1. Introduction. Transdisciplinarity and Information Science and Philosophy

The emergence of the concept of transdisciplinarity, and the field of transdisciplinary studies has come in response not only to the proliferation of disciplines and the need to manage their practical applications, but to the post-modernist crisis in the related philosophies of science and knowledge in general. Transdisciplinarity is not a new discipline but a philosophical movement which, through its non-standard logic of human experience and human intelligence, can provide a new approach to on-going problems and paradoxes of human thought, science and philosophy.

In parallel to the development of transdisciplinarity, the last decade has also seen major developments not only in the information and communications technologies, but in the science and philosophy of information. As I will show, recent theories of information science and philosophy have a close relation to transdisciplinarity.

2. The Philosophy of Information as Metaphilosophy

Starting in 1980 from philosophical considerations of the essence of information, Wu Kun, working at the Jiaotong University in Xi’an, China, developed a Philosophy of Information (PI) that included an informational ontology, epistemology and theory of social evolution. For Wu, information is a critical component of all disciplines, beyond the formal content specific to each. A small fraction of this work became available in English in 2010 in a monograph presented at an International Conference on the Foundations of Information Science in Xi’An (“The Basic Theory of the Philosophy of Information” (BTPI) [1]).

In the conception of Wu Kun, the presence of information throughout existence converts the philosophy of information to a metaphilosophy. The comprehensive nature of such a metaphilosophy establishes a role of those involved in the social and ethical aspects of informational activities. The metaphilosophy of information requires attention to the informational aspects of complex processes as a methodological necessity, in a process that Wu calls Informational Thinking. Informational Thinking (IT), as conceived of by Wu, refers to a way of grasping and describing the essential characteristics and attributes of things by reference to the structure and dynamics of the information involved in their evolution, from their historical origins to future possibilities and probabilities. A summary of his views in English can be found in [2]. At the heart of Wu’s theory is a necessarily alternative worldview that emphasizes its relational and process aspects. Information and informational processes, in the conception of Wu Kun, are transdisciplinary and can also be seen to evolve according to the principles of Logic in Reality (see below). This work was completely independent of the concomitant development of a Philosophy of Information by Luciano Floridi [3], working at the University of Hertfordshire in the U.K. The differences in the two approaches are philosophical: Floridi’s theory is basically epistemological, seeing the operation of information from the perspective of the human observer-reasoner.

The philosophy of information has thus transcended its origins in information and computation science and technology. We move from a quantitative, “technological” conception of information to what may fairly be called a transdisciplinary one. It is not only that the philosophy and metaphilosophy of information refer to the standard disciplines that makes them transdisciplinary but that they contain, like transdisciplinarity in general, what lies in, between and beyond the different conceptions of information – an attitude, a stance and an ethics. The 2^nd International Conference on the Philosophy of Information is taking place as a major Stream within this Summit.

3. The Logic of Transdisciplinarity

I consider that a more scientific description of the grounding of ethical human ethical behavior is not just an intellectual exercise but a moral obligation. Two related tools now available for this task are thus transdisciplinarity and informational science and philosophy or metaphilosophy as indicated above. A necessary component of both is the non-standard logic of transdisciplinarity originally proposed by Lupasco [4] and up-dated by me and made available to English-language readers as Logic in Reality (LIR) [5].

In the acceptation of Basarab Nicolescu [6], the three ‘pillars’ of transdisciplinarity are complexity, levels of reality and this logic of the included middle or third. In previous papers, I have also discussed in some detail my interpretation of the Lupasco system as a non-truth-functional, non-linguistic extension of logic to real systems. A key axiom defines the energetic logical relations between the opposing or contradictory elements of real processes.

I emphasize that both approaches include the emergence of new states through the principle of dynamic opposition, the dialectic and interactive relation between the dual elements of all real processes. The difference, very briefly, is the following: Nicolescu looks ‘upward’ toward the transcendental aspects of existence, extending the Lupasco logic to cover the relations between epistemological Subjects and Objects, designated as Transdisciplinary, at higher levels of cognitive reality. LIR focuses on the explication of the evolution of complex real systems, their ontological subjects and objects, and the information processes directly associated with them. This point is critical for the discussion of transdisciplinarity in relation to information science.

My view of transdisciplinarity and its relation to a logic is similar to the discussion by Roderick Lawrence in his paper “Transgression of Disciplinary Frontiers” [7]. In particular, he cites the statement by Thierry Ramadier that “the specificity of transdisciplinarity consists in simultaneously integrating two contradictory movements (emphasis mine) of disciplinary logic, that is, the fragmentation of knowledge and the relation between the “fragments”, in order to do research into the connections possible between the (forms of) knowledge produced”. These are the kinds of movements, including their connections to the fundamental physics of our world, which Logic in Reality can describe.

4. Applications in the Real World

4.1 The Global Sustainable Information Society

The concept of Wolfgang Hofkirchner and his associates in Salzburg and (now) Vienna is that the study of the emerging theory of the information society is transdisciplinary. In particular the new field of research in the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and Society is a transdiscipline, as proposed in 2007 [8]. The key aspects of a transdiscipline for Hofkirchner et al. are its scientific status and its potential societal function. As regards the scientific status of the field, a transdiscipline is not a mere combination of existing disciplines but a transgression of their traditional borders and their transformation into something new with its own identity. Its terminology should overarch the terminologies of the single disciplines it departs from. A transdiscipline therefore is expected to bridge several gaps: the gap between the two cultures of (natural) science and social and human sciences as well as the gap between specialists and generalists as well as the gap between applied research and basic research. It is the result of a process that departs from mono- or multidisciplinarity and transcends interdisciplinarity.

In this view, it is the role of a transdisciplinary information science [8] to help in bringing about a Global Sustainable Information Society (GSIS) [9]. A GSIS can be defined in a normative way and technology (the ICTs) can be assessed according to how they facilitate society to achieve the GSIS. This is in sharp contrast to either undertaking research solely for reasons of curiosity or being instrumental to whatever is demanded by parts of society. In contrast to the ideology of value-free science, the normative criteria are laid down to which ICTs as well as society should be subject.

Hofkirchner argues that transdisciplinary features must inhere to the newly established field of ICTs-and-Society research if it is to 1) be critical of current socio-economic developments; 2) aim for the establishment of a GSIS; 3) tackle the complex problems of society and technology; and 4) use social-scientific and technological, empirical and theoretical methods in a proper way. Logic in Reality (LIR) supports this transdisciplinary view as it involves integrative ICT assessment and design approaches that incorporate a normative view of technology and society. There is no place in LIR for value-free science; the practitioner is always involved logically with the material substrate of his science, whose dynamics and properties he partly shares. As clearly stated by Hofkirchner et al., a normative approach requires “doing justice” to what is normative and factual, actual and potential. The term “transdiscipline” should be adopted in discussions of transdisciplinarity where it brings out better the issues under discussion. Whether the use of the term conflicts with a definition of transdisciplinarity which is also supposed to be beyond all disciplines is for me a secondary question, perhaps best answered pragmatically by reference to transdisciplinary openness itself.

4.2 The Ethical Dimension and the Environment

As discussed above, the link between informational philosophy and transdisciplinarity is the logic of and in reality (LIR), which is, also, the logic of transdisciplinarity. A basic tenet of this logic is a respect for the other, as stated by Nicolescu in his Manifesto [10]. The other in the broadest sense is not only female vs. male in a male-dominated society and racial and ethic minorities in general but human and non-human, that is, the total physical environment. In the LIR view of ethical behavior, the same metaphysical but also physical principle of dynamic opposition provides the basis for both 1) a generally applicable antagonistic psychological typology of responsible and irresponsible behavior; and 2) the origin of environmental responsibility and in fact moral responsibility in general. Morality in the generally accepted sense of responsibility toward others as well as oneself and the environment is thus logically and ontologically grounded, as are other universal aspects of human behavior and not dependent on transcendental assumptions that serve only to weaken its purport.

Strategies to strengthen awareness of and positive response to environmental threats should thus emphasize common humanity and a common psychological structure across cultures as well as enlightened self-interest. This area is being currently addressed by Zong-Rong Li and his associates [11]. Li has suggested the term ‘Informationalism’ to capture the controlling function of informational existence in which information science and material science explain individual and social phenomena. This approach permits, among other things, a reformulation and interpretation of psychology and its history into a specifically informational psychology.

4.3 Toward a New Democratic System

In the applications suggested by Wu Kun for his theory and philosophy of information, no specific comprehensive economic-political model is suggested, but he does call for a “new democratic system” that would permit maximization of the benefits from the new ICTs. A proper model would include an informational perspective for studying social phenomena, a social information theory based on his concept of the essence of information in a social evolutionary context.

As shown in Wu [1], forms of human civilization can be differentiated according to their different ways of creating, processing, dissemination and development of information. Only human beings can create information. Human production and productivity are essentially only information production and information productivity, and models of the economy and market activity are informational models. The expanded social role of information should be accompanied by the development of networks for its dissemination resulting in the (slow) atrophy of centralized national and global hegemony. However, any theory or model of social change cannot ignore (see my interpretation of the Lupasco logic above) the inevitable fundamental embodiment of contrary, anti-social and anti-civilizational forces in the society. These will always make the struggle for the common good and implementation of human values a struggle indeed.

5. Summary and Conclusions

In summary, one of the most important aspects of the concept of transdisciplinarity is its relation to the field of information and information science. The role and function of the Logic in Reality as the logic of transdisciplinarity is to support, philosophically and scientifically, the transdisciplinary approach or attitude toward current issues in philosophy and science and to provide new insights into the qualitative, ethical aspects of the informational evolution of science and society. I believe that a new way of looking at thought and the traditional disciplines can make a contribution to the establishment of an informational commons.

Following Wu Kun, I have shown that the philosophy of information is a metaphilosophy that also makes possible a new conception of nature, understanding, society and values and actively promotes the development of human information society, and a more civilized and democratic social polity, economic and cultural new order. Wu’s informational philosophy and LIR constitute part of a new transdisciplinary paradigm, in which information science has a central role in the transformation of society.

References

1. Wu, K. 2010. The Basic Theory of Philosophy of Information. Paper, 4th International Conference on the Foundations of Information Science, August, 2010, Beijing.
2. Brenner, J. E. 2010. Wu Kun and the Metaphilosophy of Information. International Journal “Information Theories and Applications”, 18(2), 103-128.
3. Floridi L. 2010. The Philosophy of Information. Oxford University Press: Oxford, U.K.
4. Lupasco S. 1987. Le principe d’antagonisme et la logique de l’énergie. Paris : Editions du Rocher.(Originally published in Paris: Éditions Hermann, 1951).
5. Brenner, J. E. 2008. Logic in Reality. Dordrecht: Springer.
6. Nicolescu B. 2011. Methodology of Transdisciplinarity-Levels of Reality, Logic of the Included Middle and Complexity. In Transdisciplinarity: Bridging Natural Science, Social Science, Humanities & Engineering, A. Ertas (ed.). www.theatlas.org/atlas-books.pdf , 22-45.
7. Lawrence R.J. 2008 Transgresser les Frontières Disciplinaires. In Le Défi de l’Inter- et Transdisciplinarité, F. Darbellay, T. Paulsen (Eds.). Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 223-238.
8. Hofkirchner, W., Fuchs, C., Raffl, C., Schafranek, M., Sandoval, M. & Bichler, R. 2007. ICTs and Society: The Salzburg Approach. University of Salzburg Research Paper No. 3, December. Salzburg: ICT&S Center.
9. Hofkirchner, W. 2013. Emergent Information; A Unified Theory of Information Framework. World Scientific Publishing Company: Singapore.
10. Nicolescu B. 2002. Manifesto of Transdisciplinarity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
11. Li, Z.-R. 2013. The Worldview and Methodology of Information Science. In International Conference on Philosophy of Information, October 18 -21, 2013 (ed. Z.-R. Li et al.), Xi’an, China.

Introduction

For this paper Mobile Geolocation will be used to describe the determination of the spatial location of a personal mobile communications device from the signals it emits.   The signals may be analyzed either in the device or in other locations.   The phrase ”location based services” is often used to describe the processes used for geolocation. Geolocation may involve both retrieving identification and locational data generated by the mobile device, or interpretation of the signal in relation to receiving stations.

Mobile Geolocation has its roots in the work of Robert Watson-Watt and High Frequency Direction Finding. HF/DF was developed originally in the 1920s to track lightning and later adapted to track German submarines and aircraft transmissions by virtually instantaneous triangulation using a small antenna and sophisticated electronics.   However such technology did not automatically give the identity of the source.

GPS systems developed in the 1980s allowed the receiver to calculate its position by analysis of transmissions from special satellites. However GPs receivers did not routinely broadcast their location.

Cellular telephones developed in the 19990s to create portable communication devices.   These devices “identified themselves” to the cellular towers at all times when they were on so they could receive communications.

By the year 2000 WIFI technologies were spreading throughout the world. WIFI technologies gave the increasingly smaller mobile computers massive increases in internet connectivity. Since 2000 the changes have largely been in improved higher speed, smaller more capable mobile devices and greater penetration in the marketplace.  

However the key change has been the integration of technologies. Phones, computers GPS’s and cameras are now in a hand held package. A mobile phone is now a camera, when it takes a picture its GPS data may be engrafted to the picture.   Signal routing from a WIFI system can routinely include the location of the WIFI hotspot. Telephones can be located at any time and linked to the WIFI internet activity. The capability of processing these signals has also exploded. (1)

The consumer is essentially faced with a stark choice. Disconnect from the entire connected world, or expose precise geolocation information to a vast number of potentially hostile parties.

Many different kinds of parties want access to the geolocation information. Rental car companies can track their fleets, police officers can track suspects, parents can track children, spouses can track one another. stores can track customers and security services can track dissidents.

Courts are increasingly asked to resolve very complex issues involving these technologies. Different legal systems and different legal traditions approach the problem in very different ways.   The technology may be worldwide but the legal controls are supposedly local. The problem of course is that as long as communication networks are international there may be little or nothing even a national government can do. Unless, like the individual it cuts itself off from the global community.

This paper cannot and does not present any “solution” to these problems. What it suggests is an analytical framework suitable to the problem.   The framework is called a Technico-legal revolution.(2) A technico-legal revolution occurs when a given technological advance cannot be clearly analogized to existing legal structures. A technico-legal revolution consists of a series of stages in the legal response to the novel developments in technology.(3) The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe the theory of a technico-legal revolution, point out past examples of such revolutions, and then apply the theory to the developments in Mobile Geolocation.

Understanding the development of legal analytical principles applicable to Mobile geolocation is an example of the legal system's process of adapting to technological change. TLR analysis allows researchers to anticipate and discount the spurious legal arguments inevitably made each time a new technology is developed.

The framework suggests that each technico-legal revolution passes through four distinct phases. Although there is no fixed time period for each phase, a fixed order is identifiable. These phases are: (1) Autonomy, (2) Conflict, (3) Determination, and (4) Resolution. The four phases describe the actions of the parties, and provide a coherent structure for analysis of the problem.

In the Autonomy phase, the developers of the technology act without any significant constraints imposed by the legal system, which is essentially reactive and often requires a triggering event before it becomes involved.

The second phase is the Conflict phase. Conflict may come from any of a number of sources, including a sudden disaster, a scientific study, or a marketing plan or political action. In the Conflict phase, the developers of the technology are challenged by at least one other interest group, such as competitors, consumers, government, or labor. The conflicting groups stake out claims as to which prior legal analogy is most “relevant” i.e. most favorable to their requirements, and the irreconcilability of the conflict under standard legal analysis is the hallmark of the technico-legal revolution.

The third phase is Determination. In this phase, the parties muster the factual support for their predetermined positions. Technico-legal revolutions are extraordinarily fact-sensitive. The assignment of the technico-legal revolution to a particular legal regime depends largely on which set of facts is accepted by the legal system.

Typically, the parties know in the Conflict phase which type of facts will support their position. AQs a result political pressure is often used to determine which sets of facts will be researched.   Studies which might product unfavorable results will not normally be supported by the party opposed to that position. Depending on the positions taken in the Autonomy and Conflict phases, the parties will want either prompt or extended analysis during the Determination phase.

In the determination phase parties routinely “appropriate” phraseology in an attempt to alter the debate landscape prior to resolution. Terms such as “dna fingerprinting” “software piracy” ”signal stealing” “Privatsphere” and even ordinary words like “accident” are created or repurposed to push the legal debate in one direction or another. The goal is to move the debate into a more favorable domain.

The key argument used by all parties in the Conflict and Determination phases is the false analogy. Since technico-legal revolutions are defined as situations in which no exact analogy to a preexisting legal regime is possible, the false analogy involves comparing some of the attributes of a new technology to those of a preexisting technology with a legal structure favorable to that party, while ignoring those which would lead to a different conclusion.

The analogies are false in the sense that they are not exact as well as in the sense that the divergence from the prior situation is often overlooked or minimized.

The fourth phase is Resolution. In this phase the legal system assigns the technology to a legal structure. One of the most important effects of the Resolution phase is the assignment of the burden of proof concerning unknown events. The fact that this burden is assigned after the factual material has been developed is one of the most striking characteristics of a technico-legal revolution.

Historical examples of technico legal revolutions include the ability of aircraft to fly over private land without paying, the role of Submarines and Radio in maritime Warfare, the interception of telegraphic and telephonic communications and the development of the concept of informational privacy

Early USA cases on Geolocation show a disturbing inability to comprehend just how complex the problem really is and indicate that we are heading towards a fragmented world order of expectations related to the law and Geolocation.  There are currently statutory and regulatory proposals in both Europe and the USA.

Acknowledgments

Dr. Bernd Beier (Germany)   is my longtime research colleague in this area and his comparative law insights have been critical.

References and Notes

1. Us Government Accountability organization Mobile Device Location Data:Additional Federal Actions Could Help Protect Consumer Privacy GAO-12-903: Published: Sep 11, 2012. Publicly Released: Oct 11, 2012.
2. .Brannigan V and Beier B Standards for Privacy in Medical Information Systems: A Technico-Legal Revolution Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care. 1990 Nov 7 : 266–270.
3. Brannigan, Vincent M. (1988) "Biotechnology: A First Order Technico-Legal Revolution," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 16:
   pp. 154-196.

There is a strong connection between human communication and cooperation on a conceptual as well as in evolutionary history (2,5). Most animal species communicate with signals that evolved over time and are used in only very limited contexts with very little voluntary control over their production. Human communication on the other hand is very flexible but also inherently ambiguous. To resolve this ambiguity humans rely on their advanced socio-cognitive abilities as well as expectations about mutual cooperativeness (3,4). In a similar way, many animal species cooperate in very sophisticated ways but human forms of cooperation are unique in their scale and flexibility. In order to coordinate their behavior during cooperative activities, humans rely heavily on communication (1).

In my talk, I will present several comparative studies with great apes and human children to provide an empirical basis on which we can evaluate claims about human uniqueness and reconstruct the evolution of the abilities in question.

The results of these studies show that apes show an impressive flexibility in their abilities to communicate and cooperate with others. However, there seem to be several informative limitations. Great apes use communication mainly to achieve their own goals and do not interpret or produce communicative signals in a cooperative way. Furthermore, cooperative activities tend to break down in situations in which their maintenance depends on dividing the spoils of the activity equally or providing others with relevant information.

The strong connection between communication and cooperation in humans might be explained by a certain set of cognitive abilities, namely the ability to represent social interaction as joint activities with shared goals and intentions.

References and Notes

1. Balliet, D. "Communication and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-Analytic Review." Journal of Conflict Resolution 54, no. 1 (2010): 39-57.
2. Clark, H. H. Using Language. Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
3. Grice, H. P. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989.
4. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. Relevance : Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford ; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
5. Tomasello, Michael. A Natural History of Human Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; US, 2014.
   

This paper will suggest that the society that devolves its communicative and aesthetic practices to informational technologies re-formats meaning and value in a way that deprives itself of a religious sensibility. It entertains the idea that that sensibility may be integral to our human condition and especially to the sense we have of a meaningful future. The question whether this problem, if it is one, traces to the technology or to its specific employment in neo-liberalism is also raised but probably not answered.

George Steiner advances the hypothesis that “any coherent understanding of what language is and how language performs, that any coherent account of the capacity of human speech to communicate meaning and feeling is in the final analysis, underwritten by the assumption of God’s presence” [1, p.3]. A transcendent presence makes human communication through language possible. Central to his project of making us aware of this presence is the distinction Steiner draws between consumption and ‘ingestion’. We consume commodities, including the transient ephemera of mediatized culture, but ingest meaningful texts. Ingestion is a process of embodied learning, memorization. In reciting poems learned in our youth we enact the historical dimension of our society and ourselves.

This argument rests upon a particular theory of language and its relation to the human that distinguishes it from mere information and in so doing separates communication from manipulation (the ‘moral’ dimension of Steiner’s theory). Linguistic meaning does not reduce to its logical or formal properties as these are grasped in the idea of a code but is rooted in the human body. Gesture, body and socius are, as Merleau-Ponty put it, the humus of an “original semantic thickness” possessed by natural language [2, p.234]. Meaning and value are ‘bodied forth’ [3, p.29] from this thickness.

From the perspective of contemporary media theory, however, the notion of a weighty, embodied interpretation as opposed to a passive, superficial one is perhaps naïve. The distinction between consumption and ingestion seems too firmly drawn in an age when we have become used to actively consuming media – we dance the appropriate responses to video games, for example [4]. (Since the early 1980s this has included games with avowedly religious themes, including a version of the bible (Automata 1982)).

Steiner addresses this challenge in later work. There he argues that, “…current changes in the experience of communication, of information, of knowledge, of the generation of meaning and of form are probably the most comprehensive and consequential since homo sapiens development of language itself” [5, p.217]. These changes are associated with Steiner’s main concern, namely that we seem to be “losing the future tense”. The informationalisation of communication and meaning-making liberates the imaginary from the symbolic in order to free pursuit of self-interest from any of the constraints associated with actually maintaining a coherent self.

I will suggest that this is indicative of a change in the habitus of contemporary humans, in which dispositions and especially a specific experience of the temporal are standing in for ideology. Neo-liberalism [6] does not present itself as an ideology but is sedimented in individuals as a kind of expectant orientation addressed to the present (anticipation), commonly thematised as ‘maintaining a positive outlook’. This attitude is prior to any specific articulation and it maintains the human as a consumer and user of meanings, who bodies forth interpretations that are in his or her own interests. This sets the scene for a conflict of temporalities that underscores the antipathy between the informational and the religious.

References and Notes

1. Steiner, G. (1989) Real Presences Chicago: Chicago University Press.
2. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964) Signs North Western University Press.
3. Benjamin, W. (1985) The Origins of German Tragic Drama London: Verso.
4. Kirkpatrick, G. (2011) Aesthetic Theory and the Video Game Manchester: MUP.
5. Steiner, G. (2001) Grammars of Creation London: Faber & Faber.
6. Dardot, P. and Laval, C. (2014) The New Way of the World: On neo-liberal society London: Verso.

Introduction

Search engines function as important gatekeepers to online information of any kind in more or less every societal domain. Their ranking algorithms determine the visibility of actors and content by creating a hierarchical order of linked websites on the search engine result page (SERP). These algorithmic decisions get additional significance due to the highly concentrated search engine market and the predominant user behavior of only considering the first 10 links on a SERP or even less [2; 7]. In countries like Germany with a stable market share of around 90 % for Google^[1], this creates an enormous pressure for websites to be represented within Google´s first results for certain keywords. The emerging field of search engine optimization can be regarded as a reaction to this (aiming at achieving a high SERP ranking for websites by adapting them technically to meet the algorithmic criteria for high relevance). Numerous academic publications have also addressed the societal significance of search engines and their wide-ranging information political implications [3; 5; 8-10]. In particular the neutrality of ranking algorithms alleged by Google has been questioned. For example, it has been observed that there are few actors who particularly benefit from the algorithm´s favoring of well-linked websites, resulting in a “Googlarchy” [4]. Scholars focusing on the social construction of technology have pointed out search engine developers incorporate specific values in their products leading to an “algorithmic ideology” which serves especially capitalistic needs [6]. However, due to the secret nature of these algorithms, there is still little knowledge on how exactly they impact online information. To shed light on this, Google rankings for selected queries and algorithm changes have been studied over a period of roughly 5 years.

Methods

In order to understand Google´s algorithmic decision-making, suitable queries had to be identified first. For the case studies at hand, the search terms “9/11” (case A) and “climate change” (case B) have been selected. Both promise telling results as they are politically-loaded without implying clear judgment of any kind. Therefore, the results from these queries give insights into the interpretative decisions made by the ranking algorithm (on the contrary, queries like “9/11 conspiracy” or “climate change lies” would lead to rather predictable results which are not very telling in this regard). The Digital Methods Initiative at the University of Amsterdam has automatically queried the selected terms every day in a period of roughly 5 years, collecting the first 100 Google results for each query (A: 06/2007-09/2013, B: 2008-09/2013). Due to technical difficulties the data includes some gaps in which the queries could not be performed. Moreover, the intended method of analysis required a radical reduction of the very large data set: In order to understand what types of websites appeared in the Google results, a qualitative content analysis for each linked website was planned. Therefore, we only selected four days per year (March, June, September, December) and only considered the first 10 results for the content analysis. Since the type of website might have changed over time, for every website the closest version to each selected date was retrieved from the Internet´s Archive Wayback Machine (https://archive.org/web). This way it was possible to categorize each linked website according to an emerging coding scheme. For example, the website 911truth.org would be coded CON for “conspiracy theory” due to its alternative account of the September 11 attacks which differs fundamentally from the website of the 9/11 commission representing the mainstream account of the event (therefore coded MST). With this approach, the historical development of content in Google´s top ten for the queries could be observed. In a next step, we studied the known changes in Google´s algorithm to gain insights into the impact of algorithm changes (see e.g. http://www.seomoz.org/google-algorithm-change) in regard to the content represented on the SERP.

Results and Discussion

The results from case A (“9/11”) may appear surprising at first sight: The most prominent category was “conspiracy”, meaning 34.4 % of all coded websites represented an alternative account of the September 11 attacks (e.g. stating “9/11 was an inside job” by the US government or that the twin towers were brought down by explosives). At the same time, only 15.2 % of the websites were identified as representing the “official” account of the event as it is portrayed in government reports and also by most mass media outlets. A deeper look into the functionality of Google´s ranking algorithm makes this result appear less surprising. One of Google´s most important ranking factors, the PageRank, regards well-linked websites as more relevant than those sites which received fewer links [1]. Alternative accounts of the September 11 attacks have been actively distributed online by a community called the “9/11 Truth Movement”, including websites specifically dedicated to this purpose. We can assume that this community contributed to relatively high PageRanks of such websites by referring to each other via hyperlinks. Additionally, the queried term “9/11” is usually featured frequently and prominently on these specialized websites. This also helps to be regarded as relevant by Google´s algorithm, resulting in a higher ranking.

However, a closer look on the historical development of the type of websites in the search engine results gives a more differentiated perspective: While the category CON dominated the SERP for the first years in the given time frame, this drastically changed at the end of 2011: After this point, we rarely found such sites in Google´s top ten, whereas the opposing category MST suddenly dominated the results. This became understandable, when we studied Google´s algorithm changes. The so-called “Panda update” was introduced exactly at the same time when we observed this drastic switch. It introduced a fundamentally different concept of assessing a website´s relevance: Instead of emphasizing the meaning of hyperlinks, now factors like societal acceptance and authority started to play a major role. For example, one of Google´s guiding questions to help webmasters achieving a high rank was: “Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?”^[2]

Although this correlation cannot with certainty be interpreted as a causation, it appears likely that what was observed was the impact of an algorithm change: While websites representing alternative accounts of 9/11 initially benefited from the emphasis on links, authority became a crucial factor when the Panda update was rolled-out, leading to a higher rank for more conservative sources such as government sites. The presentation will describe these results in greater detail and will also report from case study B which is currently conducted.   

Conclusions

The observed patterns reveal how significantly Google´s ranking algorithm shapes the type of content that can effectively be accessed through the search engine. It challenges the often expressed expectation of search engines as neutral mediators between the user and the content of the web. Instead we observed that the developers´ decisions may lead to a completely different user experience – from one day to the other. Considering Google´s important gatekeeping function, it is safe to say that these decisions also have a considerable impact on knowledge societies. Of course, it is still up to the user to transform googled information into knowledge, which is why one should not jump to techno-deterministic conclusions at this stage. However, Google does determine which information can be transformed into knowledge in the first place, as it selects which part of the web we get to see. The historic empirical approach outlined in this paper is an attempt to provide a better understanding of how developers´ decisions inscribed in an algorithm concretely impact the user´s perception of the web. On a political level, this provokes questions on the lacking transparency of algorithmic decisions: Should users be notified about algorithm updates? How much information on its functionality can a search engine reveal without risking manipulation through search engine optimization? Should governments force search engine providers to create more transparency on their ranking mechanisms? Should users participate in algorithmic decision-making?

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Erik Borra and the Digital Methods Initiative at the University of Amsterdam for providing the data and a number of visualization. Erik was also a great help on technical and intellectual issues.

References and Notes

1. Brin, S.; Page, L. The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine. Seventh International World-Wide Web Conference (WWW 1998), 14.-18.4. 1998, Brisbane, Australia http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/361/1/1998-8.pdf.
2. Fallows, D. Search Engine Users. Internet searchers are confident, satisfied and trusting – but they are also unaware and naïve. Pew Internet & American Life Project: Washington, USA, 2005, http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2005/PIP_Searchengine_users.pdf.pdf.
3. Halavais, A. Search Engine Society, Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008.
4. Hindman, M.; Tsioutsiouliklis, K.; Johnson, J. A. Googlearchy: How a few heavily-linked sites dominate politics on the web. Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, 31.03.2003, Chicago, USA.
5. Lehmann, K., Schetsche, M.; Eds. Die Google-Gesellschaft. Vom digitalen Wandel des Wissens, Transcript Verlag: Bielefeld, Germany, 2007.
6. Mager, A. Algorithmic Ideology. How capitalist society shapes search engines. Information, Communication & Society 2012, 15 (5), 769-787.
7. Pan, B.; Hembrooke, H.; Joachims, T.; Lorigo, L.; Gay, G.; Granka, L. In Google we trust: Users' decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2007, 12 (3), 801-823.
8. Rogers, R. Information Politics on the Web, MIT Press: Cambridge/London, UK, 2004.
9. Röhle, T. Dissecting the Gatekeepers. Relational Perspectives on the Power of Search Engines. In Deep Search: The Politics of Search Engines beyond Google, Becker, K., Stalder, F., Eds.; Studienverlag: Innsbruck, Austria, 2009; pp. 117-132.
10. Vaidhyanathan, S. The Googlization of Everything. And Why We Should Worry, University of California Press: Berkeley/Los Angeles, USA, 2011.

^[1]See: http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/167841/umfrage/marktanteile-ausgewaehlter-suchmaschinen-in-deutschland/.

^[2] See: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.nl/2011/05/more-guidance-on-building-high-quality.html

Feenberg’s conception of technical politics emphasizes the contingency of technical designs on contemporary choices. The resulting technology facilitates more choices in future, broadening the horizon on our possible interactions with the world. Thus far, Feenberg allies his position with optimistic instrumentalism, preserving critical theory from alliance with anti-technology positions. At the same time, however, Feenberg maintains that past technical decisions shape our current context and this involves the sedimentation of values associated with technology in the cultural foundations of social life. This means Feenberg’s technical politics requires a democratic framework to promote decisions aimed at producing better outcomes in the proximal, instrumental sense, but also needs reforms aimed at promoting more humanistic values through technology design. The first is would be consistent with the establishment of formal procedures aimed at the democratization of technology design but the second is more problematic, raising the question of what the humanistic values in question are.

Feenberg (1999; 2002; 2010) delegates this issue to the aesthetic critique of technology design but this assumes inherent affinities between political, ethical and aesthetic values that may not hold. Feenberg’s suggestion is that various forms of modernism, in which the natural and the technical are blended in the creation of environments that work better for humans, rather than more efficient machines, should inspire a re-framing of design as a humanistic practice (and a practice of humanizing the world). In essence he maintains that the meaning of rationalizing the world, which is a fundamental part of technology’s mission, needs to be broadened by the inclusion of aesthetic principles at the normative heart of technology. The paper interrogates the meaning of ‘aesthetic critique’ in this context and suggests that this dimension of critical theory of technology should not involve the search for a more ‘positive’ or humanistic technological enframing but should rather limit itself to clarifying the place of technology design in a more progressive constellation of human-nature-society.

References and Notes

Feenberg, A. (1999) Questioning Technology London.

Feenberg, A. (2002) Transforming Technology Oxford

Feenberg, A. (2010) Between Reason and Experience: Essays in technology and modernity London.

Introduction

Technical progress goes so quickly onwards, that we’ve been asking for many years, whether isn’t it necessary to transform educational system to survive in our constantly changing world. It is an evolutionary change that has taken unprecedented turnaround. The original species homo-sapiens has evolved into homo mobilus. We are mobile beings, every individual (including children) own a mobile phone. It is the result of scientific progress in the miniaturization of computer components. The scientific progress has somewhat escaped away from the obsolete teaching methods. In schools today we are teaching more or less according to standard procedures and principles of teaching, even though the changes take place and individual schools try to adapt to the demand for students from the market side. There is still a big gap between the science and education procedures. The science goes by leaps and bounds and education is still based on learning to know not to think.

But it is not only caused by technical progress but also by change in the concept of the media. Today's world of social networking creates a wide net of relationships and information channels that cannot be controlled and hardly can be understood. We could say that there begins to dominate some sort of Global brain. When individual put into context the information you submit in the media and a large number of individuals determine whether the information is relevant or not. From the classic media consumption is becoming a place for discussion and thinking about the issues.

Education yes or no

The question is if we are able to made children learn things, which they can very quickly find on Internet. Whether to show them how to reflect reality or just obey and teach them how to ask. The most important thing which give us education is the ability to think about things, taking into account their causal relationships and all related consequences. We have to go through the whole chain of information, which are required to get full understanding.

We are really close to revolution where the necessity to know ‘Why’ will be replaced by the necessity to know ‘Where To Find The Answer’. There must be some regulation of what we are looking for and why. The main threat is the manipulation of the Internet as medium. If we are not critically thinking about answers, we remain passive consumers of information as they are. On the one hand, it is a great power to find whatever data we want to find. On the other hand, there must be a person on the opposite side somewhere, to give us that piece of information. This kind of information is relative. If we are thinking about consequences, what would happen if some day, 200 years in the future, someone decides to delete all information about the Archimedes law? And the second question is: Will it still be needed? What if we change our education procedures and there will be no one to understand that law, or even anybody capable of applying it?

We are a part of virtual reality, which seems to us real. Upon closer examination we find, that our communication is displaced to a virtual environment. The most important decisions are usually brokered through e-mails. We are able to communicate from almost everywhere, we can arrange meetings, send greeting cards, talk with people etc. and all we need is our smart phone. If you ask small children why is learning unnecessary – the smart phone will be their answer. The child is able to find all information on smart phone, there is no need to have the right knowledge. People are able to learn very quickly what they need to know and skip what is unnecessary.

The highest income have people who works whole days at the computer, they create materials, which are also virtual. For example, a consultants give advices by presentation, by creating models, by interviewing top managers, etc. And yet all those values are imaginary, we can send them by e-mail, we can print them, but if someone will find them after 100 years, they’ll have no remaining informational value. It is closely related to our quickly changing environment, where only the difference make difference. We are not able to take one model which is very good working for one organization and put it to use in another environment. It will probably be completely different. People in organization differ and the processes and goods and services are also different. Therefore, the acclaimed work is virtual, it has no longer meaning like for example the Pythagorean Theorem.

Conclusions

The media have significant influence on the virtual world we live in. They show us what to do, what to learn, what to think, how to act and react, etc. For us there’s only one important task. We have to think about it and it will be the main paradigm shift in our educational system. To help people decide what is important and what we can easily find by media.

As the foundational people of the philosophy of information in France and China, Gilbert Simondon and Wu Kun constructed the eminent informational ontology respectively. They both took their first steps from the study of ―Being as Reality‖, settled the foundation notion of systematic reality above all; then criticized and developed the basic problem of philosophy and the conception of information in the cybernetics from different orientation according to their own interesting ; both of naturalism, compared to Simondon, Wu Kun defined the essence of information more precisely, and described the abundant properties of it; based on the informational ontology, the transform of philosophical notion does not only reflect on Simondon’s idea of knowledge, but also take place in the whole philosophical system and even its history.

References and Notes

1. Simondon, G. The Position of the Problem of Ontogenesis[J].PARRHESIA, 2009(7): 5-6; 10; 5-9;
2. Simondon, G. (2005) L’individuation à la lumière des notions de forme et d’information. Grenoble: Million.
3. Simondon, G. (1980). On the mode of existence of technical objects. (N.Mellamphy, Trans.). London: University of Western Ontario Press.Retrieved from http://english.duke.edu/uploads/assets/Simondon_MEOT_part_1.pdf
4. Simondon, G. (2009a). The position of the problem of ontogenesis. Parrhesia 7, 4–16.
5. Simondon, G. (2009b). Technical mentality. Parrhesia 7, 17–27
6. Kun Wu, the divide of existential domains, science••dialectics•modernization, 1986(2):32-33.
7. Kun Wu, the divide of existential domains and the ―whole revolutionary‖sense of the philosophy of information, the journal of humanity, 2013(5).
8. Kun Wu, the informational scientificiation of science, qinghai social science, 1997(2).

1. The development of philosophy of information and philosophy of technology

Since the 20th century, as human society has gradually entered into the information age, the informatization tide has swept the globe. The researches on information have been growing day by day, like the connection between the science and technology and the information, the nature of information, the characteristics of information and the spread of information. Besides, philosophy has already incorporated information and technology into its field of vision, and has gradually evolved into the philosophy of information and philosophy of technology with distinct era characteristics and frontier scientific nature.

Philosophy of information and philosophy of technology are the results of scientific and technological revolution, however, judging from the current study, since the 1980s, founded by Professor Wu Kun, and being improved constantly, the philosophy of information has already constructed to a theory building, and become the true sense “meta-philosophy”. Philosophy of technology also has new faces constantly. In the process of the discussing about the technology’s essence, more and more scholars begin to notice that technology is the “media” that links human beings and nature. And the media needs a certain sign system to realize the communication between human and nature, thus innovation of technology is the constant evolvement of communication ways between human and nature. American technology philosopher Neil Postman believes media, a vital technology, is just seriously ignored in general philosophy of technology. People always tend to be more concerned about the technology on the production, or the technology that can “transform nature”. While, “media” technology used for communication among people has been neglected. M•McLuhan believes that media have changed the way how human perceive the world and how human experience the world, and then generates the new behavior patterns that human influence the world. While compared with the contents and messages transferred by media, its impacts on the development of human society are relatively minor. There are some scholars in China hold that, in the technological revolution, the effects of media to the modern civilization are particularly important. The problem is that, the innovation and development of media technology certainly have significant influence on human behavior, ways of thinking and other aspects, but putting the information aside and giving it little attention worth rethinking.

Media, as a carrier of information, its relevant technological innovations actually are the constant changes of modes of information’s presentation. And different present ways are reflected in the different sign systems. Therefore, under the backgrounds of deepening studies of linguistics, and semiotics, many contemporary philosophers tend to expound their thoughts from the perspective of sign and information. And there is a continuing tendency towards the philosophy of information. Albert Borgmann (1937-) has been devoted himself to the sign presentation of modern technology and to ponder information’s value and meaning, and then deepening into his reflections on technology and human culture. Therefore, based on the achievements of the philosophy of information studies in China, this thesis will from the perspective of sign and information, compare the thoughts of Mr. Albert Borgmann and Pro. Wu Kun. And then this paper will put forward some opinions on the relationship between sign and information, to show the theory field of the philosophy of information, which is as the “Meta-philosophy”.

2. The thoughts of realism --- comparison of different philosophical foundations

Mr. Borgmann’s “inclusive realism” and Mr. Wu Kun’s new viewpoint of existence are the basis of their own philosophy thoughts. The essences are that the different thoughts of reality completely distinguish their own information philosophies. “Inclusive realism” is based on scientific realism, namely “monism”, to look at all the correlates relevant with material and spirit. Thus, this philosophy still belongs to traditional philosophy of technology. While, Mr. Wu’s new “objective unreality” is a new view in the indirect existence field. It breaks through the traditional realism. Thus, the philosophy of information has the basic characters of the “meta-philosophy”. And best of all, in the junction of substance and spirit, they both make their own explorations. Borgmann regards the sign as the bridge connecting the material and social life and the spiritual world. And Mr. Wu Kun takes “objective information” which marks the indirect existence field as the vinculum between material world and spiritual world. Thus, the two philosophers are both looking for the real correlation between material and spirit. They both avoid falling into the stereotype of “dualism”. One catches the “sign”. And the other one finds the “information”. Why is this? What is the association between sign and information? This association is the similarity of their philosophies. What is the difference between sign and information? And this difference is the different philosophical connotations between them.

3.  Sign and information—comparison between different philosophical factors

First, in terms of the division of information form, constrained by “unicity” of realism, Mr. Borgmann regards sign as the standard to classify information types. The classification reflects the evolution of human society, but overlooks infinite vitality and great creativity in the evolution process. The division of Mr. Wu Kun is based on the division in new existing field, Sign information is one of the important forms of information regeneration, indicating the roles of sign which is the product of human thoughts in creative thinking.

Second, in terms of the relations of sign and information, Mr. Borgmann regards sign as the existence field marking reality and information as the meaning represented by sign. Mr. Wu Kun considers information as the self display of existing way and state of matter. The evolution of information is accompanied with the development of material world and spiritual world. Sign information is the abstraction of conceptual thoughts and the key of information creation. Therefore, sign is a stage of information evolution and a form of human thought. Information is reproduced through sign and the reproduced information turns into for-itself information and enters into another round of evolution, thus the relatively independent information possesses endless vitality and sign is endowed with new form and meanings in the constant evolution of thoughts.

Third, in terms of value of information, Borgmann thinks that grasping information depends on relations between sign and matter, The more direct the relations between sign and matters, the closer the relations between information and reality, and the less uncertainty of information; conversely, the uncertainty of information increases. Borgmann holds negative attitude to technological information in contemporary informationization trend, believing that meanings of matters fade away with springing up of information. Mr. Wu Kun thinks that the realization process of value is the process where subject information is realized in object. The highest level of information value is spiritual value. Subject and object perceive and understand object information through interaction with each other. Subject, through internal thinking, processes stored information and creates new conceptual images and sign information, which constitutes the realization process of spiritual value. The value of information has universality, complexity, vigor and creativity, which will drive diversified development of human values.

4. Results and Discussion:

The author think that the information concepts of Mr. Bergmann is the philosophy of technology from the perspective of information ethics, which is critical and reflective. The philosophy of information of Mr. Wu Kun has new theoretic perspective and grand theory space. We are convinced that besides promoting philosophy of technology, the development of philosophy of information will propel the revolution of fundamental ideas of philosophy, in turn trigger fundamental changes of philosophy. It’s worth noting that currently the study of philosophy of information is on the rise worldwide and continues to innovate, at the same time, other subjects such as bioscience, brain science and cognitive science are developing rapidly. New philosophical problems will draw inspirations from philosophy of information, which further promotes development of philosophy of information and demonstrates its theory glamour as meta-philosophy.

References and Notes

1. Chen Jiaying. Several Thoughts on Scientific Realism. World Philosophy [J]. 2006.6.
2. Albert Borgmann.Holding on to Reality: The Nature of Information at the Ture of the Millennium [M].Chicago, IL, USA：University of Chicago Press, 1999.
3. Albert Borgmann. Response to My Readers[J]. Techné,2002,6:1Fall.
4. Anthology of Lenin. [M] Volume II, Bei Jing: People's Press, 1995.
5. Wu Kun. Philosophy of information [M]. Bei Jing: Commercial Press，
6. Li Bochong. The Sign World of High-tech Era [M]. Tian Jin: Tianjin Science and Technology Press，
7. St. Augustine，On Christian Doctrine，Book one，H. Adams and L. Searle eel. ，Critical Theory Since Plato[M]. Boston：Michael Rosenberg，2005.
8. M. Understanding Media. [M]. Bei Jing: The Commercial Press,2007.

Two parallel streams of enquiry pertaining to Global Consciousness/Mind/Brain are converging. One stream of enquiry is establishing the emergence of this phenomenon as a logical outcome of cultural evolution, the penultimate stage in evolution that started with the big bang and along the arrow of time passed through the particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical and biological stages. The final upcoming stage being “ethical evolution”. All along adhering to and complying with the basic rules of selection for fitness and survival, in the narrow conventional sense. The stage of cultural evolution is of competition among memes, and selection for fitness of a set of them and the concurrent emergence of a metaphoric or figurative concept of Global Consciousness/Mind/Brain that is synthetic in nature, enabled by technological connectivity of the billions of humans in cyberspace, causing increasing collaboration and coordination on a variety of issues that have a bearing on the future of the species.

The second stream of enquiry, not scientifically proven, and may never be, is premised on an integration of ancient philosophical speculations. This second stream seeks to establish an implicit and Apriori universal consciousness/mind/brain, the presence of a field that is strictly “information” with non-local communication between minds, and an evolutionary process that has always manifested the phenomena of sociality, connection and group altruism, but now more evident than ever because of the exponential increases in human connectivity on the planet.

This paper will explore and assess these two propositions as fact or fiction and doing so put it in the context of the survival of the human species going forward.

Introduction

The dawn of the 21^st century represents a unique watershed in human evolution. Especially taking human evolution into account in evolutionary time frames, with particular emphasis on human cultural evolution.

A strong case can be made for the fact that as a species, we are on the pivot of major transitions. These may be described as a) Belief/Faith systems challenged by Knowledge, specifically the exponential growth in knowledge about the human genome, and the accompanying challenges to faith and belief systems worldwide. b) The power and influence of the Collective over the individual steadily eroding in favor of the Power of the individual, as is evident from the global trends toward liberal democracies and free markets in their many variations and the steady decline and fall of authoritarian regimes of all varieties. c) Local, regional, national human identity giving way and forcing the need for a Global and Planetary identity, once again evident from the increasing interaction of humans across the planet in all realms of human activity. Economic, Political, Social, Cultural, and the issues confronting the human species, all of which have approached magnitudes and levels that are no longer solvable based on our earlier orientations and identities. “They are transforming everything from geopolitics to the structure of families. And they pose problems on a scale that humans have little experience with. As Harvard University biologist, E.O.Wilson puts it, we are about to pass through “the bottleneck”, a period of maximum stress on natural resources and human ingenuity.”[1] 

Coincident with the onset of these transitions however is the timely emergence of what might be described as the phenomenon of Global Brain, Global Mind, Global Consciousness, providing an opportunity for humans as a species to manage these transitions.

Global Consciousness, Global Mind, Global Brain: A Consequence?

“In the eyes of the prophets of the eighteenth century, the world appeared really as no more than a jumble of confused and loose relationships; and the divination of a believer was required to feel the heart of that sort of embryo. Now, less than two hundred years later, here we are penetrating (though hardly conscious of the fact) into the reality, at any rate the material reality, of what our fathers expected. In the course of a few generations all sorts of economic and cultural links have been forged around us and they are multiplying in geometric progression. Nowadays, over and above the bread which to simple Neolithic man symbolized food, each man demands his daily ration of iron, copper and cotton, of electricity, of oil and radium, of discoveries, of the cinema and of international news. It is no longer a simple field, however big, but the whole earth which is required to nourish each one of us. If words have any meaning, is this not like some great body which is being born – with its limbs, its nervous system, its perceptive organs, its memory – the body in fact of that great Thing which had to come to fulfill the ambitions aroused in the reflective being by the newly acquired consciousness that he was one with and responsible to an evolutionary all?” [2]

Let us first look at the current situation. In simple terms, a human being can call upon the full range of human mental and emotional experiences on a global scale. In so doing we can remain solitary or collectivize on any scale. We can access, use, transmit, communicate in person or indirectly, data, information, thought, ideas, concepts, knowledge. We can initiate, organize, plan, schedule, act as individuals or collectively on any scale. It is as if we, seven plus billion individuals, replicate the exquisite beauty and complexity of individual brains. Marvin Minsky, in “Society of Mind” describes the workings of the individual human mind. “I will call ‘society of mind’ this scheme in which each mind is made of many smaller processes. These we will call agents. Each Mental agent, by itself can only do one simple thing that needs no mind or thought at all. Yet when we join these agents in societies-in certain very special ways – this leads to true intelligence.” [3] Here, the reference is to the compartments of the human mind related to language, memory, analysis and more basic elements such as synapses, nodes, dendrites, the chemical and electrical processes that accompany the workings of the human brain. If we were to simply consider each human brain as such a component, agent or agency in the 6 billion strong brains, we arrive at the same conclusion of a provisional creation of Global Mind. A result of the networking of humans on the planet via the technologies of the internet, the world wide web, powerful search engines, and the stored memory of our entire history on the planet in virtual cyberspace to call upon at will. All put in service to coordinate, plan, execute at any level of organization, hierarchy, structure.

To elaborate the workings of such a society of minds, it will be useful to employ an example that illustrates the functioning of the individual mind. “To start to see how minds are like societies, try this:

Pick up a cup of tea.
Your grasping agents want to keep hold of the cup,
Your balancing agents want to keep the tea from spilling out.
Your thirst agents want you to drink the tea.
Your moving agents want to get the cup to your lips.

Yet none of these consume your mind as you roam about the room talking to your friend. You scarcely think at all about balance, which has no concern with Grasp. Grasp has no interest in Thirst, and Thirst is not involved in your social problems. Why not? Because they can depend on one another. If each does its own little job, the really big job will get done by all of them drinking tea.” [4] It shouldn’t be too difficult to draw a parallel functioning of global mind with individuals as the elements of such coordination for the “Big Job”. It is in this sense that one could establish the fact that “Global Mind” is indeed in the making for the first time in human history. This also points to the fact that “one dissects a body, but finds no life inside. What is mind? One dissects a brain but finds no mind therein.” [5]

There is then the problem of Consciousness. If we allow for the possibility that Global Mind is a moving, provisional construction and not a thing in itself, what about the notion of Global Consciousness? Once again, reverting to the current findings on individual human consciousness can help. “Understanding consciousness requires the consideration of the “movie in the brain” that we create on an ongoing basis and the “self” that is participating, observing and owns the movie in the brain. Current research points to the fact that “ the idea of spectator is constructed within the movie, and no ghostly homunculus haunts the theater. Objective brain processes knit the subjectivity of the conscious mind out of the cloth of sensory mapping. And because the most fundamental sensory mapping pertains to body states and is imaged as feelings, the sense of self in the act of knowing emerges as a special kind of feeling-the feeling of what happens in an organism caught in the act of interacting with an object.” [6] In other words, there is no specific thing identifiable as “self”, the conscious observer, as such the act of being conscious is also a provisional construction. It should be obvious that this can be extended to incorporate and accept the notion of “Global Consciousness” operating with individual brains acting as collaborating creators of the movie. Otherwise, if we were to insist on “this notion of a homunculus – a little person inside each self-leads only to a paradox, then, that inner self requires yet another movie screen inside itself, on which to project what it has seen, and then to watch that play within a play – we would need another self inside a self.^.” [7]

The insistence, therefore, on the separateness of the brain, mind, and consciousness as entities that can be objectified and understood is proving to be wrong. “I think therefore I am” is an erroneous proposition that served us in good stead within the paradigm of a mechanistic world view in laying bare a lot of smaller truths, but no longer valid. “Nearly all our scientific colleagues still seek “mechanisms” to “explain living matter”, and they expect laws to emerge amenable to mathematical analysis. We demur; we should shed Descartes’ legacy that surrounds us still and replace it with a deeper understanding of life’s sentience.” [8]

Vernadsky and Teilhard De Chardin stipulated that “have detected one and the same fundamental processes, always recognizable. We saw geogenesis promoted to biogenesis, which, turned out in the end to be nothing else than psychogenesis. With and within the crisis of reflection, the next term in the series manifests itself. Psychogenesis has led to man. Now it effaces itself, relieved or absorbed by another and a higher function-the engendering and subsequent development of the mind. In one word noogenesis.^” [9]

We have thus far explored the notion of global mind and global consciousness as a synthetic outcome of the evolutionary paradigm since the big bang, culminating in the final stages of human collaboration and coordination on a global scale, signaling the final phase of cultural evolution.

Global Consciousness, Global Mind, Global Brain: The First Cause?

At the outset it should be stated without equivocation that the alternate postulate of apriori Global Consciousness, Mind, Brain that we are about to explore are not proven scientific facts and may never be proven. Even so let us not ignore Kuhn’s warning and stay imprisoned in a paradigm that does not currently show or allow for the possibility of an “apriori” existence of Consciousness, Mind and Brain either.

There are alternative postulates regarding global consciousness/mind/brain that need to be examined. Postulates that illuminate and point to a more integrated coherent, and certainly appealing conceptual framework perhaps. This framework is in contrast to the notion of “emergence” of Global Mind and Global Consciousness described above in a narrow sense as a logical extension of evolutionary processes in the cultural realm in the conventional sense. An end point described as “Omega Point” by Teilhard De Chardin. The alternative postulates are premised on the philosophical and scientific speculations pertaining to the presence of Apriori Universal Consciousness/Mind, of the now Scientifically defensible concept of Gaia within an enlarged and expanded comprehension of evolutionary processes inclusive of Synergism and Sociality, the indications from Physics of the possible presence of an “Akashic field” of information that allows for non-local communication, collaboration and coordination.

The fundamental starting point for this alternative paradigm has to be speculations about Universal Consciousness as laid out in the Vedanta of Indian Philosophy.

“The identity between the world and Brahman is explained. On this ground that all is known when the “one” is known is accounted for. Since all entities are real only as the effects of Brahman and as ensouled by Brahman, it has been said, “That is True”. In no other way are they real. Just as, in the illustration of clay and its products, the products are real only as of the nature of clay, even so the world is only as sustained by the indwelling Brahman. [10]

The universal, omniscient backdrop of Brahman as the primary stage for all further acts and scenes of the evolutionary drama, Maya, as described in Vedanta, explains the onset of the multiple layers of differentiated Consciousness, Mind, Brain, Matter, actually in the reverse, as manifestations, that are distinct and yet one and the same as the original consciousness. A logical fallacy it would seem but defended as follows. “The signfication of an identical entity by several terms which are applied to that entity on different grounds is coordinated predication. In the illustration of (say) a Purple Robe, the basic substance is one and the same, though purpleness and robeness are different from it as well as from each other. That is how the unity of a Purple Robe is established. The central principle is that whatever exists as an attribute of a substance, that being inseparable from the substance is one with that substance.” [11]

In that all is undifferentiated Brahman (Nirguna Brahman) giving rise to differentiated Brahman (Saguna Brahman), “we shall realize that there is but one force in the world, a single unique current which passes through us and through all things and which puts on one substance or another according to the level of its action. It is this force which links up everything, animates everything; this, the fundamental substance of the universe: Consciousness force, Chit Agni. (consciousness heat).^” [12]

Which then leads to the realization that, “there is a consciousness also in the plant, in the metal, in the atom, in electricity, in everything that belongs to physical nature; we shall find even that it is not really in all respects a lower or more limited mode than the mental.” [13]

As Prof. Erwin Laszlo puts it, “The Indian Vedic tradition regards consciousness not as an emergent property that comes into existence through material structures such as the brain and the nervous system, but as a vast field that constitutes the primary reality of the universe. In itself, this field is unbounded and undivided by objects and individual experiences. Underlying the diversified and localized gross layers of ordinary consciousness there is a unified, non-localized and subtle layer: Pure Consciousness.^” [14]

The paradigm of “evolution” has also come a long way from its original moorings in Darwinian Selection for fitness and survival of the individual. New comprehensions in Biology, especially the   decoding of the DNA molecule caused subsequent reframing of the survival argument in terms of the selfishness of the Gene but still confined to the notion of individual fitness, selection and survival. But a lot has happened since then. A large body of work now supports a much more comprehensive view of evolution itself. The most important of these new findings are that the mind body separation is an aberration. An expanded and extended version of Evolution, Gaia and Self Organizing criticality are important new additions to our repertoire for considering human futures. It is not in the scope of this paper to delve into great detail about these concepts but to state the essence of these ideas briefly. Extended versions of evolutionary theory are inclusive of the notions of group altruism, synergy, non-linearity, symbiosis and the like. Gaia is the idea of the Earth as a single organism, depicted as Mother Goddess and we as humans but a connected part with everything else and self organizing criticality applied to humans, as a process that allows for individual(s) participation but not the determinants of the final outcome.

And modern physics is on the verge of leading us toward an affirmation of some wondrous old postulations. “As long as a particle is not observed, measured or interacted with in any way, it is in a curious state that is the superposition of all its possible states. When however the particle is observed, measured or subjected to an interaction, this state of superposition becomes resolved; the particle is then in a single state only, like any ordinary thing. Because the state of superposition is described in a complex wave function associated with the name of Erwin Schroedinger, when the superposed state resolves is said that the wave function collapses.^” [15]

Prof. Lazlo then goes on to say: “At the quantum level, reality is strange and it is non-local; the whole universe is a network of time and space transcending interconnection. Could the non locality of the most basic elements of the universe be due to a fundamental field?” [16] Could it be that the Akashic field is active in not only the cosmological scale, but also the ultra small scale of physical reality?^”[17] “Is this why we wake up in the middle of the night with a brilliant idea because others have been thinking about the same thing giving us the benefit? Or is this why a dog knows that his master has arrived long before he walks through the door? If one accepts the fundamental continuity between body and mind, thought is essentially like all other physiology and behavior. Thinking, like excreting and ingesting, results from lively interactions of a being’s chemistry. If what is called “thought” results from such cell interactions, then perhaps communicating organisms, each themselves thinking, can lead to a process greater than individual thought.”[18]

Conclusion

Two different perspectives on the nature and content of Global Brain, Global Mind and Global Consciousness have been presented thus far. The first as an emergence at the end point and the second as an apriori starting point Both are of course provisional hypotheses. What cannot be contested however is that something is afoot at a level higher than the brains, minds and consciousness of humans at the individual level. It can be described as Brains, Minds and Consciousness operating as an entity at the planetary level. An operating unit above and beyond that of the sum of the awareness of the billions of individuals. It will be safe to conclude that at this point, that the idea of Global Brain, Global Mind and Global Consciousness is neither fact nor fiction.

It is for all intents and purposes a unique time for humans on the planet. We are at a crossroads as a species. Our survival as a species will depend on how we conduct ourselves. In this context, the idea of global brain, mind and consciousness may be fiction or figments of our imaginations, even so, it may be necessary for us to invent one or pretend that this exists to energize and motivate us to act in our collective interest to survive. Nothing less will do and we are running out of time.

At the planetary level a “perfect storm” is brewing. A storm comprising multiple elements that portend disastrous outcomes if we don’t pay heed and attempt to resolve them at that level incorporating the notion of Global Brain, Mind and Consciousness. Elements such as: i. the failure of Governance at the level of the Nation State based on narrow, provincial identities for humans, ii. Anthropogenic Climate Change, which according to many scientists who have concluded that it may already have reached a stage of “irreversibility”, iii. Global poverty and inequality for a majority of the planets inhabitants pointing to a failure of existing sanctities in Economics, iv. Nuclear proliferation, v. Global Demographic Transitions pointing to political, economic, social and cultural turmoil, vi. The centrifugality of “individualism” overpowering the “centripetality” of the collective, leading to a multitude of pathologies, and so on.

It is not an accident that a manifestation of the idea of Global Brain, Mind and Consciousness is what is now current in the terminology of future studies, viz. Conscious Evolution. A term that allows for the notion of human involvement as “Active Walkers” ( Lui Lam) in an evolutionary process, where we have the opportunity to guide ourselves into a safe haven. Failure to do so may very well result in our going the way of the Dinosaur.

References

1. Musser, G. Sept.2005. “The Climax of Humanity” Scientific American. Pg.44
2. Teilhard de Chardin,. 1959. The Phenomenon of Man. New York: Harper and Row, pp. 245-246.
3. Minksy, M. 1985. The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster, Prologue p.17.
4. ibid. p.20.
5. ibid. p.41
6. Damasio, A. Dec. 1999. “How the Brain Creates the Mind”. Scientific American, p.117.
7. Minksy, M. 1985. The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster, Prologue p.50.
8. Margulis, L. and Sagan, D. 1997. Slanted Truths. New York: Springer-Verlag, p.182.
9. Raghavachar, S.S. 1956. Vedarthasamgraha of Sri Ramanujacarya. Mangalore: Sharada Press, p.V.
10. ibid. p.VI.
11. Satprem 1968. Sri Aurobindo, or the Adventure of Consciousness. Ponicherry, India: Sri Aurobindo Ashram Press, p.63.
12. ibid. p.53.
13. Laszlo, E. 2004. Science and the Akashic Field. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, p.155.
14. ibid. p.19.
15. ibid. p.31.
16. ibid. p.35.
17. Margulis, L. and Sagan, D. 1997. Slanted Truths. New York: Springer-Verlag, p.181.
18. Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1959. The Phenomenon of Man. New York: Harper and Row, pp. 181.
19. Margulis, L. and Sagan, D. 1997. Slanted Truths. New York: Springer-Verlag, p.156.