessment of their outcomes – are also direct consequences of the development of the information industry.
The analysis of previous evolutionary transitions suggests that a post-societal system must be realized on the fundamental elements of society – individual minds united by non-societal (non-production) relationships. That is, just as life is something necessary to ensure chemical synthesis through non-chemical methods (by means of reproduction), and the mind is something necessary to ensure the reproduction of life through non-biological methods (in production), a post-societal system should be conceived as something necessary to ensure rational production through non-societal methods. The prototype of such a system in the modern world undoubtedly appears to be the global information network. However, being merely a prototype, it must undergo several crises to transform into something self-sufficient, often referred to as the semantic web, in order to break through the singularity point.
Many-Worlds Theory of Truth
To discuss possible principles for organizing a post-societal system and transforming modern information networks, in addition to evolutionary considerations, it is necessary to establish some philosophical and logical foundations, particularly concerning the relationship between ontology and logical truth.
In contemporary philosophy, there are several competing theories of truth: correspondent, authoritarian, pragmatic, conventional, coherent, and some others, including deflationary, which denies the very necessity of the concept of 'truth'. This situation is difficult to envision as resolvable, potentially culminating in the victory of one theory. Rather, we should arrive at an understanding of the principle of the relativity of truth, which can be formulated as follows: the truth of a proposition can only be asserted within one of many more or less closed systems, which in the article "" I proposed to call logical worldsIt is clear to all of us that to assert the truth of a statement we make, which reflects a certain state of affairs in our personal reality, in our own ontology, there is no need to refer to any theory of truth: a statement is true simply by virtue of being embedded in our ontology, in our logical world. It is understood that there are also trans-individual logical worlds, generalized ontologies of people united by specific activities—scientific, religious, artistic, etc. And it is evident that in each of these logical worlds, the truth of statements is verified in a special way—by the method of their inclusion in specific activities. It is the specificity of the activities within a certain ontology that defines the set of methods for fixing and generating true statements: in some worlds, the authoritarian method prevails (in religion), in others the coherent one (in science), and in still others the conventional one (in ethics and politics).
Therefore, if we do not want to limit the semantic network to merely describing a single sphere (say, physical reality), we must start from the premise that there cannot be a single logic or a single principle of truth within it—the network must be built on the principle of equality of intersecting but fundamentally irreducible logical worlds, reflecting the multitude of all conceivable activities.
Ontologies of activity
And here we transition from the philosophy of evolution to the evolution of the internet, from hypothetical singularities to practical problems of the semantic web.
The main problems of constructing a semantic network are largely associated with the cultivation by its designers of a naturalistic, scientistic philosophy, that is, the attempts to create a singularly correct ontology that reflects the so-called objective reality. It is clear that the truth of statements in this ontology must be determined according to uniform rules, according to a universal theory of truth (which is most often understood as the correspondence theory, since it concerns the correspondence of statements to some 'objective reality').
Here we need to ask the question: what should ontology describe, what is the 'objective reality' it must correspond to? An indefinite set of objects, referred to as the world, or a specific activity within a finite set of objects? What interests us: reality in general or fixed relationships of events and objects in the sequence of actions aimed at achieving specific outcomes? In answering these questions, we must conclude that ontology makes sense only as finite and solely as an ontology of activity (actions). Therefore, it is meaningless to speak of a single ontology: as many activities exist, so do ontologies. Ontology should not be invented – it should be revealed through the formalization of the activity itself.
Of course, it is clear that when it comes to the ontology of geographic objects, the ontology of navigation, it will be the same for all activities that are not oriented towards changing the landscape. However, when we turn to areas where objects do not have a fixed connection to spatial-temporal coordinates, and do not relate to physical reality, ontologies proliferate without limitations: we can prepare a dish, build a house, create a training methodology, write a political party program, connect words in a poem in an infinite number of ways, and each way is a separate ontology. In this understanding of ontologies (as methods of fixing specific activities), they can and should only be created within this very activity. Certainly, provided that we are talking about activities directly performed on or recorded by the computer. Soon, there will be no others left; the ones that will not be 'digitized' should not particularly interest us.
Ontology as the primary outcome of activity
Any activity consists of individual operations that establish connections between objects in a fixed subject area. The actor (hereafter referred to as the user) repeatedly performs a fairly standard set of operations—whether writing a scientific article, filling a table with data, or creating a work schedule—that ultimately lead to achieving a fixed result. In this result, the user sees the meaning of their activity. However, when viewed from a not locally utilitarian but rather systematically global perspective, the main value of any professional’s work lies not in the article itself but in the method of its creation, in the ontology of the activity. Therefore, the second key principle of the semantic network (after the conclusion that there should be an unlimited number of ontologies; as many activities, so many ontologies) must be the thesis: the meaning of any activity lies not in the final product but in the ontology established during its execution.
Of course, the product itself, say, an article, contains within it an ontology—it is essentially the ontology embodied in text; however, in such a fixed form, the product is very difficult to subject to ontological analysis. It is precisely on this stone—the fixed final product of the activity—that the semantic approach often falters. However, it should be clear that extracting the semantics (ontology) of the text is possible only if one already possesses the ontology of this specific text. Understanding a text with a slightly altered ontology (with modified terminology or conceptual framework) is challenging even for a human, let alone for a program. Nevertheless, as is clear from the proposed approach, analyzing the semantics of the text is unnecessary: if our task is to identify a certain ontology, there is no need to analyze the fixed product; we must look directly at the activity itself through which it emerged.
Ontological parser
Essentially, this means creating a software environment that serves both as a working tool for professional users and as an ontological parser that records all their actions. Users are not required to do more than simply work: drafting text, editing it, researching sources, highlighting quotes, placing them in the appropriate sections, making footnotes and comments, organizing the index and thesaurus, etc. The maximum additional task is to mark new terms and link them to the ontology via the context menu. Although any professional would gladly accept this extra 'burden'. Thus, the task is quite specific: a tool must be created for professionals in any field that they cannot refuse., a tool that not only allows all standard operations related to handling various information (collection, processing, configuration) but also automatically formalizes activities, constructs the ontology of that activity, and, as experience accumulates, corrects it.
The universe of objects and cluster ontologies.
It is clear that the described approach to building a semantic network will only be truly effective if the third principle is applied: the software compatibility of all created ontologies, ensuring their systemic interconnection. Undoubtedly, each user, each professional creates their own ontology and works within that environment, but the compatibility of individual ontologies in terms of data and organizational ideology will enable the creation of a unified universe of objects (data).
Automatic comparison of individual ontologies will allow for the identification of their intersections, thus creating thematic cluster ontologies — hierarchically organized non-individual structures of objects. The interaction of individual ontologies with cluster ontologies will significantly simplify the user's activity, guiding and correcting it.
The uniqueness of objects.
A fundamental requirement of a semantic network must be ensuring the uniqueness of objects, without which it is impossible to realize the connectivity of individual ontologies. For example, any text must exist in the system as a unique instance – then every reference to it, every citation will be recorded: the user can trace the inclusion of the text and its fragments in various clusters or personal ontologies. It is clear that by 'unique instance', we mean the assignment of a unique identifier to the object, irrespective of its location. That is, the principle of the finiteness of unique objects must be implemented while allowing for their multiplicity and infiniteness in organization within ontologies.
User-Centricity
A crucial consequence of organizing the semantic network according to the proposed scheme will be the rejection of site-centricity – the site-oriented structure of the internet. The emergence and presence of a certain object on the network means solely the assignment of a unique identifier to it and its inclusion in at least one ontology (say, the individual ontology of the user who placed the object). An object, for example, text, should not have any address on the Web – it is not tied to a site or a page. The only way to access the text is to display it in the user's browser after locating it within an ontology (either as a standalone object or via a reference or citation). The network becomes exclusively user-centric: before and beyond the user's connection, we have only a universe of objects and a multitude of cluster ontologies built on this universe, and only after connecting does the configuration of the universe occur concerning the structure of the user's ontology – certainly, with the ability to freely switch 'points of view', transitioning to positions of other, neighboring, or distant ontologies. The primary function of the browser becomes not displaying content but connecting to ontologies (clusters) and navigating within them.
Services and products in such a network will appear as individual objects, initially recorded in the ontologies of their owners. If a user's activities indicate a need for a certain object, and it exists in the system, it will be automatically suggested. (In essence, this is how contextual advertising works today – if you've searched for something, you won't be left without suggestions.) On the other hand, the need for some new object (service, product) can be identified through the analysis of clustered ontologies.
Naturally, in a user-centric network, the proposed object will be presented in the user's browser as an embedded widget. However, to view all offerings (all products from the manufacturer or all texts from the author), the user must switch to the supplier's ontology, where all objects available to external users are systematically displayed. It is also clear that the network immediately provides the opportunity to explore the ontologies of the manufacturers in the cluster, as well as, what is most interesting and important, information about the behavior of other users in this cluster.
Conclusion
Thus, the informational network of the future is envisioned as a universe of unique objects with individual ontologies built upon them, clustered into grouped ontologies. An object is defined and available in the network for the user only as recorded in one or multiple ontologies. Ontologies are primarily formed automatically by parsing user activities. Access to the network is organized as the user's existence/activity in their own ontology, with the possibility of expansion and transition to other ontologies. And most likely, the described system can no longer be called a network – we are dealing with a kind of virtual world, with a universe only partially represented to users in the form of their individual ontology – a private virtual reality.
*
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that neither the philosophical nor the technical aspect of the impending singularity relates to the so-called problem of artificial intelligence. Solving specific applied tasks will never lead to the creation of something that could be fully termed intelligence. And the new element that will constitute the essence of functioning at the next evolutionary level will no longer be intelligence – neither artificial nor natural. Rather, it would be more accurate to say that it will be intelligence to the extent that we can understand it with our human intelligence.
When creating local information systems, they should only be regarded as technical devices, without contemplating philosophical, psychological, and especially ethical-aesthetic and globally catastrophic issues. Although undoubtedly both humanists and technicians will do so, their reflections will neither accelerate nor decelerate the inevitable course of solving purely technical problems. Philosophical understanding of both the entire evolutionary movement of the World and the content of the upcoming hierarchical transition will arrive with the transition itself.
The transition itself will be technological. However, it will not occur as a result of a singular brilliant solution, but rather from a combination of solutions, surpassing a critical mass. Intelligence will manifest itself in 'hardware'. But not singular intelligence, nor in a specific device. And it will no longer be intelligence.
P.S. Attempt to implement the project (variant after initial testing).
Literature
1. Vernor Vinge. The Technological Singularity,
2. A. D. Panov. Completion of the Planetary Cycle of Evolution? Philosophical Sciences, No. 3-4: 42-49; 31-50, 2005.
3. Boldachev A.V. . St. Petersburg, 2008.
4. Boldachev A.V. . St. Petersburg, 2008.
5. Boldachev A.V. Innovations. , St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg University, 2007. — 256 pp.
Source: habr.com
