Another Look at Dragon Theory
The premise of "Dragon Theory" is that we get "assimilated" into intelligent machines - social structures based on mechanical rules - thereby losing our fundamental humanity. The assumption of Dragon Theory is that this "assimilation" is a "bad thing", even a dangerous thing. Perhaps even a threat to the continued existence of human beings on the planet.
On the other hand, I have a thread of reasoning in Diary of a Christian Skeptic that recognizes that there is little or nothing in my personal "meme world" that doesn't come from other people, many of which can be identified by name. According to this picture, my mind is simply a kind of eddy, through which the memes of mankind flow. According to Zen, there are no borders to the individual mind. Properly speaking, the mind is infinite and contains "reality". The mind of a modern intellectual "contains" a lot more "reality" than the mind of an educated person 200 years ago because the insights of modern science are readily available to reach deeply into the workings of reality itself. This is the result of being "assimilated" into a world that today might be called the "Google World".
This idea can be forcefully illustrated by picking up a dictionary (Do you still have one of those around?) This is a massive list of all the words (each one a meme) that I have inherited just by being born in an English speaking country and subjected to the kind of socialization that is lamented in "Dragon Theory". In fact, Dragon theory explicitly acknowledges the fact that language itself is a powerful force for assimilation, even more powerful than another assimilating meme: the idea of money.
But it's also true that Math, Physics and Philosophy are woven into the culture I'm embedded in. In fact, what aspect of my "humanity" does not owe itself to "assimilation"? Is it no true that the fantastic richness of human experience that is so threatened by assimilation is also due to assimilation? Unlike other animals, human beings thoroughly adapt to their environment and the tools available (both physical and intellectual). A man with an axe is a different animal from an man with no axe. Every tool, every sweeping change to he environment (now mostly "man made") changes what it is to be human.
Turning back to the "Dragon" image of a machine made up of human components, can we not imagine a "meme machine" constantly re-working and exploring its store of memes? The "thinking" of this machine includes the exponential growth of human knowledge in every field, described in Kurzweil's "Singularity". In this vision, we are "assimilated" into a thinking, dreaming, creating machine that is growing bigger and more powerful by he second. In fact, this "group mind" can't be described as a machine at all, since he creative, human energies of individuals add to produce much more than any one individual could produce. "Dragons" drag individuals to the "lowest common denominator", for example, reducing their lives to a scramble for money. Is it not true that we lament this process precisely because we benefit from centuries of thinking about what is meaningful and worthwhile about human existence? We want the benefits of civilization without surrendering the imagined purity of he "noble savage".
In this context, it's worth remembering "The Real World of Technology" which outlines the intimate connection between technical progress and dehumanization of the individual.
Perhaps it is a mundane observation that "assimilation" is a two-edge sword. We are swept along in the stream of history, constantly being redefined as human beings. Is it possible to step outside this process and say which changes to the definition of "human" are acceptable and which are not?
At the very least, this line of thinking challenges Dragon Theory's pessimistic view of our future as a species.
On the other hand, I have a thread of reasoning in Diary of a Christian Skeptic that recognizes that there is little or nothing in my personal "meme world" that doesn't come from other people, many of which can be identified by name. According to this picture, my mind is simply a kind of eddy, through which the memes of mankind flow. According to Zen, there are no borders to the individual mind. Properly speaking, the mind is infinite and contains "reality". The mind of a modern intellectual "contains" a lot more "reality" than the mind of an educated person 200 years ago because the insights of modern science are readily available to reach deeply into the workings of reality itself. This is the result of being "assimilated" into a world that today might be called the "Google World".
This idea can be forcefully illustrated by picking up a dictionary (Do you still have one of those around?) This is a massive list of all the words (each one a meme) that I have inherited just by being born in an English speaking country and subjected to the kind of socialization that is lamented in "Dragon Theory". In fact, Dragon theory explicitly acknowledges the fact that language itself is a powerful force for assimilation, even more powerful than another assimilating meme: the idea of money.
But it's also true that Math, Physics and Philosophy are woven into the culture I'm embedded in. In fact, what aspect of my "humanity" does not owe itself to "assimilation"? Is it no true that the fantastic richness of human experience that is so threatened by assimilation is also due to assimilation? Unlike other animals, human beings thoroughly adapt to their environment and the tools available (both physical and intellectual). A man with an axe is a different animal from an man with no axe. Every tool, every sweeping change to he environment (now mostly "man made") changes what it is to be human.
Turning back to the "Dragon" image of a machine made up of human components, can we not imagine a "meme machine" constantly re-working and exploring its store of memes? The "thinking" of this machine includes the exponential growth of human knowledge in every field, described in Kurzweil's "Singularity". In this vision, we are "assimilated" into a thinking, dreaming, creating machine that is growing bigger and more powerful by he second. In fact, this "group mind" can't be described as a machine at all, since he creative, human energies of individuals add to produce much more than any one individual could produce. "Dragons" drag individuals to the "lowest common denominator", for example, reducing their lives to a scramble for money. Is it not true that we lament this process precisely because we benefit from centuries of thinking about what is meaningful and worthwhile about human existence? We want the benefits of civilization without surrendering the imagined purity of he "noble savage".
In this context, it's worth remembering "The Real World of Technology" which outlines the intimate connection between technical progress and dehumanization of the individual.
Perhaps it is a mundane observation that "assimilation" is a two-edge sword. We are swept along in the stream of history, constantly being redefined as human beings. Is it possible to step outside this process and say which changes to the definition of "human" are acceptable and which are not?
At the very least, this line of thinking challenges Dragon Theory's pessimistic view of our future as a species.
Comments
Post a Comment