I was recently interviewed by Stephen Ibaraki and Alex Lin (CEO of ChinaValue) in what turned out to be the most interesting, far-reaching, and multi-disciplinary (and long) interview I’ve ever given. I was very pleased with the depth of their questions and the topics we covered. You can listen to the MP3 version here, or read a full-text transcript here.

Topics covered:

• My work over the last few decades
• Big life lessons I’ve had
• My recent “Venture Production Studio” concept
• Stealth ventures I’m working on (realtime web, wireless power, etc.)
• Intelligent assistants
• Predictions for the future
• Augmented reality
• The Singularity
• Do we have free will? Will that change as Global Mind emerges?
• The changing nature of individuality
• The Psychological Singularity
• The Global Brain – history and implications
• The WebOS – Which cloud will win?
• The Semantic Web – what it’s really for, is it being adopted?
• What level does the brain compute at? Neural vs. quantum.
• Nature of consciousness (Buddhist view vs. Western Scientific view) – “I think, therefore I am” vs. “I am, therefore I think”
• The nature of self & possibility of artificial selves
• The Singularity
• John Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment
• Digital physics & cellular automata; Ed Fredkin & Stephen Wolfram
• Bostrom’s Simulation Hypothesis
• Buddhist views on ultimate nature of reality
• My relationship with Peter Drucker (my grandfather) and his influence (management, knowledge workers, social sector etc.)
• The shift to a now-centric civilization
• The fragmentation of the Semantic Web
• Freeing intelligence from human brains (like we did with knowledge)
• Symbiosis; Part vs. Whole – When does the Global Brain change to a new level of order?
• Beyond Homo Sapiens – What’s next? Cyborgs, collective beings, etc.
• Technological ethics – what kind of future are we building?
• Combining the best of Asian and Western intellectual approaches
• IBM-Jeopardy Challenge

We exist in a epoch of great technological change. Within the space of just a few generations we have gone from horse drawn carriages to exploring the outer reaches of our solar system, from building with wood, stone and metals to nanoscale construction with individual atoms, and from manual printing presses and physical libraries, to desktop publishing and the World Wide Web. The increasing pace of technological evolution brings with it many gifts, but also poses challenges never-before-faced by humanity. One of these challenges is the digital generation gap.

The digital generation gap is the result of the extremely rapid rise of personal computing, the Internet, mobile applications, and coming next, biotechnology. Never before in the history of our species have we been faced with a situation where each living generation is focused around a different technology platform.

The tools and practices that the elders of our civilization use are still based on the pre-digital analog era. Their children — the Baby Boomers — use entirely different tools and practices based around the PC. And the youth of today — the Boomers’ children, exist in yet another domain: the world of mobile devices.

The digital generation gap presents a major challenge to our civilization. In particular because of the effect this has on education — both informal education that takes place at home and in communities, and formal education that takes place in school settings. The tools that teachers grew up with and now teach with (PC’s) are not the same tools that the students of today are using today to learn and communicate with (mobile devices).

Baby Boomers grew up before the advent of any of these technologies — they lived in an analog world in which daily life took place primarily on the physical, face-to-face human scale, with physical materials and physical information media like printed books and newspapers. This world was similar to the world of their parents and grandparents — even though it was increasingly automated and industrialized during their lives. As children and during their young adult years the Boomers grew up amidst the fruition of the industrial revolution: mass-produced physical and synthetic goods of all kinds. Among the defining shifts of this period was the transition from a world of manual labor to one of increasing automation. The pinnacle of this transition was the adoption of the first generations of computers.

The Boomer’s children — people in their 30′s and 40′s today — arrived to usher in the transition from an automated analog world, to the new digital world. They were born into a civilization where monolithic computers had already taking hold in government and industry, and they witnessed the birth of waves of increasingly powerful, inexpensive and portable personal computers, the Internet, and the Web. This generation built the bridges from the industrial world of the Boomers to the digital world we live in today. They integrated systems, connected devices, and brought the whole world together as one global social and economic network.

Now their children – the children and youth of today — are growing up in a world that is primarily focused around mobile devices and mobile applications. They have always lived with ubiquitous mobile access and social media. No longer concerned with building bridges to the legacy industrial world of their parents and grandparents, they are plunging headlong into an increasingly digital culture. One in which dating, shopping, business, education — almost everything we do as humans — is taking place online, and via mobile devices.

Each generation is out of touch with the means of production and consumption of the other generations. The result is an increasing communications gap between the generations: They use different platforms. And not surprisingly the inter-generational transmission of knowledge, traditions, cultural norms and standards is not operating like it used to. In fact it may be breaking down entirely.

Many of the cultural and social stresses making headline news are related to the digital generation gap. For example, the increasing growth of cyberbullying is the result of parents and teachers being totally out of touch with the mobile world that kids live in today.

Parents and teachers are so out of the loop technologically, compared to kids today, that they are literally unable to see what is going on between them, let alone do anything about it.

It’s no wonder that kids are running wild online, “sexting,” cyberbullying, and cheating in school. There are few adults, and little to no adult-supervision, where they spend their time online keeping order.

There is no period in recent history when this has ever been the case. It used to be that schoolkids took recess breaks in the schoolyard under the watchful eyes their teachers. There was a certain level of adult supervision in school, and also at home. Not today. Teachers and parents can’t see what their kids are up to online and have no control over what they do with their mobile devices. We have a generation of kids who are growing up with less adult oversight and supervision than ever before.

And the newest generation — the babies of today — what will their experience be? Will the pace of technological progress finally start to plateau for them? Will their world be more like the world of their parents?

Instead of a sudden shift to yet a smaller level of scale or a more powerful technology platform, will they and many generations to come, live on a more stable and shared technology platform? If the pace does slow down for a while, we may see inter-generational gaps decrease. Perhaps this will serve to standardize and solidify our emerging global digital culture. A new set of digital norms and traditions will have time to form and be handed down across generations.

Alternatively, what if in fact the pace of change continues to quicken instead? What if the babies of today grow up in a world of augmented reality and industrial-scale genetic engineering? And what if their children (the grandchildren of people in their 40′s today) grow up in a world of direct brain-machine interfaces and personal genetic engineering? Those of us today who think of ourselves as being on the cutting edge will be the elders of tomorrow, and we will be hopelessly out of touch.

The human brain is like an archaeological record. Different layers and functional areas have evolved outwards over time. And now a new layer is evolving. I propose we call this new layer of the brain “the metacortex.” (Note: Metacortex also happens to be the company that Neo worked for in the movie, The Matrix)

The metacortex is the Web — our growing global network of information, people, sensors, and computing devices.

The Web is literally a new layer of the human brain that transcends any individual brain. It is a global brain that connects all our brains together. It is intelligent. It is perhaps humanity’s greatest invention.  It collectively senses, reacts, interprets, learns, thinks, and acts in ways that we as individuals can barely comprehend or predict, and this activity comprises an emerging global mind.

Paul Buchheit (creator of Gmail and Friendfeed) calls this “the social brain” — with emphasis on the social networks and collective social interactions that are taking place. I think that while the metacortex includes the social Web, it transcends it — it’s collective knowledge and cognition include all of the activity taking place on the Internet.

Does the metacortex mirror the structure and process of the neocortex? What can we learn about the neocortex from the metacortex and vice versa? What are the functional areas or lobes of the metacortex? I look forward to your comments.

“All reality is virtual” — Terrence McKenna

This is Part II of my article “The Global Brain is About to Wake Up” — about the  realtime Web and how it relates to the emerging Global Brain.

Here I focus mainly on thorny philosophical and scientific speculations about the nature of consciousness, the role it plays in the universe, and whether or not the Web can ever be said to be conscious in its own right. Beware — this content may not be of interest to most of my readers. It’s certainly in the “wild speculation” category.

Will the Web Become Conscious?

As the realtime Web gets faster and richer, it will begin to appear to be more cohesive and collectively intelligent. It will begin to appear like an actual, unified Global Brain, rather than just a crowd. Instead of being just a collection of interacting parts we will be able to see it as a functioning whole — a kind of entity in its own right. We will also be able to see this collective “entitiness” emerge for subsets of the whole Web? For example will nations, organizations, markets, industries, enterprises, workgroups and teams start to seem more intelligent? The Web will get smarter and faster, at every level of collective cognition but will it ever actually become conscious?

Yes and no.

It will become collectively more intelligent, and the consciousnesses of individuals around the Web will be more connected and potentially synchronized. But the Web itself won’t actually have it’s own new consciousness, unique from the consciousnesses of the people who participate in it. Still it will seem more conscious than it was before, simply by virtue of the human consciousnesses within it being more connected and focused.

I don’t think the Web will actually develop or have its own meta-level consciousness however. It won’t evolve some new form of Web-scale consciousness that is totally separate from the individual consciousness of the people on the Web.  A Web-scale sentient entity that is unique and separate from the humans minds on the Web will never exist. That will never happen. Instead, the Web as a whole will evolve to better utilize the human consciousness that is already present within it — the consciousness that we human beings already have.

The Irreplaceable Role of Humans in the Web

As conscious entities, we humans play a unique and irreplaceable role in the realtime Web and the Global Brain.  We provide the only consciousness the Web will ever have. Machines may be able to sense and measure what is going on, and even make sense of it for us in ways that transcend the abilities of the individual human brain, but they won’t be able to be conscious of what is going on the way that we humans can be.

We human beings are the consciousness of the Web — that is our special role. No machine or set of machines can replicate consciousness, not even the entire Web as a single machine. However there is a distinction to be made between consciousness and intelligence.

Machines can certainly be made to be intelligent, and that applies even to the entire Web as a machine as well. The Web is getting more intelligent, and as this happens it is becoming our Global Brain. But it’s not becoming more conscious.  Rather, we humans are becoming more conscious of the Web and what is going on within it. Humans are becoming able to be more conscious of the Web, but the Web itself is not becoming conscious at all, let alone more conscious. This is a key point to keep in mind.

Until recently humans have been watching the Web in slow motion. We can only see small glimpses at a time. The individual human brain cannot comprehend the vast patterns that are taking place on the Web, and there are few software tools that can make sense of them for us either. It’s just too big and complex a system, and the patterns which comprise its collective thoughts — the thoughts of the Global Brain — are too spread out in time and space.

We humans are barely able to be lucidly conscious in our little nows — which are really just spans of a few square meters, and a few minutes, at a time — but the collectively intelligent processes and patterns out on the Web cover thousands of miles and can span days, weeks, months or even years. They just don’t fit in our little human nows. The solution is to find a way to visualize them so we can digest them in our little nows. That’s the only practical approach — unless someone figures out how to expand the individual human now.

Fortunately, there are several trends that are going help with this process. As the Web gets faster, processes that used to take too long for us to follow them will become short enough for individuals to watch them play out in reasonable timespans, without getting lost or overwhelmed. The collective thoughts of the Web are starting to happen fast enough for our human minds to see them emerge, change, and interact on our human timescale of minutes and hours. Instead of watching memes develop and spread on the Web as if in slow-motion, we are starting to see and measure them in our timescale, at our speed.

In addition as the Web gets more computationally powerful — computers and software will be able to help us see what is going on beyond the limits of our human nows — larger volumes of data changing over larger spans of time than we can grasp on our own. This too will help to compress and visualize patterns and processes that were previously beyond our comprehension in ways that we can make sense of as individual human observers with our small brains and short nows.

Both of these trends will enable individual human minds to comprehend larger and more complex processes and patterns within the Web. And as individuals become able to be conscious of larger and more complex patterns taking place within the Web, they will be able to react and adapt to those patterns in their own individual behavior. This feedback loop will give rise to increasingly intelligent collective adaptation and behavior. And thus the Web as a whole — the Global Brain that includes humans, machines, software, and all our infrastructure — will appear to become increasingly smart.

Humans drive this process by simply being conscious observers of the Web, and by making intelligent decisions, adding content and taking actions online. But we’re not the only ones. Software will also play a role in this — adding intelligence and content, but not consciousness, to the process.

How Important is Consciousness Anyway?

But how important is human consciousness to the Web, and the Global Brain? One might wonder whether human consciousness really matters in all this, or whether it’s enough just to have non-conscious but intelligent machines?

Would the Global Brain be different without humans there to witness it? If there were no humans in it, but just non-conscious artificially intelligent software that simply follows rules or uses statistics and algorithms — would the Global Brain be more or less conscious or intelligent?

This is actually an absurd question. Without humans there would not be a Web, let alone a Global Brain. But let’s just suspend that for a moment and ask the question in a different way. Suppose that at some time in the distant future, all humans die, but the Web remains. Would the Web still contain any consciousness on it’s own?

I think the answer is no. This ultimately goes back to John Searle’s concept of Qualia. In a nutshell, there is nothing on the Web, apart from humans, that is capable of experiencing qualia — the actual knowing of any experience. So there is nothing on the Web that is capable of being conscious, apart from the humans who participate in it. Without the humans, there could be no consciousness in or on the Web.

There  is a difference between being conscious of the qualia of something, and simply measuring data about something. Qualia is special — as strange and potentially hocus-pocus at that may sound. I just don’t believe qualia is something that can be synthesized in a machine or by any algorithm. Being conscious of the Web is not the same as simply measuring data flows. I believe there is a distinct quality of “knowing” or “being aware” that is the hallmark of actual consciousness and which simply cannot be synthesized in a computer.

From what I can tell, qualia is something unique to being sentient, in other words, aware. And awareness is something special as far as I can tell — I think it might be fundamental like space and time, not something we can create or synthesize, and not something emergent. Again this just my opinion — but I think it’s a defensible one.

The Unexplainableness of Consciousness

I’ve spent decades thinking about the question of consciousness, and whether machines can ever be conscious, and I have never found it plausible to make conscious machines.

Quite the contrary — the more I have examined this question, the more clear it has become to me that consciousness is special — it is something that simply cannot even be described, and literally cannot be found — yet it is undeniably taking place. Ontologically consciousness is similar to space and time — we cannot find space or time, we cannot isolate them or grasp their substance, yet they are undeniably taking place. Consciousness seems to be just like that. Unexplainable, yet undeniable.

I’m something of a mystic with regard to consciousness — but not in a blind way. I’ve come to this view only after really trying to avoid it — through very thorough and painstaking investigation from just about every perspective on it — neuroscience, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, linguistics, philosophy, physics, cosmology, and religion and spirituality.

Consciousness appears finally to be something we just cannot explain, let alone synthesize, and I’d be willing to bet that it’s always going to be beyond our reach. In fact I have made such a bet at the Long Bets project: You can read more about this in my article, “Why Machines Will Never be Conscious.”

Given that I view consciousness as something primordial and beyond physics, from my perspective at least, I don’t think we can manufacture it. I also doubt it will simply magically emerge on the Web, apart from individual human minds.

Consciousness is Neither Emergent Nor Reducible.

But wait. Certainly there is a case to be made that if consciousness can emerge within the human brain, then why not within the Web? The human brain is essentially a more complex Web after all. Why is one kind of Web any more or less qualified to be conscious?

My present answer to this is that I don’t think consciousness ever emerges through some physical process — it’s never created or destroyed, and even when said to be present it’s not “there” like other kinds of things. It doesn’t appear as something, it has no form, shape, color, etc. It cannot be found or grasped at all. It is similar to space in these respects.

Space is never created or destroyed — at least as far as we can tell from within this universe. Similarly, consciousness is never created or destroyed as far as we can tell as conscious observers. That’s just how the universe is — it’s a mystery that is bigger than us. We’ll never be able to comprehend it fully from inside it. Consciousness seems to have the same ontological status as space. The difference is that while space is inert, incapable of observing or knowing, consciousness seems to have a quality of knowing that is quite unique.

My point is actually that the human brain is NOT special. I don’t actually think consciousness comes from the brain or is inside the brain, or running like some kind of software on the hardware of the brain.

If consciousness were merely some physical phenomenon that depended on the brain, then it would be no problem to synthesize it, not just for AI but for the Web as a whole as well. But that’s not the case, in my opinion.

I don’t think consciousness is a material thing, nor is it an emergent phenomena. I think it’s fundamental to the nature of the universe — like space and time — or perhaps even more fundamental than space and time. We can’t create it. We’ll probably never fully understand it. It just is there from the start. It’s the very basis of the entire phenomena of the universe, it’s not merely something that evolves and emerges within the universe. Indeed, I would venture to state that without consciousness — at least in primordial form — no universes would even be possible or would ever arise.

In my view, material things like the physical universe and the human body and brain, emerge from consciousness, rather than consciousness emerging from material things. Consciousness, whatever it is, is primordial and fundamental. Whether or not you reify it as a fundamental first-cause or ultimate thing, or you take the Buddhist view that it is also empty of any entity or nature and therefore not a thing, it is still at least totally primordial.

This isn’t just speculation — it’s something that can both be observed and is entirely logical as well. For example, if you really look closely at what you or anyone can possibly ever observe, it appears this is the only tenable answer we can find. Why? Because we cannot observe anything prior to being conscious ourselves — consciousness is necessary to be an observer. We can’t even ask such questions if we are not conscious in the first place. Consciousness is assumed, and must already be there, as soon as we even start looking for it.

Furthermore, the example of dreams proves that incredibly real virtual worlds, entire universes, can indeed appear and take place within the sphere of an individual dreaming consciousness — and they are indistinguishable (while they occur) from waking experience. Dreaming illustrates the power and scope of consciousness — it shows that it is not absurd to think that the our own so-called waking experience could be appearing like a dream within our own fields of consciousness. Waking experience, like dreaming, happens within the sphere of consciousness. It’s impossible to have waking experience without being conscious.

We have no evidence of there being anything beyond the sphere of consciousness and we cannot possibly observe anything without resorting to consciousness in the process to make the observation. There is no way to logically establish that there exists anything beyond or before the scope of consciousness. Anything we attempt to prove or observer is mediated by our own observing consciousness.

For this reason, as far as I or anyone can ever discern, it is reasonable to posit that each of our unique perspectives — each of our minds — contains the universe from one perspective. It’s similar to a hologram — where each piece of the picture contains the whole picture from a different angle. In the case of consciousness, each individual consciousness is one unique perspective on the universe. And the universe itself cannot be found apart from all these conscious perspectives on it. It’s not “out there” as some separate physical thing that these consciousnesses are simply watching from afar — it is literally a manifestation of these consciousnesses, there is no duality between observer and what is observed at the quantum level.

All the evidence points to consciousness being prior to everything else. There is in fact no evidence that indicates otherwise. As a result I don’t believe consciousness is emergent or reducible. I don’t think it is created or destroyed. And even when present it is not actually findable, because it is basically an axiom of the system we are in. It’s primordial and so we cannot sense it or detect it, other than with consciousness itself. There’s nothing more fundamental to break it down into, or to compare or contrast it against.

Consciousness and the Quantum Substrate

From what I can discern so far, I believe that human consciousness — actual sentience, not simulated sentience — is fundamentally related to the fabric of space-time. It is woven right into the quantum substrate of reality.

At that level of reality there is not clear distinction between mind and matter, it’s some kind of whole that we barely understand. While computers may be able to simulate aspects of this, they do not actually interact directly with the quantum substrate the way that human consciousness does.

This is a big difference between machine minds and human minds: Human consciousness is directly connected to the fundamental quantum nature of the universe, and quite probably plays a role in creating or at least conditioning observed reality. Computer programs — no matter how sophisticated — are not connected to the quantum substrate in the same way — they are not capable of being true quantum observers.

There is at least some evidence for my view of consciousness: On a quantum level, observation and measurement seem to have an impact on what is actually found to occur. The observer affects the experiment. All forms of observation eventually seem to require a human — or equivalently conscious — observer at some point in the process — there’s no escaping that. Without such an observer, the universe remains in an indeterminate quantum state. So it appears that human consciousness — or at least authentic actual consciousness whether human or not — is required to cause the quantum field to actually crystallize into particular events.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that computers can ever be conscious; no evidence that synthetic sentient observers can be created, and even if we created them, there would be no way to prove that their powers of observation were equivalent to our own. Any observations they made of them would ultimately be observed by us humans, and so we would always be the final conscious observers in the chain.

On a quantum level, our observation of our machines, would cascade downwards, causing their observations of reality to have an effect. Without our observing them, machines would not be able to actually affect the quantum level of reality. And indeed it would be difficult to try to prove otherwise, because a human observer is necessary to observe any such proof or system we can devise (and in fact, quantum observer effects have been shown even to propagate backwards in time from a later act of observation to an earlier experiment). So there’s just no way to take human consciousness out of the loop.

We cannot prove that human consciousness isn’t necessary for our universe to appear. We cannot prove that machines can function as independent quantum observers, separate from human observation, and we probably cannot devise any experiment or device which could prove that therefore. There’ s really no evidence to suggest that machines could synthesize this function — all the evidence in fact says otherwise. And this applies by extension to the Web as a whole, and thus to the Global Brain.

As a result, I think human consciousnesses play an absolutely crucial role in the universe, the  Web, and in any eventual Global Brain or form of collective intelligence. Our consciousness is the only actual authentic consciousness in the system. And it plays an important and necessary role at a quantum level in shaping reality through quantum level acts of observation.

By the way, it’s worth noting that consciousness is not exclusively the domain of human beings — animals are also conscious for example. But human beings are at least the most intelligent conscious things that we know of, so I’m limiting this discussion of the Global Brain to humans. In any case, there is no substitute for actual consciousness. It can’t be synthesized. It comes only from humans. At best it can perhaps be aimed, funneled or maybe amplified.

But that doesn’t mean that machine intelligence won’t play a very important enabling and catalyzing role in making the Global Brain smarter. There’s a difference between consciousness and intelligence. In fact, machine intelligence is critical to the Global Brain waking up — because it makes the vast complexity of the Global Brain (in both space and time) comprehensible, digestible, and accessible to the individual human consciousnesses that observe it.

Although humans posses consciousness, our minds are limited in scope — we simply cannot see or make sense of patterns that are above a certain level of scale or complexity in space and time. We need help with that — and that’s where computers enter the story, with their vast abilities to calculate, sort, collate, correlate, and organize masses of data.

Computers essentially increase the scope of human consciousness, by enabling us to observe things and do computations that are beyond the abilities of the individual human brain. It is by making the vast patterns within the complex whole — the entire Web –  more visible and understandable to the observers within it — the human consciousnesses within it — that the Global Brain actually becomes smarter, more reflexively-aware, and more collectively conscious.

By connecting individual human consciousnesses to the vast intelligence and knowledge of the growing global computing network, we will get the best of both: a Global Brain that gets increasingly collectively aware and intelligent.

The emerging realtime Web is not only going to speed up the Web and our lives, it is going to bring about a kind of awakening of our collective Global Brain. It’s going to change how many things happen on online, but it’s also going to change how we see and understand what the Web is doing. By speeding up the Web, it will cause processes that used to take weeks or months to unfold online, to happen in days or even minutes. And this will bring these processes to the human-scale — to the scale of our human “now” — making it possible for us to be aware of larger collective processes than before. We have until now been watching the Web in slow motion. As it speeds up, we will begin to see and understand what’s taking place on the Web in a whole new way.

This process of of quickening is part of a larger trend which I and others call “Nowism.” You can read more of my thoughts about Nowism here. Nowism is an orientation that is gaining momentum and will help to shape this decade, and in particular, how the Web unfolds. It is the idea that the present-timeframe (“the now”) is getting more important, shorter and also more information-rich. As this happens our civilization is becoming more focused on the now, and less focused on past or the future. Simply keeping up with the present is becoming an all-consuming challenge: Both a threat and an opportunity.

The realtime Web –  what I call “The Stream”  (see “Welcome to the Stream”) — is changing the unit of now. It’s making it shorter. The now is the span of time which we have to be aware of to be effective our work and lives, and it is getting shorter. On a personal level the now is getting shorter and denser — more information and change is packed into shorter spans of time; a single minute on Twitter is overflowing with potentially relevant messages and links. In business as well, the now is getting shorter and denser — it used to be about the size of a fiscal quarter, then it became a month, then a week, then a day, and now it is probably about half a day in span. Soon it will be just a few hours.

To keep up with what is going on we have to check in with the world in at least half-day chunks. Important news breaks about once or twice a day. Trends on Twitter take about a day to develop too. So basically, you can afford to just check  the news and the real-time Web once or twice a day and still get by. But that’s going to change.  As the now gets shorter, we’ll have to check in more frequently to keep abreast of change. As the Stream picks up speed in the middle of this decade, to remain competitive will require near-constant monitoring — we will have to always be connected to, and watching, the real-time Web and our personal streams. Being offline at all will risk missing out on big important trends, threats and opportunities that emerge and develop within minutes or hours. But nobody is capable of tracking the Stream all 24/7 — we must at least take breaks to eat and sleep. And this is a problem.

Big Changes to the Web Coming Soon…

With Nowism comes a faster Web, and this will lead to big changes in how we do various activities on the Web:

• We will spend less time searching. Nowism pushes us to find better alternatives to search, or to eliminate search entirely, because people don’t have time to search anymore. We need tools that do the searching for us and that help with decision support so we don’t have to spend so much of our scarce time doing that. See my article on “Eliminating the Need for Search — Help Engines” for more about that.
• Monitoring (not searching) the real-time stream becomes more important. We need to stay constantly vigilant about what’s happening, what’s trending. We need to be alerted of the important stuff (to us), and we need a way to filter out what’s not important to us. Probably a filter based on influence of people and tweets, and/or time dynamics of memes will be necessary. Monitoring the real-time stream effectively is different from searching it. I see more value in real-time monitoring than realtime search — I haven’t seen any monitoring tools for Twitter that are smart enough to give me just the content I want yet. There’s a real business opportunity there.
• The return of agents. Intelligent agents are going to come back. To monitor the realtime Web effectively each of us will need online intelligent agents that can help us — because we don’t have time, and even if we did, there’s just too much information to sift through.
• Influence becomes more important than relevance. Advertisers and marketers will look for the most influential parties (individuals or groups) on Twitter and other social media to connect with and work through. But to do this there has to be an effective way to measure influence. One service that’s providing a solution for this (which I’ve angel invested in and advise) is Klout.com – they measure influence per person per topic. I think that’s a good start.
• Filtering content by influence. We also will need a way to find the most influential content. Influential content could be the content most RT’d or most RT’d by most influential people. It would be much less noisy to be able to see only the more influential tweets of people I follow. If a tweet gets RT’d a lot, or is RT’d by really influential people, then I want to see it. If not, then only if it’s really important (based on some rule). This will be the only way to cope with the information overload of the real-time Web and keep up with it effectively. I don’t know of anyone providing a service for this yet. It’s a business opportunity.
• Nowness as a measure of value of content. We will need a new form of ranking of results by “nowness” – how timely they are now. So for example, in real-time search engines we shouldn’t rank results merely by how recent they are, but also by how timely, influential, and “hot” they are now. See my article from years ago on “A Physics of Ideas” for more about that. Real-time search companies should think of themselves as real-time monitoring companies — that’s what they are really going to be used for in the end. Only the real-time search ventures that think of themselves this way are going to survive the conceptual paradigm shift that the realtime Web is bringing about. In a realtime context, search is actually too late — once something has happened in the past it really is not that important anymore –what matters is current awareness: discovering the trends NOW. To do that one has to analyze the present, and the very recent past, much more than searching the longer term past. The focus has to be on real-time or near-real-time analytics, statistical analysis, topic and trend detection, prediction, filtering and alerting. Not search.
• New ways to understand and navigate the now. We will need a way to visualize and navigate the now. I’m helping to incubate a stealth startup venture, Live Matrix, that is working on that. It hasn’t launched yet. It’s cool stuff. More on that in the future when they launch.
• New tools for browsing the Stream. New tools will emerge for making the realtime Web more compelling and smarter. I’m working on incubating some new stealth startups in this area as well. They’re very early-stage so can’t say more about them yet.
• The merger of semantics with the realtime Web. We need to make the realtime Web semantic — as well as the rest of the Web — in order to make it easier for software to make sense of it for us. This is the best approach to increasing the signal-to-noise ratio of content we have to look at whether searching or monitoring stuff. The Semantic Web standars of the W3C are key to this. I’ve written a long manifesto on this in “Minding The Planet: The Meaning and Future of the Semantic Web” if you’re really interested in that topic.

Faster Leads to Smarter

As the realtime web unfolds and speeds up, I think it will also have a big impact on what some people call “The Global Brain.” The Global Brain has always existed, but in recent times it has been experiencing a series of major upgrades — particularly around how connected, affordable, accessible and fast it is. First we got phone and faxes, then the Internet, the PC and the Web, and now the real-time Web and the Semantic Web. All of these recent changes are making the Global Brain faster, more richly interconnected. And this makes it smarter. For more about my thoughts on the Global Brain, see these two talks:

• My detailed History and Future of the Global Brain given at the Singularity Summit.
• A talk on the emerging Global Brain and human-machine cybernetic superorganism, with specific focus on what it means for media companies, from the GRID Conference.

What’s most interesting to me is that as the rate of communication and messaging on the Web approaches near-real time, we may see a kind of phase change take place – a much smarter Global Brain will sort of begin to appear out of the chaos. In other words, the speed of collective thinking is as important to the complexity or sophistication of collective thinking, in making the Global Brain significantly more intelligent. In other words, I’m proposing that there is a sort of critical speed of collective thinking, before which the Global Brain seems like just a crowd of actors chaotically flocking around memes, and after which the Global Brain makes big leaps — instead of seeming like a chaotic crowd, it starts to look more like an organized group around certain activitities — it is able to respond to change faster, and optimize and even do things collectively more productively than a random crowd could.

This is kind of like film, or animation. When you watch a movie or animation you are really watching a rapid series of frames. This gives the illusion of there being cohesive, continuous characters, things and worlds in the movie — but really they aren’t there at all, it’s just an illusion — our brains put these scenes together and start to recognize and follow higher order patterns. A certain shape appears to maintain itself and move around relative to other shapes, and we name it with a certain label — but there isn’t really something there, let alone something moving or interacting — there are just frames flicking by rapidly . It turns out that after a critical frame rate (around 20 to 60 frames per second) the human brain stops seeing individual frames and starts seeing a continuous movie. When you start flipping pages fast enough it appears to be a coherent animation and then we start seeing things “moving within the sequence” of frames. In the same way, as the unit of time of (aka the speed) of the real-time Web increases, its behavior will start to seem more continuous and smarter — we won’t see separate chunks of time or messages, we’ll see intelligent continuous collective thinking and adaptation processes.

In other words, as the Web gets faster, we’ll start to see processes emerge within it that appear to be cohesive intelligent collective entities in their own right. There won’t really be any actual entities there that we can isolate, but when we watch the patterns on the Web it will appear as if such entities are there. This is basically what is happening at every level of scale — even in the real world. There really isn’t anything there that we can find — everything is divisible down to the quantum level and probably beyond — but over time our brains seem to recognize and label patterns as discrete “things.” This is what will happen across the Web as well. For example, a certain meme (such as a fad or a movement) may become a “thing” in it’s own right, a kind of entity that seemingly takes on a life of its own and seems to be doing something. Similarly certain groups or social networks or activities they engage in may seem to be intelligent entities in their own rights.

This is an illusion in that there really are no entities there, they are just collections of parts that themselves can be broken down into more parts, and no final entities can be found. However, nonethless, they will seem like intelligent entities when not analyzed in detail. In addition, the behavior of these chaotic systems may resist reduction — they may not even be understandable and their behavior may not be predictable through a purely reductionist approach — it may be that they react to their own internal state and their environments virtually in real-time, making it difficult to take a top-down or bottom-up view of what they are doing. In a realtime world, change happens in every direction.

As the Web gets faster, the patterns that are taking place across it will start to become more animated. Big processes that used to take months or years to happen will happen in minutes or hours. As this comes about we will begin to see larger patterns than before, and they will start to make more sense to us — they will emerge out of the mists of time so to speak, and become visible to us on our human timescale — the timescale of our human-level “now. As a result, we will become more aware of higher order dynamics taking place on the real-time Web, and we will begin to participate in and adapt to those dynamics, making those dynamics in turn even smarter. (For more on my thoughts about how the Global Brain gets smarter, see:  “How to Build the Global Mind.”)

See Part II: “Will The Web Become Conscious?” if you want to dig further into the thorny philosophical and scientific issues that this brings up…

We are so focused on how to improve present-day search engines. But that is a kind of mental myopia. In fact, a more interesting and fruitful question is why do people search at all? What are they trying to accomplish? And is there a better way to help them accomplish that than search?

Instead of finding more ways to get people to search, or ways to make existing search experiences better, I am starting to think about how to reduce or  eliminate the need to search — by replacing it with something better.

People don’t search because they like to. They search because there is something else they are trying to accomplish. So search is in fact really just an inconvenience — a means-to-an-end that we have to struggle through to do in order to get to what we actually really want to accomplish. Search is “in the way” between intention and action. It’s an intermediary stepping stone. And perhaps there’s a better way to get to where we want to go than searching.

Searching is a boring and menial activity. Think about it. We have to cleverly invent and try pseudo-natural-language queries that don’t really express what we mean. We try many different queries until we get results that approximate what we’re looking for. We click on a bunch of results and check them out. Then we search some more. And then some more clicking. Then more searching. And we never know whether we’ve been comprehensive, or have even entered the best query, or looked at all the things we should have looked at to be thorough. It’s extremely hit or miss. And takes up a lot of time and energy. There must be a better way! And there is.

Instead of making search more bloated and more of a focus, the goal should really be get search out of the way.  To minimize the need to search, and to make any search that is necessary as productive as possible. The goal should be to get consumers to what they really want with the least amount of searching and the least amount of effort, with the greatest amount of confidence that the results are accurate and comprehensive. To satisfy these constraints one must NOT simply build a slightly better search engine!

Instead, I think there’s something else we need to be building entirely. I don’t know what to call it yet. It’s not a search engine. So what is it?

Bing’s term “decision engine” is pretty good, pretty close to it. But what they’ve actually released so far still looks and feels a lot like a search engine. But at least it’s pushing the envelope beyond what Google has done with search. And this is good for competition and for consumers. Bing is heading in the right direction by leveraging natural language, semantics, and structured data. But there’s still a long way to go to really move the needle significantly beyond Google to be able to win dominant market share.

For the last decade the search wars have been fought in battles around index size, keyword search relevancy, and ad targeting — But I think the new battle is going to be fought around semantic understanding, intelligent answers, personal assistance, and commerce affiliate fees. What’s coming next after search engines are things that function more like assistants and brokers.

Wolfram Alpha is an example of one approach to this trend. The folks at Wolfram Alpha call their system a “computational knowledge engine” because they use a knowledge base to compute and synthesize answers to various questions. It does a lot of the heavy lifting for you, going through various data, computing and comparing, and then synthesizes a concise answer.

There are also other approaches to getting or generating answers for people — for example, by doing what Aardvark does: referring people to experts who can answer their questions or help them. Expert referral, or expertise search, helps reduce the need for networking and makes networking more efficient. It also reduces the need for searching online — instead of searching for an answer, just ask an expert.

There’s also the semantic search approach — perhaps exemplified by my own Twine “T2″ project — which basically aims to improve the precision of search by helping you get to the right results faster, with less irrelevant noise. Other consumer facing semantic search projects of interest are Goby and Powerset (now part of Bing).

Still another approach is that of Siri, which is making an intelligent “task completion assistant” that helps you search for and accomplish things like “book a romantic dinner and a movie tonight.” In some ways Siri is a “do engine” not a “search engine.” Siri uses artificial intelligence to help you do things more productively. This is quite needed and will potentially be quite useful, especially on mobile devices.

All of these approaches and projects are promising. But I think the next frontier — the thing that is beyond search and removes the need for search is still a bit different — it is going to combine elements of all of the above approaches, with something new.

For a lack of a better term, I call this a “help engine.” A help engine proactively helps you with various kinds of needs, decisions, tasks, or goals you want to accomplish. And it does this by helping with an increasingly common and vexing problem: choice overload.

The biggest problem is that we have too many choices, and the number of choices keeps increasing exponentially. The Web and globalization have increased the number of choices that are within range for all of us, but the result has been overload. To make a good, well-researched, confident choice now requires a lot of investigation, comparisons, and thinking. It’s just becoming too much work.

For example, choosing a location for an event, or planning a trip itinerary, or choosing what medicine to take, deciding what product to buy, who to hire, what company to work for, what stock to invest in, what website to read about some topic. These kinds of activities require a lot of research, evaluations of choices, comparisons, testing, and thinking. A lot of clicking. And they also happen to be some of the most monetizable activities for search engines. Existing search engines like Google that make money from getting you to click on their pages as much as possible have no financial incentive to solve this problem — if they actually worked so well that consumers clicked less they would make less money.

I think the solution to what’s after search — the “next Google” so to speak — will come from outside the traditional search engine companies. Or at least it will be an upstart project within one of them that surprises everyone and doesn’t come from the main search teams within them. It’s really such a new direction from traditional search and will require some real thinking outside of the box.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot over the last month or two. It’s fascinating. What if there was a better way to help consumers with the activities they are trying to accomplish than search? If it existed it could actually replace search. It’s a Google-sized opportunity, and one which I don’t think Google is going to solve.

Search engines cause choice overload. That wasn’t the goal, but it is what has happened over time due to the growth of the Web and the explosion of choices that are visible, available, and accessible to us via the Web.

What we need now is not a search engine — it’s something that solves the problem created by search engines. For this reason, the next Google probably won’t be Google or a search engine at all.

I’m not advocating for artificial intelligence or anything that tries to replicate human reasoning, human understanding, or human knowledge. I’m actually thinking about something simpler. I think that it’s possible to use computers to provide consumers with extremely good, automated decision-support over the Web and the kinds of activities they engage in. Search engines are almost the most primitive form of decision support imaginable. I think we can do a lot better. And we have to.

People use search engines as a form of decision-support, because they don’t have a better alternative. And there are many places where decision support and help are needed: Shopping, travel, health, careers, personal finance, home improvement, and even across entertainment and lifestyle categories.

What if there was a way to provide this kind of personal decision-support — this kind of help — with an entirely different user experience than search engines provide today? I think there is. And I’ve got some specific thoughts about this, but it’s too early to explain them; they’re still forming.

I keep finding myself thinking about this topic, and arriving at big insights in the process. All of the different things I’ve worked on in the past seem to connect to this idea in interesting ways. Perhaps it’s going to be one of the main themes I’ll be working on and thinking about for this coming decade.

In typical Web-industry style we’re all focused minutely on the leading trend-of-the-year, the real-time Web. But in this obsession we have become a bit myopic. The real-time Web, or what some of us call “The Stream,” is not an end in itself, it’s a means to an end. So what will it enable, where is it headed, and what’s it going to look like when we look back at this trend in 10 or 20 years?

In the next 10 years, The Stream is going to go through two big phases, focused on two problems, as it evolves:

1. Web Attention Deficit Disorder. The first problem with the real-time Web that is becoming increasingly evident is that it has a bad case of ADD. There is so much information streaming in from so many places at once that it’s simply impossible to focus on anything for very long, and a lot of important things are missed in the chaos. The first generation of tools for the Stream are going to need to address this problem.
2. Web Intention Deficit Disorder. The second problem with the real-time Web will emerge after we have made some real headway in solving Web attention deficit disorder. This second problem is about how to get large numbers of people to focus their intention not just their attention. It’s not just difficult to get people to notice something, it’s even more difficult to get them to do something. Attending to something is simply noticing it. Intending to do something is actually taking action, expending some energy or effort to do something. Intending is a lot more expensive, cognitively speaking, than merely attending. The power of collective intention is literally what changes the world, but we don’t have the tools to direct it yet.

The Stream is not the only big trend taking place right now. In fact, it’s just a strand that is being braided together with several other trends, as part of a larger pattern. Here are some of the other strands I’m tracking:

• Messaging. The real-time Web aka The Stream is really about messaging in essence. It’s a subset of the global trend towards building a better messaging layer for the Web. Multiple forms of messaging are emerging, from the publish-and-subscribe nature of Twitter and RSS, to things like Google Wave, Pubsubhubub, and broadcast style messaging or multicasting via screencast, conferencing and media streaming and events in virtual worlds. The effect of these tools is that the speed and interactivity of the Web are increasing — the Web is getting faster. Information spreads more virally, more rapidly — in other words, “memes” (which we can think of as collective thoughts) are getting more sophisticated and gaining more mobility.
• Semantics. The Web becomes more like a database. The resolution of search, ad targeting, and publishing increases. In other words, it’s a higher-resolution Web. Search will be able to target not just keywords but specific meaning. For example, you will be able to search precisely for products or content that meet certain constraints. Multiple approaches from natural language search to the metadata of the Semantic Web will contribute to increased semantic understanding and representation of the Web.
• Attenuation. As information moves faster, and our networks get broader, information overload gets worse in multiple dimensions. This creates a need for tools to help people filter the firehose. Filtering in its essence is a process of attenuation — a way to focus attention more efficiently on signal versus noise. Broadly speaking there are many forms of filtering from automated filtering, to social filtering, to personalization, but they all come down to helping someone focus their finite attention more efficiently on the things they care about most.
• The WebOS.  As cloud computing resources, mashups, open linked data, and open API’s proliferate, a new level of aggregator is emerging. These aggregators may focus on one of these areas or may cut across them. Ultimately they are the beginning of true cross-service WebOS’s. I predict this is going to be a big trend in the future — for example instead of writing Web apps directly to various data and API’s in dozens of places, just write to a single WebOS aggregator that acts as middleware between your app and all these choices. It’s much less complicated for developers. The winning WebOS is probably not going to come from Google, Microsoft or Amazon — rather it will probably come from someone neutral, with the best interests of developers as the primary goal.
• Decentralization. As the semantics of the Web get richer, and the WebOS really emerges it will finally be possible for applications to leverage federated, Web-scale computing. This is when intelligent agents will actually emerge and be practical. By this time the Web will be far too vast and complex and rapidly changing for any centralized system to index and search it. Only massively federated swarms of intelligent agents, or extremely dynamic distributed computing tools, that can spread around the Web as they work, will be able to keep up with the Web.
• Socialization. Our interactions and activities on the Web are increasingly socially networked, whether individual, group or involving large networks or crowds. Content is both shared and discovered socially through our circles of friends and contacts. In addition, new technologies like Google Social Search enable search results to be filtered by social distance or social relevancy. In other words, things that people you follow like get higher visibility in your search results. Socialization is a trend towards making previously non-social activities more social, and towards making already-social activities more efficient and broader. Ultimately this process leads to wider collaboration and higher levels of collective intelligence.
• Augmentation. Increasingly we will see a trend towards augmenting things with other things. For example, augmenting a Web page or data set with links or notes from another Web page or data set. Or augmenting reality by superimposing video and data onto a live video image on a mobile phone. Or augmenting our bodies with direct connections to computers and the Web.

If these are all strands in a larger pattern, then what is the megatrend they are all contributing to? I think ultimately it’s collective intelligence — not just of humans, but also our computing systems, working in concert.

Collective Intelligence

I think that these trends are all combining, and going real-time. Effectively what we’re seeing is the evolution of a global collective mind, a theme I keep coming back to again and again. This collective mind is not just comprised of humans, but also of software and computers and information, all interlinked into one unimaginably complex system: A system that senses the universe and itself, that thinks, feels, and does things, on a planetary scale. And as humanity spreads out around the solar system and eventually the galaxy, this system will spread as well, and at times splinter and reproduce.

But that’s in the very distant future still. In the nearer term — the next 100 years or so — we’re going to go through some enormous changes. As the world becomes increasingly networked and social the way collective thinking and decision making take place is going to be radically restructured.

Social Evolution

Existing and established social, political and economic structures are going to either evolve or be overturned and replaced. Everything from the way news and entertainment are created and consumed, to how companies, cities and governments are managed will change radically. Top-down beaurocratic control systems are simply not going to be able to keep up or function effectively in this new world of distributed, omnidirectional collective intelligence.

Physical Evolution

As humanity and our Web of information and computatoins begins to function as a single organism, we will evolve literally, into a new species: Whatever is after the homo sapien. The environment we will live in will be a constantly changing sea of collective thought in which nothing and nobody will be isolated. We will be more interdependent than ever before. Interdependence leads to symbiosis, and eventually to the loss of generality and increasing specialization. As each of us is able to draw on the collective mind, the global brain, there may be less pressure on us to do things on our own that used to be solitary. What changes to our bodies, minds and organizations may result from these selective evolutionary pressures? I think we’ll see several, over multi-thousand year timescales, or perhaps faster if we start to genetically engineer ourselves:

• Individual brains will get less good at things like memorization and recall, calculation, reasoning, and long-term planning and action.
• Individual brains will get better at multi-tasking, information filtering, trend detection, and social communication. The parts of the nervous system involved in processing live information will increase disproportionately to other parts.
• Our bodies may actually improve in certain areas. We will become more, not less, mobile, as computation and the Web become increasingly embedded into our surroundings, and into augmented views of our environments. This may cause our bodies to get into better health and shape since we will be less sedentary, less at our desks, less in front of TV’s. We’ll be moving around in the world, connected to everything and everyone no matter where we are. Physical strength will probably decrease overall as we will need to do less manual labor of any kind.

These are just some of the changes that are likely to occur as a result of the things we’re working on today. The Web and the emerging Real-Time Web are just a prelude of things to come.

The BBC World Service’s Business Daily show interviewed the CTO of Xerox and me, about the future of the Web, printing, newspapers, search, personalization, the real-time Web. Listen to the audio stream here. I hear this will only be online at this location for 6 more days. If anyone finds it again after that let me know and I’ll update the link here.

DRAFT 1 — A Work in Progress

Introduction

Here’s an idea I’ve been thinking about: it’s a concept for a new philosophy, or perhaps just a name for a grassroots philosophy that seems to be emerging on its own. It’s called “Nowism.” The view that now is what’s most important, because now is where one’s life actually happens.

Certainly we have all heard terms like Ram Das’ famous, “Be here now” and we may be familiar with the writings of Eckhart Tolle and his “Power of Now” and others. In addition there was the “Me generation” and the more recent idea of “living in the now.” On the Web there is also now a growing shift towards real-time, what I call the Stream.

These are all examples of the emergence of this trend. But I think these are just the beginnings of this movement — a movement towards a subtle but major shift in the orientation of our civilization’s collective attention. This is a shift towards the now, in every dimension of our lives. Our personal lives, professional lives, in business, in government, in technology, and even in religion and spirituality.

I have a hypothesis that this philosophy — this worldview that the “now” is more important than the past or the future, may come to characterize this new century we are embarking on. If this is true, then it will have profound effects on the direction we go in as a civilization.

It does appear that the world is becoming increasingly now-oriented; more real-time, high-resolution, high-bandwidth. The present moment, the now, is getting increasingly flooded with fast-moving and information-rich streams of content and communication.

As this happens we are increasingly focusing our energy on keeping up with, managing, and making sense of, the now. The now is also effectively getting shorter — in that more happens in less time, making the basic clockrate of the now effectively faster. I’ve written about this elsewhere.

Given that the shift to a civilization that is obsessively focused on the now is occurring, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether this will gradually penetrate into the underlying metaphors and worldviews of coming generations, and how it might manifest as differences from our present-day mindsets.

How might people who live more in the now differ from those who paid more attention to the past, or the future? For example, I would assert that the world in and before the 19th century was focused more on the past than the now or the future. The 20th century was characterized by a shift to focus more on the future than the past or the now. The 21st century will be characterized by a shift in focus onto the now, and away from the past and the future.

How might people who live more in the now think about themselves and the world in coming decades. What are the implications for consumers, marketers, strategists, policymakers, educators?

With this in mind, I’ve attempted to write up what I believe might be the start of a summary of what this emerging worldview of “Nowism” might be like.

It has implications on several levels: social, economic, political, and spiritual.

Nowism Defined

Like Buddhism, Taoism, and other “isms,” Nowism is a view on the nature of reality, with implications for how to live one’s life and how to interpret and relate to the world and other people.

Simply put: Nowism is the philosophy that the span of experience called “now” is fundamental. In other words there is nothing other than now. Life happens in the now. The now is what matters most.

Nowism does not claim to be mutually exclusive with any other religion. It merely claims that all other religions are contained within it’s scope — they, like everything else, take place exclusively within the now, not outside it. In that respect the now, in its actual nature, is fundamentally greater than any other conceivable philosophical or religious system, including even Nowism itself.

Risks of Unawakened Nowism

Nowism is in some ways potentially short-sighted in that there is less emphasis on planning for the future and correspondingly more emphasis on living the present as fully as possible. Instead of making decisions with their effects in the future foremost in mind, the focus is on making the optimal immediate decisions in the context of the present. However, what is optimal in the present may not be optimalover longer spans of time and space.

What may be optimal in the now of a particular individual may not at all be optimal in the nows of other individuals. Nowism can therefore lead to extremely selfish behavior that actually harms others, or it can lead to extremely generous behavior on a scale that far transcends the individual, if one strives to widen their own experience of the now sufficiently.

Very few individuals will ever do the necessary work to develop themselves to the point where their actual experience of now is dramatically wider than average. It is however possible to do this, while quite rare. Such individuals are capable of living exclusively in the now while still always acting with the long-term benefit of both themselves all other beings in mind.

The vast majority of people however will tend towards a more limited and destructive form of Nowism, in which they get lost in deeper forms of consumerism, content and media immersion, hedonism, and conceptualization. Rather than being freed by the now, they will be increasingly imprisoned by it.

This lower form of Nowism — what might be called unawakened Nowism — is characterized by an intense focus on immediate self-gratification, without concern or a sense of responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions on oneself or others in the future. This kind of living in the moment, while potentially extremely fun, tends to end badly for most people. Fortunately most people outgrow this tendency towards extremely unawakened Nowism after graduating college and/or entering the workforce.

Abandoning extremely unawakened Nowist lifestyles doesn’t necessarily result in one realizing any form of awakened Nowism. One might simply remain in a kind of dormant state, sleepwalking through life, not really living fully in the present, not fully experiencing the present in all its potential. To reach this level of higher Nowism, or advanced Nowism, one must either have a direct spontaneous experience of awakening to the deeper qualities of the now, or one must study, practice and work with teachers and friends who can help them to reach such a direct experience of the now.

Benefits of Awakened Nowism: Spiritual and Metaphysical Implications of Nowist Philosophy

In the 21st Century, I believe Nowism may actually become an emerging movement. With it there will come a new conception of the self, and of the divine. The self will be realized to be simultaneously more empty and much vaster than was previously thought. The divine will be understood more directly and with less conceptualization. More people will have spiritual realization this way, because in this more direct approach there is less conceptual material to get caught up in. The experience of now is simply left as it is — as direct and unmediated, unfettered, and unadulterated as possible.

This is a new kind of spirituality perhaps. One in which there is less personification of the divine, and less use of the concept of a personified deity as an excuse or justification for various worldy actions (like wars and laws, for example).

Concepts about the nature of divinity have been used by humans for millenia as tools for various good and bad purposes. But in Nowism, these concepts are completely abandoned. This also means abandoning the notion that there is or is not a divine nature at the core of reality, and each one of us. Nowists do not get caught up in such unresolvable debates. However, at the same time, Nowists do strive for a direct realization of the now — one that is as unmediated and nonconceptual as possible — and that direct realization is considered to BE thedivine nature itself.

Nowism does not assert that nothing exists or that nothing matters. Such views are nihilism not Nowism. Nowism does not assert that what happens is caused or uncaused — such views are those of the materialists and the idealists, not Nowism. Instead Nowism asserts the principles of dependent origination, in which cause and-effect appears to take place, even though it is an illusory process and does not truly exist. On the basis of a relative-level cause-effect process, an ethical system can be founded which seeks to optimize happiness and minimize unhappiness for the greatest number of beings, by adjusting ones actions so as to create causes that lead to increasingly happy effects for oneself and others, increasingly often. Thus the view of Nowism does not lead to hedonism — in fact, anyone who makes a careful study of the now will reach the conclusion that cause and effect operates unfailingly and therefore is a key tool for optimizing happiness in the now.

Advanced Nowists don’t ignore cause-and-effect, in fact quite the contrary: they pay increasingly close attention to cuase-and-effect and their particular actions. The natural result is that they begin to live a life that is both happier and that leads to more happiness for all other beings — at least this is the goal and example of the best-case. The fact that cause-and-effect is in operation, even though it is notfundamentally real, is the root of Nowist ethics. It is precisely the same as the Buddhist conception of the identity of emptiness and dependent-origination.

Numerous principles follow from the core beliefs of Nowism. They include practical guidance for living ones life with a minimum of unnecessary suffering (of oneself as well as others), further principles concerning the nature of reality and the mind, and advanced techniques and principles for reaching greater realizations of the now.

As to the nature of what is taking place right now: from the Nowist perspective, it is beyond concepts, for all concepts, like everything else, appear and disappear like visions or mirages, without ever truly-existing. This corresponds precisely to the Buddhist conception of emptiness.

The scope of the now is unlimited, however for the uninitiated the now is usually considered to be limited to the personal present experience of the individual. Nowist adepts, on the other hand, assert that the scope of the now may be modified (narrowed or widened) through various exercises including meditation, prayer, intense physical activity, art, dance and ritual, drugs, chanting, fasting, etc.

Narrowing the scope of the now is akin to reducing the resolution of present experience. Widening the scope is akin to increasing the resolution. A narrower now is a smaller experience, with less information content. A wider now is a larger experience, with more information content.

Within the context of realizing that now is all there is, one explores carefully and discovers that now does not contain anything findable (such as a self, other, or any entity or fundamental basis for any objective or subjective phenomenon, let alone any nature that could be called “nowness” or the now itself).

In short the now is totally devoid of anything findable whatsoever, although sensory phenomena do continue to appear to arise within it unceasingly. Such phenomena, and the sensory apparatus, body, brain, mind and any conception of self that arises in reaction to them, are all merely illusion-like appearances with no objectively-findable ultimate, fundamental, or independent existence.

This state is not unlike the analogy of a dream in which oneself and all the other places and characters are all equally illusory, or of a completely immersive virtual reality experience that is so convincing one forgets it isn’t real.

Nowism does not assert a divine being or deity, although it also is not mutually exclusive with the existence of one or more such beings. However all such beings are considered to be no more real than any other illusory appearance, such as the appearances of sentient beings, planets, stars, fundamental particles, etc. Any phenomena — whether natural or supernatural — are equally empty of any independent true existince. They are all illusory in nature.

However, Nowists do assert that the nature of the now itself, while completely empty, is in fact the nature of consciousness and what we call life. It cannot be computed, simulated or modeled in an information system, program, machine, or representation of any kind. Any such attempts to represent the now are merely phenomena appearing within the now, not the now itself. The now is fundamentally transcendental in this respect.

The now is not limited to any particular region in space or time, let alone to any individual being’s mind. There is no way to assert there is a single now, or many nows, for no nows are actually findable.

The now is the gap between the past and the future, however, when searched for it cannot really be found, nor can the past or future be found. The past is gone, the future hasn’t happened yet, and the now is infinite, constantly changing, and ungraspable. The entire space-time continuum is in fact within a total all-embracing now, the cosmically extended now that is beyond the limited personalized scope of now we presently think we have. Through practice this can be gradually glimpsed and experienced to greater degrees.

As the now is explored to greater depths, one begins to find that it has astonishing implications. Simultaneously much of the Zen literature — especially the koans — starts to make sense at last.

While Nowism could be said to be a branch of Buddhism, I would actually say it might be the other way arond. Nowism is really the most fundamental, pure, philosophy — stripped of all cultural baggage and historical concepts, and retaining only what is absolutely essential.

(DRAFT 2. A Work-In-Progress)

The Problem: Our Communities are Failing

I’ve been thinking about community lately. There is a great need for a new and better model for communities in the world today.

Our present communites are not working and most are breaking down or stagnating. Cities are experiencing urbanization and a host of ensuing  social and economic challenges. Meanwhile the movement towards cities has drained the people — particularly young professionals — away from rural communities, causing them to stagnate and decline.

Local economies have been challenged by national and global economic integratio — from outsourcing of jobs away to other places, to giant retail chains such as Walmart swooping in and driving out local businesses.

From giant megacities and multi-city urban sprawls, to inner city neighborhoods, to suburban bedroom communities, and rural towns and villages, the pain is being felt everywhere and at all levels.

Our current models for community don’t scale, they don’t work anymore, and they don’t fit the kind of world we are living in today. And why should they? After all, they were designed a long time ago for a very different world.

At the same time there are increasing numbers of singles or couples without children, and even families and neighborhoods that are breaking down as cities get larger.

The need for community is growing not declining — especially as existing communities fail and no other alternatives take their place. Loneliness, social isolation, and social fragmentation are huge and growing problems — they lead to crime, suicide, mental illness, lack of productivity, moral decay, civil unrest, and just about every other social and economic problem there is.

The need for an updated and redesigned model for community is increasingly important to all of us.

Intentional Communities

In particular, I am thinking about intentional communities — communities in which people live geographically near one another, and participate in community together, by choice. They may live together or not, dine together or not, work together or not, worship together or not — but at least they need to live within some limit of proximity to one another and participate in community together. These are the minimum requirements.

But is there a model that works? Or is it time to design a new model that fits the time and place in which we live better?

Is this simply a design problem that we can solve by adopting the right model, or is there something about human nature that makes it impossible to succeed no matter what model we apply?

I am an optimist and I don’t think human nature prevents healthy communities from forming and being sustainable. I think it’s a design problem. I think this problem can (and must) be solved with a set of design principles that work better than the ones we’ve come up with so far. This would be a great problem to solve. It could even potentially improve the lives of billions of people.

Models of Intentional Community

Community is extremely valuable and important. We are social beings. And communities enable levels of support and collaboration, economic growth, resiliance, and perhaps personal growth, that individuals or families cannot achieve on their own.

However, do intentional communities work? What examples can we look at and what can we glean from them about what worked and what didn’t?

All of the cities and towns in the world started as intentional communities but today many seem to have lost their way as they got larger or were absorbed into larger communities.

As for smaller intentional communities — recent decades are littered with all kinds of spectacular failures.

The communes and experiemental communities of the 1960′s and 1970′s have mostly fallen apart.

Spiritual communities seem to either tend towards becoming personality cults that are highly prone to tyrranny and corruption, or they too seem to fall apart eventually as well.

There have been so many communities around various gurus, philosophers, or cult-figures, but they have almost all universally become cults or have broken apart.

Human nature is hard to wrangle without strong leadership, yet strong leadership and the power it entails leads inevitably to ego and corruption.

At least some ashrams in India seem to be working well, although their internal dynamics are usually centered around a single guru or leadership group — and while there may be a strong social agreement within these communities, this is not a model of community that will work for everyone. And in fact, only in extremely rare cases, are there any gurus who are actually selfless enough to hold that position without abusing it.

Other kinds of religious communities are equally prone to problems — however perhaps at least some, such as the Quakers, Shakers, and Amish may have solved this — I am not sure however. If they were so successful, why are there so few of them?

Temporary communities are another type of intentional community, for example, Burning Man, seem to work quite well, but only for temporary periods of time — they would have the same problems of all other communities if they became institutionalized or tried to not be temporary.

Educational communities, such as university towns and campuses, do appear to work in many cases. They combine both an ongoing community (tenured faculty, staff and townspeople) and temporary communities (seasonal student and faculty residents).

Economic communes — such as the communes in Soviet-era Russia were prone to corruption, and failed as economic experiments. In Soviet Russia “some were more equal than others” and that ultimately led to corruption and tyranny.

Political-economic communities such as the neighborhood groups in Maoist China only worked because they were firmly, even brutally, controlled from the central government. They were not exactly voluntary intentional communities.

I don’t know enough about the Israeli Kibbutzim experiments, but they at least seem to be continuing, although I am not sure how well they function — I admit my ignorance on that topic.

One type of intentional community that does seem to work are caregiving communities such as assisting living communities, nursing homes, halfway houses, etc — but perhaps they seem to work only because their members don’t remain very long.

Why Aren’t There More Intentional Communities?

So here is my question: Do intentional communities work? And if they work so well, why aren’t there more of them? Or are they flourishing and multiplying under the radar?

Is there a model (or are there models) for intentional community that have proven long-term success? Where are the examples?

Is the fact that there are not more intentional communities emerging and thriving, evidence that intentional communities just don’t work or have stopped replicating or evolving? Or is it evidence that the communities we already live in work well enough, even though they are no longer intentional for most of us?

I don’t think our present-day communities work well enough, nor are they very healthy or rewarding to their participants. I do believe there is the possibility, and even the opportunity, to come up with a better model — one which works so well that it attracts people, grows and self-replicates around the world rapidly. But I don’t yet know what that new model is.

Design Principles

To design the next-evolution of intentional community, perhaps we can start with a set of design principles gleaned from what we have learned from existing communities?

This set of design principles should be selected to be practical for the world we live in today — a world of rapid transit, economic and social mobility, urban sprawls, cultural and ethnic diversity, cheap air travel, declining birth rates, the 24-7 work week, the Internet, and the globally interdependent economy.

In thinking about this further there are a few key “design principles” which seem to be necessary to make a successful, sustainable, healthy community.

This is not an exhaustive list, but it is what we have thought of so far:

Shared intention.
There has to be a common reason for the group of people to be together. The participants each have to share a common intention to form and participate in a community around common themes and purposes together.

Shared contribution . The participants have to each contribute in various ways to the community as part of their membership.

Shared governance.
The participants each have a role to play in the process of decision making, policy formation, dispute resolution, and operations of the community.

Shared boundaries. There are shared, mutually agreed upon and mutually enforced rules.

Freedom to leave. Anyone can leave the community at any time without pressure to remain.

Freedom of choice.
While in the community people are free to make choices about their roles and participation in the community, within the communities boundaries and governance process. This freedom of choice also includes the freedom to opt out of any role or rule, but that might have the consequence of voluntarily recusing oneself from further participation in the community.

Freedom of expression. The ability for community members to freely and fearlessly express their opinions within the community is an essential element of healthy communities. Systems need to be designed to support and channel this activity. If it is restrained it seeks out other channels anyway (subversion, revolution, etc.). By not restraining expression, but instead desiging a community process that authentically engages members in conversation with one another, the
community can be more self-aware and creativity and innovation can flow more freely.

Representative democratic leadership. The leadership is either by consensus and includes everyone equally, or there is a democratic representative process of electing leaders and making decisions.

Community mobility. This is an interesting topic. In the world today, each person may have different sets of interests and purposes, and they are not all compatible. It may be necessary or desirable to be a member of different communities in different places, times of the year, or periods of one’s life. It
should be possible to be able to be in more than one community, or to rotate through communities, or to change communities as one’s interests, goals, needs and priorities shift over time — so long as one participates in each community fully while they are there. The concept of timesharing in various communities, or what one friend calls “colonies,” is interesting. One might be a member of different colonies — one for their religious interests, one for social kinship, one for a hobby, one for recreation and vacation, etc. These might be in different places and have different members and their role and level of participation might be different in each one. Rather than living in only one particular community, perhaps we need a model where there is more mobility.

Size limitations. One thing I would suggest is that communities work better when they are smaller. The reason for this is that once communities reach a size where each member no longer can maintain a personal relationship with each other member, they stop working and begin to fragment into subgroups. So perhaps limiting the size of a community is a good idea. Or alternatively, when a community reaches a certain size it spawns a new separate community where further growth can happen and all new members go there. In fact, you could even see two communities spawning a new “child” community together to absorb their growth.

Proximity. Communities don’t require that people live near each other — they can function non-locally, for example online. However, the kind of intentional communities I am interested in here are ones where people do live together or near one another, at least part of the time. For this kind of community people need to live and/or dine and/or work together on a periodic, if not frequent basis. An eating co-op in a metropolitan area is an example — at least if everyone has to live within a certain distance and eat together a few times a week, and work a few hours in
the co-op per month. A food co-op, such as co-op grocery store is another example.

Shared Economic Participation. For communities to function there needs to be a form of common currency (either created by the community or from a larger economy the community is situated within), and there should be a form of equitable sharing of collective costs and profits among the community members. There are different ways to distribute the wealth — everyone can be equal no matter what, or reward can be proportional to role, or reward can be proportional to level of contribution, etc. What economic works best in the long-term, for both creating sustainability and growth, for maintaining social order and social justice, and for preventing corruption?

Agility. Communities must be designed to change in order to adapt to new environmental, economic and social realities. Communities that are too rigid in structure or process, or even location, are like species of animals that are unable to continue evolving — and that usually leads to extinction. Part of being agile is being open to new ideas and opportunities. Agility is not just the ability to recognize and react to emerging threats, it is the ability to recognize and react to emerging opportunities as well.

Resiliance. Communities must be designed to be resiliant — Challenges and even damages and setbacks are inevitable. They can be minimized and mitigated, but they will still happen to various degrees. Therefore the design should not assume they can be prevented entirely, but rather should plan for the ability to heal and eventually restore the community as effectively as possible when they do.

Diversity. There are many types of diversity: diversity of opinion, ethnic diversity, age group diversity, religious diversity. Not all communities need to support all kinds of diversity, however it is probably safe to say that for a community to be healthy it must at least support diversity of beliefs and opinions among the membership. No matter what selection criteria is used, there must still be freedom
of thought and belief, and expression, within that group. Communities must be designed to support this diversity, and even encourage it. They also must be designed to manage and process the conversations, conflicts, and changes that diversity brings about. Diversity is a key ingredient that powers growth, agility, and resiliance. In biology diversity is essential to species-survival — mutations are key to evolution. Communities must be designed to mutate, and to intelligently filter in or out those mutations that help or harm the community. Processes that encourange and process diversity are essential for this to happen.

(DRAFT 7. Work-In-Progress)

What is the universe and where does it come from?

There are two major schools of thought on this question:

1. Science: One is modern-day science, which takes the position that universe is strictly a physical phenomenon and that everything about can be explained by repeatable physical measurements, testable scientific theories, and the rules of math and logic.
2. Religion:
   The other school of thought is religion, which in general, takes the position that the universe comes from something non-physical that is ultimately unexplainable and beyond the reach of science.

In this paper we will take an intellectual adventure into the far fringes of both science and religion, to explore the question of whether or science and religion might be unified. Such a unification is an intellectual “Holy Grail” that could truly change the world. But is it even possible? I think it is, and I’ll propose the core of such a unification here.

The Possibility of Convergence

While there are clearly differences between the approaches and beliefs of the sciences and religions of the world, there are also more similarities than many would like to admit. Beyond that however, at the very deepest levels, they lead to similar logical conclusions and in fact intersect on certain fundamental points, whether their proponents know it or not.

In particular, the question of the origin and nature of the universe is where I believe science and religion converge. Whether one holds the view of science, the view of religion, or both, it turns out that there is a logical necessity for reaching the same final conclusions about the ultimate nature of reality.

Whether one starts from a scientific viewpoint and applies only the methods of science and logic, or one starts from a religious perspective and applies only the methods of religion and logic, either way the conclusion is the same. As long as one regards logic as a valid method of inquiry, the final answer is the same.

The Core Argument

So what is the answer? In short, everything is “nonoriginated.” This has a very specific meaning: the universe (or anything else that we might posit to exist) cannot logically originate from nothingness, from itself, or from some other fundamental thing.

Here’s how this conclusion is reached in a nutshell (I will explain this argument in more depth later in this article, as well as its many implications):

To claim that something originates from nothing is a contradiction.

To claim that something originates from itself is a contradiction.

To claim that something originates from something else leads to an infinite regress unless you claim there is a fundamental first-thing — but claiming there is a fundamental first-thing leads to a contradiction, so it’s not an option. An infinite regress on the other hand, is not really an origin.

Therefore none of the three above ways of originating are logically tenable, yet there is no other possible fourth alternative.

This then leaves only two possible conclusions about the universe (and anything else that is posited to exist):

1. The first option is that the universe is not really happening at all, because there’s no logical way for it to have originated.  But this is immediately contradictory to our experience. It is refuted by obvious, undeniable evidence — right in front of us we can see that something is happening — who knows what it is, but it would be absurd to deny that there is some kind of phenomena taking place.
2. The second option is that the universe is happening, although there is no origin for it (i.e. it is “nonoriginated”). It is not necessary for there to be an ultimate and final origin — no first cause, prime mover, fundamental particle, or first moment of creation. The universe must therefore be infinite in time, space, and levels of scale.

Option (1) is easily refuted. We are left with option (2) – Nonorigination.

But it is a bit strange to imagine a universe that has no beginning, no origin. How can the universe exist if it is truly beginningless? Without a first-cause what could ever have gotten it started? Without a final fundamental particle, what could things actually be made of? In fact, it is precisely because the universe is nonoriginated that it CAN appear at all. This will be explained further in this article.

We can see how this logic applies to the origin of the universe. How about God? Well if God exists then the same logic would apply: God must also be nonoriginated. Anything that is posited to exist must be nonoriginated.

This point of nonorigination is where science and religion intersect. Nonorigination is the ultimate nature of reality. It is not merely a concept — it is the actual nature of all things, and it has many profound implications. It points to a level of reality that is beyond the limits of space and time — and in this respect it is proof of what might be called the Divine, yet it is also completely compatible with the physical world and its laws.

There are several other key dimensions of nonorigination as well. Awareness is one of them. Awareness is the unique capacity of sentient beings to make observations. It plays an important role in making the universe happen, and is actually unified with nonorigination. Where there is nonorigination there MUST be awareness and vice-versa.

Likewise the process of cause-and-effect turns out to be a natural corollary to the nonorigination of the universe, and it’s powered by awareness, the act of making observations. If there were no such process, the universe could not work as it does; it would effectively be random.

I will explore these topics in a lot more detail below.

The unification of science and religion is not philosophy, it is logic. But how we interpret it, and what we do with it is a matter of personal preference and personal philosophy. This paper will not attempt to draw conclusions about what scientific or religious belief is best. That is up to you. Use the logical evidence however you see fit.

What Does the Universe Come From?

If one even merely posits the existence of the universe or even just the presence of a fundamental particle — then that immediately leads to further questions such as: Then where does that come from, what is it all really made of, and how could it all be taking place, what is space-time made of or located in, who or what designed this or how did it all happen so perfectly when it is statistically almost impossible?

Some people just can’t imagine that anything as vast as God could be possible, so they simply decide (without any real evidence) that God is impossible. Or they think that there could not be anything greater than or beyond the scope of the physical universe because they feel that the only things that can exist are physical things. To them, there is nothing but the physical, it is all a big machine, this is all there is — and for that reason they can’t believe in some kind of greater being or ultimate reality beyond space and time or the physical laws. But the grounds on which they claim God is not possible can also be used to claim the universe itself is not possible. If they believe in the possibility of the physical universe they also must accept the possibility of God by the same logic.

Here’s why: If the argument against the possibility of God is that it just isn’t possible for there to be something infinite, then that means either space and time are finite or they can’t exist either — the universe would not be possible because space and time are presently thought to be infinite.

Similarly, if the argument against the possibility of God is that there just couldn’t be anything beyond the physical universe, then even the physical universe could not exist — for if there were no possibility of anything greater than or beyond the universe then where is the physical universe taking place? What does it come from? What is it “in?” If it ever ends, what remains? This second argument is a bit of a difficult point so it bears further explanation.

Whenever you posit something, it logically has to either come from nothing, or from itself, or from something else. And at the time it exists it either has to depend on nothing, depend on itself, or depend on something else.

Stating that the universe comes from nothing or depends on nothing is problematic — it is in fact equivalent to saying that the universe comes from or depends on something beyond the universe: some primordial “nothingness.”

Stating that the universe comes from or depends on itself is circular and also a contradiction of sorts — in order for the universe to create itself or depend on itself it must already exist, and so this is impossible and not an option.

Yet stating that the universe comes from something else or depends on something else admits that there must be something beyond it to come from or depend on.

In other words, no matter what position one takes on the universe, it leaves open the possibility – indeed even the logical requirement – that there must be something before it, greater than it, deeper than it, beyond it, after it, etc.

Refuting Ideas that the Universe Comes from Nothingness

There are however some people who are not convinced by the above arguments. They hold tenaciously to the belief that the universe comes from some kind of primordial “nothingness” which they conceptualize as existing somehow on its own, either before or during the existence of the universe.

This belief in some kind of concrete “nothingness” has many problems. First of all to posit “nothingness” is to treat it as some kind of thing in fact — so it is self-contradictory from the start. Secondly, it is impossible to even imagine actual “nothingness” so labeling it, speaking of it, or positing that it exists is simply deluded. To posit it is not actually to posit it. To imagine it is not actually to imagine it. And in fact there is no way to even conceive of nothingness actually existing, for if it were to exist it would not be nothing. Finally, even if we ignore all these logical problems and still cling to the concept of nothingness, how could anything come from nothing? Let’s examine further.

If nothing really is “nothing” it could not contain anything that could serve as a cause or origin for anything else, let alone an entire universe. So it could not give rise to anything. In fact it would be a contradiction to assert the co-existence of nothing and something as well — so even if nothingness could somehow give rise to the universe it would have to be destroyed or eliminated at the moment the universe came into existence — but if that were the case how could it give rise to the universe — it could never overlap with the universe at all so how could it even be said to give rise to it?

For example the universe could not gradually emerge from nothingness since nothingness would be completely eliminated at the very first instant of the process of emergence, and then the process would be over since there would be no more nothingness left for the rest of it to emerge from.

Similarly the universe could not emerge all-at-once from nothingness either, because for that to happen there would at least have to be a moment in which nothing and the universe co-existed — the moment in which the universe emerged.

If we don’t allow for at least that one moment of co-existence before the universe replaces nothingness, then causality is not possible to establish: there would be no way to connect the emergence of the universe as coming out of or from a pure state of nothingness that existed before it — and so there would be no point in making this claim at all.

To say that one thing comes from another thing means we have to be able to show how they are connected, and for that to be possible they have to both exist at the same time, or there has to at least be some chain of events we can point to that connects them. But if nothing and something are truly mutually exclusive then that is simply not possible to establish.

All this effort is simply to show finally and totally that nothingness is a flawed concept, and to claim that something can come from nothingness is even more flawed.

Furthermore belief in the concept of nothingness actually refutes belief in the power of science. To believe in nothingness is mutually exclusive with a belief in the principles of science, for nothingness is not measurable, not verifiable in any way, and is therefore impenetrable to science. Therefore any scientist who claims that nothingness exists or that the universe came from nothingness is a hypocrite. Anyone who cites “nothingness” as the origin of the universe is not in fact being scientific, they are abandoning science. To claim that all space and time — and all science — springs from nothingness is akin to claiming that the physical world (and therefore the domain of science) depends upon something beyond the physical world and beyond domain of science, in other words on a domain that is traditionally the focus of religion.

If we say the universe sprang forth from nothingness that is like saying that science depends on something beyond the realm of science at the fundamental level, and if we say the opposite — that the universe has always existed or there is an infinite series of universes — that is also akin to saying that science depends on something beyond what science can ever explain — for infinity, while not a contradiction at least, is equally impenetrable to science.

Therefore there really is no possible origin of the universe that does not lead to a contradiction. But let’s explore all the alternatives to really make this clear.

Refuting Ideas that the Universe Comes from Itself

We have already seen that it is a mistake to claim that the universe came from nothingness, but if the universe didn’t spring forth magically from nothingness, then perhaps it came from itself? What would this mean? It would mean that the universe already existed before the universe existed and then somehow generated itself, from itself. That is circular reasoning, and it’s also a logical contradiction because if the universe already existed then it would be meaningless to speak of it “generating” itself – it already would have existed in the first place. There’s not much more that needs to be said about this. But I’ll say it anyway, just to make it perfectly clear that this is not an option.

Perhaps we might interpret the act of self-generation 0r “coming from itself” in a slightly modified manner. For example, the universe today comes from the early universe, and they are quite different. So saying the universe of today comes from the universe of the past is not saying that the universe today comes from itself, literally; rather it is saying it comes from something else: the early universe. That is certainly one way to wiggle out of the fallacy of something coming from itself, but it just leads to an infinite regress: the fallacy of something originating from something else. The next section explores why this is a fallacy.

Refuting Ideas that the Universe Comes from Something Else

If the universe doesn’t come from nothingness, or from itself, then what does it come from? If it comes from something else, then what does that thing come from? At some point there has to be a beginning to the process. But if there is a beginning then what is before it? Whatever was before it would have to be beyond the universe and would therefore be beyond the realm of science.

To state that the universe comes from something else is to say that something else (whatever it is) is the more fundamental level or prior state of the universe. In other words to state that the universe comes from something else is really saying the universe comes from the universe, at a deeper level or an earlier time, or a different place, or in a different state or form, or all of the above.

But all such statements are either claims that the universe, taken as a whole (all states of the universe over all time and space) comes from itself, or at worst it is a circular argument that simply pushes the problem down a level: what does that other more fundamental “something” that the universe depends on come from? Again we end up in an infinite regress or a contradiction.

On the other hand, if we claim that the universe is beginningless and nonoriginated — then what is the eternity in which this “beginninglessness” is taking place? What created this eternity?

To posit that there is an eternity “beyond” the universe, or that “contains” the universe (including space and time) is already to state that there is something beyond the realm of science, something outside the universe. But if we then claim that this “eternity” is some kind of more fundamental thing, we just end up in the same infinite regress as before — it is just a subtle concept of the universe coming from something else.

Another possibility might be to claim that eternity and the universe are the same thing. This is to say that the universe is infinite in scope — space and time are boundless and contain all there is. This is logically either equivalent to the claim that the universe comes from nothing, or from itself. Neither of those options is tenable as we have already seen.

If we posit that eternity comes from nothing that is a contradiction. If it is self-originated, that is circular and also a contradiction. If we say it comes from something else, then what does that other thing come from? We end up in an infinite series of greater eternities, each containing all the lesser ones, like a Russian doll — this is an infinite regress which fails to solve the problem. Or is there a highest level of eternity and if so, what prevents there from being greater levels of eternity beyond even that — what causes the boundary between one level of eternity and another to exist and if there is a boundary, what is on the other side of it? This leads to either a contradiction or an infinite regress once again. This line of reasoning also fails to answer the question.

If one claims that the universe contains all space and time, then are the container and what is contained finite or infinite in scope? If it is finite there must be some kind of edge, if it is infinite it implies something so inconceivably vast it is frankly mystical in scope and is logically equivalent to saying the universe comes from itself.

In short, if we claim the universe comes from something else that leads to circular arguments and contradictions, or an infinite regress. If we’re willing to accept circular arguments and logical contradictions or infinite regresses as satisfactory answers then that is not very different than accepting any other self-justified claims taken on faith, such as those made by religions or even those made in fairy-tales. In fact, any such claim is really a form of religious belief disguised as science. If we are willing to think this way — and ironically it turns out that most scientists are willing to think this way — then why not also believe in God or other religious ideas as well? It would be hypocritical not to.

Refuting Conceptions of an Originated God

It’s important to note that the same logic that refutes notions that the universe comes from nothing, itself, or something else, can also be applied to any claims that there is a God. If there is a God, then like the universe, it also cannot originate from nothing, itself, or something else without leading to logical fallacies. To claim that God came from nothingness is again the something-from-nothing argument that we know does not make sense under logical scrutiny.

To claim that God comes from God is circular reasoning and contradictory. To claim that God comes from something greater than God contradicts the very notion of God and/or leads to an infinite regress which just pushes the problem down to deeper levels — where does that infinite regress of ever greater Gods come from then?

Both the universe and the concept of God have the same existential status in fact. Neither one of them has an origin that we can actually find or name without ending up in a logical mess of contradictions and infinite regressions. In this respect they are quite similar.

The conclusion is that, like the universe, God or whatever we think of as God, must also be nonoriginated. There is no other logically tenable option.

Exploring Nonorigination

If neither any possible universe nor any possible God can be said to come from nothing, itself, or something else, then that leaves only two logical conclusions:

1. The first option is that these things are not possible and not happening at all since they can’t have originated — however that option is refuted by the fact that at least in the example of the universe, something is obviously and undeniably happening right now. The presence of the universe refutes the notion that it is impossible for something to exist that does not originate from nothing, itself or something else.
2. The second option is that such things could be possible, but in a “nonoriginated” manner. But what does this mean? In short, for something to be “nonoriginated” does not mean it is non-existent, it just means that it is not dependent on some initial set of causes and conditions. One way for something to exist in an nonoriginated manner is for it to be eternal, or at least beginningless.

Option (1) is refuted by the basic fact that we do observe something happening right now. Option (2) is the only remaining option, and is not refuted in any obvious manner.

But option (2) is mind-bending. How can something beginningless exist? How could it ever have come about if there were never any initial causes or conditions to start it? It’s the primordial chicken-and-the-egg problem.

And this is where things get interesting. Various scientific theories claim the universe either has an origin or is effectively nonoriginated. Likewise religions either claim the universe and/or God has an origin or is nonoriginated.

In the first case, the claim of an origin (such as theories in which the universe started from some physical event before which there was literally nothing, or in which there was nothing and then a Deity appeared and created the universe), we can prove logically that this leads to fallacies (because the origin cannot come from nothing, itself, or something else), so this view is simply wrong, or provisional at best; it’s not a final explanation.

In the second case, the claim of nonorgination, in which the universe is held to be beginningless and possibly endless (for example a never-ending sequence of Big-Bangs and Big-Crunches, or a timelessly existing realm), this begs the question of where did this never-ending sequence come from? How could it have ever started? What is it, what is eternity and what created eternity?

In either case however, whether we use science or religion to approach the problem of the origin of the universe, we end up at the same place in the end.

The path we may travel to get there is different, and certainly the language with which we express the conclusions is quite different, but the final result is the same. Logically speaking, the universe and God must both be either nonoriginated or created by something nonoriginated. It is the only logically tenable conclusion.

In other words whether universe is thought of as purely physical, or originating from God, the only logically tenable conclusion is that it is nonoriginated. And the same goes for God. We may believe that God is greater than the universe, in other words prior to it, and in this case God and the universe are not equivalent, however, upon final analysis, even in this configuration, the only logically tenable conclusion is nonorigination.

For example, if the universe is a physical thing that was created by God, yet God is nonoriginated, then by inference the universe is also ultimately nonoriginated (via God’s nonorigination). Although provisionally we can state that the universe originates from God, since God is in this case nonoriginated, the universe is ultimately nonoriginated, for no final origin can be found or logically established.

In summary, nonorigination is the single fundamental truth of both science and religion. It is the ultimate destination of all lines of reasoning. It is where they all converge.

Unification

And now, based on the above lines of reasoning, the final capstone on the argument.

If we posit that only the physical universe exists, then we have no other choice but to say the universe itself must be nonoriginated, in other words, it must be uncaused and unconditioned — neither coming from nothing or from something else.

There is no escape from this logical conclusion.

Nonorigination is always found to be the ultimate nature of whatever is posited to exist. It doesn’t matter how many levels of reality you think there are, as soon as you posit even one, it’s “turtles all the way down,” to quote the famous expression.

In other words, if you posit the universe resting on the back of something (for example, a giant turtle) then that something must in turn rest on the back of something else (another giant turtle, for example), and so on, endlessly. The only way to not have an endless pile of turtles resting on still deeper turtles is to posit a final fundamental turtle, but that makes no sense — for that turtle would be in free-fall, meaning the entire stack of turtles would have no foundation and would topple over.

What nonorigination really means however is that the stack of turtles can be infinite or finite – it really doesn’t matter and is equivalent — either way the entire stack itself, whether just 1 turtle our countless turtles, is nonoriginated. This is not to say that the stack depends on something else (some special subtle thing we call nonorigination), it is to say that the stack itself IS nonorigination. Nonorigination is NOT something separate from that which appears to exist.

This is very hard to accept conceptually, but it is a logical conclusion. The only way to deal with it intellectually, once you derive it and are convinced there is no way around it, is to simply accept it. The universe really is beyond conception — it really cannot ever be conceived. It’s infinite and its nature is inconceivable. This is not a mystical belief, it is in a fact a very refined logical view – a logical conclusion. It is the conclusion that there is no logical conclusion that accurately and validly describes the nature of the universe. In other words, it is the logical conclusion that the actual nature of the universe is beyond the limits of logic.

Now what’s interesting, and unifying, about this conclusion is that nonorigination is a logical and scientific kind of conclusion, and yet there is something about it that is inconceivable and wondrous about it. In fact nonorigination is curiously similar to what we think of when we speak of something “Divine.” It has many similar qualities to those we usually ascribe to divinity. For example, nonorigination is uncaused, unfindable, unexplainable, inconceivable, beyond to all space and time, beyond the limits of the mind, yet it is the nature of all things,  all things could be said to come from it, or have it’s nature – it is not separate from anything, yet no thing fully encompasses it.

Surely anything that has these qualities is not merely a “thing” — there is something amazingly beyond our common idea of a thing to it. Nonorigination could be said to be at once scientific and Divine — it is something infinitely beyond all conceptual limits — it is the point where everything converges.

Nonorigination says nothing about the day-to-day “relative level of the world” and how it functions — it is a statement about the ultimate nature of everything: the originlessness and fundamental essencelessness of whatever appears. Thus when speaking of nonorigination, we can make a conceptual distinction between the relative and ultimate levels of truth. They are both true, one does not contradict the other. The ordinary appearances that we label as “things” definitely appear and function as they normally do – nothing changes – yet we know that their ultimate nature is indescribably beyond what we ordinarily assume it to be. They are nonoriginated – totally ephemeral – like dreams.

Relative truth is a level of truth within limits — specifically it is a statement that holds true locally but not globally. Ultimate truth on the other had applies globally. In this case, within the reference frame of the universe alone, we can say that any effect we observe is originated from various causes and conditions, yet within the larger (global) frame of the origin of the entire universe, it is nonoriginated – it has no first cause. In any case, whether one chooses to accept this modal logic or not is a matter of personal preference.

Nonorigination is a very subtle truth because it neither asserts or refutes the universe and/or the Divine. In fact, what appears is free to appear and function — yet if we analyze it we find it is nonoriginated. That doesn’t mean there are no causes and effects in operation, it doesn’t mean the universe is random — in fact quite the contrary will be shown later in this article.

Beyond Four Logical Extremes

In Buddhism the ultimate nonoriginated, uncaused and unconditioned primordial nature of reality is said to be “unborn.” Since it has no cause it is never actually created or “born” as some thing, yet since it is also not literal nothingness, it is not entirely non-existent, for if it were nothingness it could not be something that we could even apply the labels of nonoriginated, uncaused and unconditioned to.

That which is nonoriginated is entirely free of all four possible logical possibilities:

1. Existence
2. Non-existence
3. Both existence and non-existence
4. Neither existence nor non-existence

It doesn’t exist because it is not originated. It doesn’t not-exist because it isn’t literally nothingness. It doesn’t both exist and not-exist because that is a logical contradiction and because we already refuted the extremes of existing and not-existing individually, therefore combining them doesn’t suddenly undo that refutation (for example, if you take two non-true statements and combine them you don’t get a true statement).

The fourth logical extreme is the hardest to overcome and there are a few different arguments to conquer it. First of all the assertion of something neither existing nor not-existing is also a contradiction, via double negatives: if it doesn’t exist then this is equivalent to not-existing, and if it doesn’t not-exist then this is equivalent to existing.

Another way to refute this extreme is by the fact that there is no other alternative to existing or not-existing: to exist is to be something, whereas to not-exist is to not be something. How could there be “something” which is neither something or not-something. If it is “something” that contradicts the prong of claim that it is neither “something” or not-something. Yet if it is “not something” then that contradicts the prong of the claim that it is neither something or “not-something.” In other words, to claim that something is neither something or not-something is contradictory from the very start.

The Nonorigination of Nonorigination

Once one is familiar with the concept of nonorigination it begins to feel familiar and in that lies a subtle trap: It is extremely important not to get stuck accidentally conceiving of nonorigination as a special kind of subtle thing. In fact, nonorigination, like everything else that we might posit to exist, is nonoriginated too. So it can’t be something. It also can’t be nothing. It’s actually free of of four logical extremes of being something or nothing. It’s not any of these four logical possibilities:

• Something
• Nothing
• Something and nothing
• Neither something nor nothing

There are no other logical possibilities than these four. Nonorigination cannot be said to be or not to be.

In fact, if we look for nonorigination we don’t find it on its own. For example, you cannot find the absence of something. The absence of that thing is literally the fact that you cannot find it. Nonorigination is the absence — in any moment of experience — of anything that can be found to exist, not-exist, exist and not-exist, neither exist nor not-exist. It is an absence of four logical ways of existing, not the presence of something else that could be labelled “nonorigination.”

But this absence is not merely a rhetorical or logical point — it really is the actual fundamental nature of reality. In other words, whatever the universe is — whatever appears to us — really does have this nature of nonorigination, this complete absence of existing, not-existing, both, or neither. This means the universe is far more unexplainable than can even be imagined.

The Primordial Nature of Reality

We have found that whatever there is, it must be nonoriginated. There is no other logical alternative. Even nonorigination is nonoriginated. So while there is no final isolated thing we can point to as nonorigination itself, the fact that whatever we can point to is always found to have a nature of being nonoriginated is a fundamental truth. In fact it is perhaps the fundamental truth. It’s the one logical conclusion that we always reach no matter what we analyze.  All roads lead to nonorigination.

Nonorigination is a truth that is even more true than a mathematical truth. Mathematical truths apply to this universe, this reality. But the truth of nonorigination applies to all possible universes, all possible realities. There is no reality that is beyond it. In this sense it is the most important, most fundamental, primordial truth. Because it is primordially true to this degree, it is perhaps one of the greatest, if not THE greatest, truth that anyone can ever realize.

If we say that the universe is nonoriginated, then it doesn’t exist the way that most scientists and even most religious thinkers imagine it to. While it’s not nothingness, it’s also not something, or any other alternative. This absence of having an existential status is in fact the way it really is, it is its primordial and ultimate nature. We can also say that this absence of existential status is the primordial nature of reality itself. There is no reality other than nonorigination in fact.

This means that reality itself is beyond the limits of existing and non-existing. This may defy common sense, or even feel impossible to imagine, yet it is the only logical option — it is inconceivable yet must be so. The fact that it cannot be conceived by the ordinary logical mind does not mean it is not possible. In fact, the inconceivability of nonorigination is its very nature. This barrier of inconcievability hides it from ordinary thought — keeping it effectively secret throughout the ages – yet it is not completely hidden. All the great religions and mystical traditions ultimately reveal it – indeed it is the great secret at the heart of every great spiritual tradition.

Many great religions all agree on this point at their highest levels of philosophy: Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism all agree at the purest conception of the Divine is really inconceivable and unnameable, and certainly primordial (not created or conditioned by anything else). At it’s very purest essence the universal truth of all religions, and even of science, is that there must be, and is, something uncreated and unconditioned at the root of reality.

Whether the universe is theorized to have sprung out of perfect randomness or nothingness, or it is an eternity, or there are infinite parallel universes, the only logically tenable way that the entire reference frame can exist is if it is nonoriginated. This nonoriginated, uncaused and unconditioned nature, is the primordial nature of reality — of the universe and/or the Divine — regardless of whether one believes in just one, or in both.

Likewise, if one pursues science relentlessly, never accepting a partial answer or mere concept or provisional finding for the ultimate truth – one will also eventually arrive at pure logic, and from there, it is inevitable that nonorigination will be found to be the only option.

So there we have it: the essence of the universe and the essence of the Divine are the same primordial nonoriginated reality. We can call that the universe, we can call it God, or we call it Buddha, Christ, Allah, Tao, or something else. It doesn’t matter what we call it really, it is nameless.

Freedom

If something is truly nonoriginated, in other words, uncaused and uncreated, then it is totally free. In particular it is free of all concepts and beliefs about it or anything else. It is free of all limitations. We cannot say that it has a particular name and no other name. We cannot say it can only be reached through one path and not others. We cannot say that it can only be served by obeying particular rules and not others. We cannot say that only some people have access to it while others don’t, or that anyone is closer to it than anyone else. This freedom of the ultimate nature of reality can be found equally in science and religion.

Who are we to say anything that would limit something that is totally uncaused and unconditioned? Something cannot be partially free. Either it is totally free or it is not free at all. There is no middle ground. If we truly believe in a conception of a “God” that is totally free, then we have to be careful not to impose further concepts onto it or onto ourselves or anyone else. The closer one is to knowing God, the less one can really say about God.

The same goes for science: we eventually must reach similar conclusions about the fabric of reality and the origin of the universe. We may be able to describe and predict all sorts of things about the physical universe, but the deeper or farther we look in space and time, the more it starts to appear increasingly indescribable, spontaneous and unconditioned.

At the smallest scales and the largest scales, and in fact at every scale in between, the origin and nature of the cosmos is and will always be a mystery. The best we can do is categorize it and glean some understandings about how it functions, but we’ll never be able to explain it. The universe, like God, is also beyond conception. It is either uncaused and unconditioned itself — which means it is free — or it depends on something that is uncaused and unconditioned. Either way, it is free from limitations.

Think about that for a moment. If the universe is free, or depends on something that is free, then either way, what takes place in the universe is ultimately uncaused and unconditioned, meaning the universe is effectively free in both cases.

What does “free” actually mean? It means literally that anything can happen. Any universe is possible. Any set of physical laws are possible. Any kind of world or event is possible. Anything at all is possible — even things which we can’t explain and which perhaps are contradictory to the physical laws (such as anomalies, miracles, etc.). This doesn’t necessary mean anything will actually happen or that everything that is possible already exists. It simply means anything is possible. There are no limits.

Observation

But then why do only particular things appear to happen, rather than other alternatives? Why do only some things happen rather than everything happening? Why does the universe appear to obey particular physical laws? Why don’t we observe miracles or other anomalies that contradict the physical laws (note: some people do claim they observe these phenomena, so we cannot say with certainty that they don’t happen at all…)? But in any case, why does the universe seem so rational and orderly if indeed absolutely anything is possible?

One school of thought on this question (the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics) answers that in fact everything does happen, but in parallel universes, all at once. So there’s no real choice being made — all possibilities from those that are consistent with the universe we know to those which are totally outlandish or seemingly impossible do happen, all at once.

Another school of thought claims that somehow the universe makes choices and that these choices come about whenever observations take place, and that they have something to do with probability — the universe is not precisely deterministic, but not entirely non-determinstic either. If that is the case, then the act of observing something essentially causes the universe to choose what actually happens from the set of all the things that could possibly happen.

But if the universe makes quantum mechanical choices at each moment of observation, then what comes first, the act of observation, or what is observed? What creates reality, what causes the choice that selects one possibility versus all the others? Is what appears literally caused by the observer, or is it there before being observed — does it cause the observer to observer it, or does the observer cause it to be observed? It’s unclear, according to quantum mechanics at least; It’s a chicken-and-the-egg kind of problem. In fact, the situation is better characterized as a kind of feedback loop, or a dance of sorts, that’s been going on forever.

The universe is ultimately free; anything can happen. But anything does not appear to happen, only some things happen. This is currently said to happen because of choices that are made when observations take place, at least on a subatomic level.

But while observation may cause or condition reality on the quantum scale, on the macroscopic level — the level of people and cars and houses and trees, and so forth — the act of observation does not seem to function in the same manner; it doesn’t cause things to happen. Or does it? The classic Zen koan, “If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound?” addresses this question.

In fact, if there is no observer to hear the sound, how can we say there is a sound? When the tree falls it causes vibrations, but those vibrations only make a sound if they move the eardrum of something that can hear. If there is no observer, but only a recording device in the woods, there is a recording, but not yet a sound. The sound only can be said to exist when the recording device is actually used to play the recorded sound to an observer. Until that happens, the sound is not observed.

Quantum Mechanics

This strange fact is reflected in scientific experiments such as the famous “Double Slit Experiment” and many variations. In that experiment, the act of measuring the path that a photon takes causes it to appear to appear to behave like a particle, while if you don’t measure the path it appears to behave like a wave. In fact, this effect is even stranger — experiments have been done which seem to indicate that this effect can even go backwards in time. Even if you wait to measure the path the photon takes long after it has traveled through the experiment, that observation seems to effectively go backwards in time and cause the photon to retroactively behave one way or another, in the past.

Another famous thought-experiment which illustrates the interaction between observation and reality is the “Schroedinger’s Cat” example, in which a cat in a box is either dead or alive depending on whether a random event happens, but until you actually open the box you can’t know it’s actual status — and on a quantum level in fact, until the cat is observed you cannot really say it is either dead or alive; it exists in a kind of intermediate state. The moment of observation somehow causes the intermediate state to collapse into a particular quantum state. This is very odd stuff. And for a while it was thought to really only apply at very small scales, although more recently there is some evidence that similar logic may apply even at macroscopic scales.

What this all means is that there is something about observation that seems to cause the universe to make choices about what actually happens versus what could potentially happen. Another way of expressing this is that the universe — because it is totally free — has the freedom to make choices, and this happens through the act of observation.

This would also imply that the universe is intelligent and creative, and in fact, it would be fair to say this because the universe does produce and contain things that make observations (sentient beings like humans, for example), things that are intelligent and creative. If the universe can contain intelligent, creative beings, then certainly it must be vastly greater in scope – it must be vastly more intelligent and creative as a whole than the individual beings it contains, even if only in an emergent, collective manner. Or perhaps, as some have posited, the universe isn’t happening out there on it’s own but is in a very real sense, imagining itself through an unfolding process of creatively making observations via the beings within it. If this is the case then universe could be thought of as co-creating itself via the observations of the beings within it. Of course this leads to many logical contradictions and in the end, while fascinating to ponder, it does not tell us more than we already have discovered: The universe is nonoriginated, and so is everything within it.

The Improbability of the Universe

If the universe either is something totally free, or depends on something totally free, then either way, the universe is totally free.  It cannot be partially free for that is not freedom. That is to say there are no limitations on it. Anything can happen.

How then is it that we observe particular things and not everything happening? Why don’t each of us experience all possible parallel universes? Why is the universe the way it is, and not even slightly different? Why are things the way they are? We can look at physical things and use scientific knowledge to understand their trajectories and dynamics. That certainly helps us explain a little bit about those physical things. But it doesn’t tell us why the initial conditions were not different, or why the universe is such that the physical laws and physical constants are what they are.

Even a slight change in the structure or unfolding of the universe would have resulted in a vastly different outcome — the physical laws would be different, the physical constants would have different values, and this would result in different kinds of universes. Some would have very different properties than the one we live in. Some would support life, some would not. Some would have led to our planet and human beings, some would not. Some would have stars and galaxies, yet other extreme cases would burn out and collapse into giant black holes almost immediately, while other configurations would have led to the universe breaking into countless separate universes or literally exploding and then dissolving into countless separate black holes. And there are many other possibilities too. These claims may sound wild, but in fact they are predicted using our current scientific model — if we simply change the initial conditions of the early universe slightly.

So why did things turn out the way they did? And why does our universe seem perfectly balanced to support human life — or any life for that matter? There are so many possibilities for how the universe might have unfolded, and most of those possibilities do not result in a universe that could support human life at all. In fact the universe we live in is one of the more statistically improbable outcomes. The odds of our universe happening are infinitesimally small. So how did it happen?

Furthermore, at least on a quantum level it appears that until an act of observation takes place we cannot really say the universe makes a choice about what happens. So what about the early universe — before there were any human observers, or any living things at all to make observations? So what was made the first observation? Was there a “prime observer” at the first instant of the universe, and if not, how could it have come into being since on a quantum level without being observed it could not have had a particular state.

Or alternatively was there some other kind of outside observer that made the original observations of every ancient quantum interaction, enabling the universe to make choices, at least until living observers could evolve to make their own observations? Or, has the universe effectively made all those choices retroactively — for example, now that there are observers, has the effect of our present choices gone back in time and caused the universe to make all the necessary past choices to lead to the way things are today (that one is a mind-bender, but on a quantum level it is not unreasonable or impossible to consider — space and time are not obstacles on the quantum level. For more on this, read about the Anthropic Principle in physics and cosmology)

Perhaps only universes that can support life can therefore contain observers, and so only such universes can actually happen because without observers quantum level choices cannot be made — in other words, possible universes that don’t contain observers effectively cancel themselves out and never even happen, leaving only those universes that can and do support observers. This would at least eliminate a lot of possible universes and improve the odds of universes like ours ever happening. But there are still innumerable, literally countless, variations that are possible even within that set of observer-friendly universes. Why did it turn out that exactly one and only one of those possible universes — ours — is what happened?

Here’s another question that we have to consider as well: If observation is required for the universe to make choices and effectively collapse on various states out of the space of possible states it could be in, then either there was a first observer (which leads the contradiction that the first observer could not happen because it was not observed) or there has to be an infinite regression of observers, or we couldn’t have the present universe at all. Once again, we come to the logical problems we encountered earlier when discussing the universe and God. Either we end up in contradictions or regressions.

One possibility is that the universe is an observer of itself. We know that since the universe can contain observers (for example, humans), it is capable of making observations. So why should observations only happen on the human-scale. Perhaps there are larger systems within the universe that can make observations too? But even if we believe this it still doesn’t solve the problem — even if the universe can observe itself, what observes the universe? Alternatively, if we posit some kind of outside observer of the universe, then again, what observes that? In either case, we end up with a logical contradiction or an infinite regression.

Is there any way out?

Yes, there is one, and only one, way out of this labyrinth: It all comes down to consciousness.

Conscious Awareness

Just as we found that in order for the universe to exist either it must be nonoriginated, it also must be inherently observed. Without observation, nothing could happen, choices could not be made, at least according to quantum physics. Without observation, the universe would be an amorphous field of probabilities for potential events, but no actual events would ever take place. Observation is the key that transforms potential to actual.

But if this the case, what made the first observation that started it all? The answer is that there was no first observation. Instead, observation must be inherently unified with nonorigination. Just as we have used logic to establish there can be no first cause, there also can be no first observation. Nonorigination is the absence of an origin, including any original observation. There is no other alternative, at least if observation is necessary for the universe to exist, on a quantum mechanical level. Therefore there is no first cause, there is no first observation.

In other words, the universe does not require an outside observer or a first observer — yet observation does take place. The universe observes itself via its own creations — yet since the universe is nonoriginated, this self-observation is also nonoriginated. In other words, the observation of the universe by the universe is a relative-level phenomena which in fact is ultimately nonoriginated. Observation is necessary and does take place, yet it has no ultimate origin, it is free of all logical extremes.

So what is this mysterious capacity to observe? It seems to be pretty close to what we mean when we use the terms “consciousness” or “awareness.”

We humans have this special capacity to experience our minds and senses — to not only be aware of phenomena but to be aware of our own awareness — and it appears that animals and other forms of sentient life have this capacity too. We are able to observe and react to stimulus, but also to know it. We don’t just react automatically, like springs bouncing back from being compressed. We experience what we observe — we know — we are and we know that we are. We have a sense of our own being, we are aware that we are aware. This is observation in its most naked form.

Although anything can happen in theory, sentient beings — meaning beings who are aware such as ourselves — make observations. That is our function in the universe in fact –  and these observations have quantum level repercussions that actually cause the universe to choose particular actualities from the space of possibilities, which in turn feedback to affect the probabilities of our future observations. In a very real sense, observation creates reality. Through us, the universe observes itself. This means that the universe has the capacity of awareness, at least via the medium of sentient beings that are individually aware within it.

The universe could not appear at all, according to current quantum mechanical theory, without the act of observation, and yet the act of observation (aka awareness) is something totally mysterious and itself nonoriginated. Because awareness is nonoriginated, yet is what brings about the appearances of the universe, it plays a very special role in reality. It is like the flip side of nonorigination — it is inseparable from it, like the opposite face of a coin. Nonorigination could never appear in the form of the universe without awareness, and awareness could never be possible without nonorigination.

Whether you posit that the universe itself is aware independently from the sentient beings within it, or that it is only aware via the sentient beings it contains, the conclusion is the same: the universe is sentient, it is aware. Awareness — the essence of consciousness — has a very key role in the universe, and/or in whatever we think of as God. It is in fact THE key to it all. Awareness and nonorigination are not separate phenomena; they are interpenetrating yet distinct aspects of the same inconceivable primordial nature of reality.

Cause and Effect

From this discussion so far, we have concluded that the universe is nonoriginated. That is to say, the only logical option is that it exists in a nonoriginated manner — it does not arise from nothing, itself, or something else (OR if it arises from something else then that thing must be nonoriginated, or at least something at some point that is causally upstream from it has to be nonoriginated). For example if the universe comes from God, then either God must be nonoriginated, or that which God depends on has to be nonoriginated, and so on. The point is that the series of things and things that create them is finite, not infinite. There is no infinite regress.

This does not deny the operation of cause and effect within the universe, nor does it deny that there can be an infinite series of causes and effects that lead to or stem from any event within the universe. It only denies that there can be an infinite series of causes and effects the lead to the creation of the universe as-a-whole. In other words, on the relative level, within the universe, cause and effect can operate just as science (or even various religions) might predict. However, the universe as-a-whole is not caused, or eventually depends on something that is not caused.

Therefore the universe as we know it is not contradicted by claiming that it is nonoriginated. Nor is cause and effect contradicted by stating that ultimately the universe as-a-whole, or whatever is that which is nonoriginated, is totally and completely uncaused, unconditioned and therefore free. Furthermore, even though observers — individual sentient beings — within the universe are expressions of that primordial freedom (by virtue of being aware), they are still subject to the laws of cause and effect within the universe.

For example, a particular observer may make an observation, and in doing so they perturb the universe on a quantum level, which conditions what they end up observing. Observation is a cause. What is observed is partially an effect of the act of observation, and partially an effect of other causes and conditions that relate to it. When an observer makes an observation, together with the appropriate set of causes and conditions, a particular event is observed to take place. Similarly, that event then acts as a cause or condition for other observations and events to take place for that observer and/or other observers.

In this manner everything that happens within the universe is the result of a complex network of causes and conditions, in which observers play critical roles. Observers actually change the topology of the network (the patterns of linkages between various causes and conditions and observers) whenever they make observations. This ability to rewire the network by making observations is something that is unique to sentient beings — only true observers that are conscious are capable of causing this to happen.

In fact, without observers actively making observations we cannot truly say the network exists in any particular state — it could be in any of an infinite number of possible configurations representing any of an infinite number of possible timelines of universes. The act of observation is what triggers chains of cause and effect to “fire” (almost as if they were patterns of neurons and dendrites in the brain firing sequentially to generate various thoughts). When there is no observation taking place we might say that the universe is frozen in a kind of indeterminate state. Only when observations happen are particular chains of potential cause and effect in time and space activated, and thus particular events they bring about appear to take place.

The process of cause-and-effect changes the probabilities of various events, making them more or less likely to take place, that is, to be observed. And it is the act of observation itself which triggers the chain of cause and effect, which powers it, which makes it happen. This is how the universe works on a quantum level, and also perhaps how it works on other levels too (for example, the law of Karma in Buddhism is effectively this very process of cause and effect, or what is also called dependent-arising, taking place not only in the external physical world and the body, but within all sensory modalities and even within the mind).

But is cause-and-effect required for the universe to function the way it does? Is there an alternative?

Suppose that there were no cause-and-effect within the universe. Instead imagine what it would be like if everything happened randomly. In a totally random universe every event has an equal chance of happening, so either all events would happen at once, or none of them would. We don’t see either of these taking place however. Instead we see very non-random distributions of events taking place.

When you exert a force on an object it is highly likely to exert and equal and opposite reaction on you, and it is quite unlikely that it will do the opposite of that. But in a random universe both events would be equally likely, at least over all time and space and observers and possible universes. So if the all events are equally likely then we could not have the universe we experience, in which that is certainly
not the case.

One might move the problem down a level however by suggesting that perhaps this universe is only one universe in an infinite number of parallel or possible universes, which are all equally likely to happen, and we just got lucky somehow. We happen to be observers within this one, where things fall towards the force of gravity rather than being repelled by it, and so we are able to stand here on the planet and the planet retains its atmosphere, etc.

It’s fine to hold that view, however, even if one does, within this universe at least, it appears to be as if cause and effect is in operation. Whether cause and effect sequences are really happening sequentially over time and are influenced by the free will of observers, or they all happen all at once from the perspective of eternity and thus free will is illusory, what we experience would be the same. Thus these two alternatives are equivalent.

In this universe — which is the only one we observe — it appears to us as if cause and effect processes are unfolding over time, and for all intents and purposes, from our perspectives, whether causality unfolds creatively and non-deterministically over time and in part due to the free will of observers like ourselves influencing what we observe, or it’s all preordained in eternity, its equivalent.

What this means is that for this universe to happen, cause and effect is necessary. There may be other possible universe in the set of all possibilities which may not appear to contain processes that resemble cause and effect, but we are not experiencing any of them right now, nor can we even prove they exist. So from our perspectives it is as if they do not exist. Notably however, we cannot prove they do not exist either.

Now the question is how can a universe that appears to operate by cause and effect, within it, be nonoriginated? How could a universe full of causes and effects not have a cause? How can nonorigination and cause-and-effect be compatible? Isn’t that equivalent to claiming it is an effect (the univeres) that has no cause (nonorigination), and isn’t that therefore a logical contradiction? No. To make such a claim would indeed be a logical contradiction — an effect is the result of a cause and cannot exist without a corresponding cause. The solution is to not claim that the universe is an effect, nor to claim that nonorigination is a cause.

It is contradictory to assert the existence of an effect apart from its cause. Therefore the universe cannot be asserted to be an effect that has no cause. It is simply nonoriginated, it is not the result of anything. For it to be the result of something would contradict nonorigination, which we have already found is the only logical way that the universe can exist at all (because it can’t come from nothing, itself, or something else, so therefore it must either not exist at all, or it must exist in a nonorignated manner, and since it does appear to exist, it must exist in a nonoriginated manner).

Nonorigination requires that the entire universe is not a cause nor an effect. But although the entire universe is not a cause or an effect, it can appear to contain what look like, and function within it as, causes and effects — sequences of events that are causally linked over time and space in complex interdependent networks. This is a real mind-bender and will take some time to explain. Cause-and-effect is a relative level process — it is provisionally true — but on an ultimate level the process and everything within it is nonoriginated.

For example, we probe further, into any particular event, and we trace back its origins within the universe, and if space and time are infinite, then we may find an infinitely broad and deep network of causes and effects both upstream (leading to it) and downstream (stemming from it) in time. Since these sequences are infinite, they are from a logical perspective infinite regressions. To claim that any effect comes from an infinite series of causes and effects, is logically fallacious — we cannot prove such a claim since we cannot test infinity to see whether or not the series is truly infinite or not, or even what all the causes and effects in the alleged series even are.

Cause and Effect is Nonorigination

Therefore, from a logical level, even though causes and effects may appear within an infinite universe, they too must be nonoriginated — it is the only manner in which they can be said to exist without commiting a fallacy: They must exist in a manner that is free from four logical extremes. In other words, they cannot exist, not-exist, both exist and not-exist, or neither exist or not-exist.

They cannot exist because of infinite regression. They cannot not-exist because that is a logical contradiction and also conflicts with what we observe. Combining existing and not-existing is a logical contradiction. Rejecting both existing and not-existing leads to logical contradiction and also conflicts with what we observe. So while on a relative level the process cause-and-effect appears to operate, on the ultimate level of analysis, it is equivalent to being unoriginated, from our perspectives at least.

Another way of expressing the same thing is end result is that if the space and time are infinite, then the universe as well as its contents (including all causes, effects, observations, and observers) must be ultimately nonoriginated. And since it’s not possible to have a finite sequence of causes-and-effects (because that would mean that at least one cause or effect would not have a corresponding effect or case, which is not possible (because a cause and an effect are inseperable, it is a contradiction to claim you have one without the other), a finite universe of causes and effects is impossible. Therefore finite universes are impossible, since only universes that contain causes and effects would not be random.

Therefore our universe must be infinite, because we do observe processes of cause and effect, and it also must be nonoriginated (or be equivalent to something that is nonoriginated — for example be being part of an infinite series of causes and effects of universes or by being created by some kind of God’s free will, not by cause and effect (where God is by definition not orignated by anything else). These are the only logical possibilities.

The lines of reasoning in this section, and those above it, prove that lead us to conclude that only infinite universes in which cause and effect appear to operate are possible, and that such universes (and the causes and effects they contain) must be ultimately nonoriginated, and observed, in order to be said to occur.

In other words, cause and effect is nonorigination. Whatever appears to be generated by causes and effects is ultimately nonoriginated.

Nonorigination is Cause and Effect

The same is true in the reverse direction. We cannot say that something is nonoriginated unless there is some relative-level appearance of a thing to make that statement about. The notion that nonorigination could exist on it’s own without some subject or object that is nonoriginated is a contradiction. Nonorigination is a phenomenon that requires a complementary relative-level facet, namely whatever is being asserted to be nonoriginated. To assert nonorigination apart from anything else would be like positing a penny with no sides. A penny must have a heads and tails. It can’t be a penny without them.

Therefore where there is cause and effect is the result of nonorigination and observation, and where there is nonorigination and observation there is some phenomena — some event appearing to take place, and since phenomena do not happen randomly, the only alternative is that some combination causes and effects are at work.

It is the process of observations, causes and effects that makes some possible phenomena more or less likely than others at various locations in space and time. Without such a process all possible phenomena would be equally likely at all possible locations in space and time. That would not result in our universe, or anything like our universe, at least as far as we observers can know from our positions within space and time.

Perhaps one might argue that maybe if we could see eternity we might find that our universe was randomly generated as-a-whole, but that is not possible either — for if all universes were equally likely then they would either all happen at once or none of them would happen at all. The fact that this universe appears refutes the possibility that none of them happen at least. As for the possibility of them all happening at once, this is a possibility, but we can’t determine this for sure unless we can see eternity ourselves. From our perspective, and as far as we can know, only this one is happening.

Nonorigination is therefore equivalent to cause and effect, and vice-versa. The process of cause-and-effect is not refuted by nonorigination, indeed it is required by nonorigination, and vice-versa. The proof is that this universe is appearing and functioning the way it does.

Trinity

At each moment of our lives, of each moment of observation no matter how brief or precise — there is something else taking place that is NOT nothingness and NOT exactly whatever appears to us either.

For example when we observe a tree, we see the appearance of the tree visually. That appearance is there, at least as a mere visual image, not unlike an image in a dream. It may be a real image of a real tree, or a dream image of a dream tree — but that doesn’t matter, the two cases are equivalent for in fact we really cannot tell the difference at the moment of its appearance.

The image of the tree before us is of some thing which we may believe exists “out there” in the “real world” beyond our body and mind, and that it is really just a depiction of the object out there in the visual spectrum, formed by our particular sense organs and their abilities and limitations, and then rendered via the circuitry of our brains onto some kind of internal viewing screen, or to some further set of cognitive processes which then do things like interpret it, label it as a “tree” etc. That’s all fine — whether or not any of that is really what is taking place or not — at the very moment of an appearance appearing that is all hypothetical from our own perspective. All we can know at the moment of an appearance is that it is there in its own unique way, and that we know it.

The appearance is the object side of a moment of experience. The “we know it” part of the experience is the subject side. There are these two sides to every ordinary moment of experience. This is consciousness, a dualistic interpretation of what is taking place in every moment into having two poles of subject and object that are somehow two different things. Most people spend their lives experiencing everything — themselves, the outside world, others — in this dualistic mode of cognition. Note that dualism is not inherent, it is a conceptual interpretation of raw experience. Experience itself is not dualistic — there is no actual boundary that we can find between subject and object and we cannot separate them to have one without the other. This dualistic frame of mind is a deep-seated habit and unquestioned belief that is part of our “filter” of the world. It prevents us from knowing experience the way it actually is, and instead splits it like a prism splits a single beam of light, into multiple beams of “subject” and “object” halves of each moment.

It’s key to notice that the dualistic frame of mind — ordinary consciousness — is a kind of artificial division of the moment into two parts. It comes about because a misunderstanding on our own part of what is actually taking place in each moment. What we call the object side of experience is any appearance in any sensory modality or the mind. The subject side of experience is the label we give to the part of the moment that seems to be witnessing it, or being it.

In fact there are not really two things like this, divided and separate from one another. Instead there is only one thing taking place that has both of these aspects. What is taking place is nonorigination. It has two aspects: awareness and appearance. Actually this triad can be expressed in three formulas:

Nonorigination = awareness + appearance    (N = A + A’)

Appearance = Nonorigination – awareness     (A = N – A’)

Awareness = Nonorigination – appearance     (A = N – A’)

Each moment of experience combines all three of these together into a trinity — they are unified yet still distinct. This might in fact be The Ultimate Trinity of all trinities. Furthermore, if we focus on appearance we will find that it is nonorigination. If we focus on awareness we will find that it too is nonorigination. If we try to focus on nonorigination itself we never find it, instead we always find moments of awareness plus appearance. Yet if we then try to find the awareness or appearance on their own they dissolve back to nonorigination.

This Trinity is THE most important philosophical point of all. And I cannot take credit for it. Evertying I know about it or have said here is based on what I’ve learned from Buddhism and quantum mechanics. In particular there are thousands of years of highly developed Buddhist logical treatises on precisely this point.

What is Actually Happening

When things happen they don’t just appear out of nothingness.

There isn’t really any nothingness. Nothingness is impossible by virtue of the following proof: Something appears right now. Nothing and something are mutually exclusive.

Furthemore, even IF nothing was possible, it could never generate anything because there is no way to turn nothingness into something other than nothingness.

Instead of nothingness there is a kind of space of knowing or being — what might be called awareness. This space is not inherently personalized — it has no concepts or sense of I or of being an observer, etc. This awareness has the characteristic of being nonoriginated — we cannot find it or call it a concrete, truly-existing, isolated “thing.”

At the same time as there is any knowing or being, appearances spontaneously develop within its scope. For example, this is just like dreaming. In a dream there is the space of the mind and then within this space various appearances (and other sensory experiences, for example of sound, etc.) unfold. We then identify with a particular character or perspective in the dream and the appearance of its body — and we call that “I” or “self.” That is a habit — there is nothing inherently real about the character we see ourselves as in a dream — it is not really us, not really our body or our actual mind but rather just a dream image of a body and mind. We label it as “I” or “me” out of habit. In fact, our real body is alseep in bed and is not in the dream, and our real mind and self are having the dream they are not really in the dream. Or are they?

When we dream, dreams don’t appear out of nothing, they appear out of awareness.

The same goes for all the experiences (aka appearances in various sensory modalities) that we call a moment of “our universe.” At each moment of experience there is the space of awareness plus at least some appearance. Neither the awareness or the appearances are truly-existing or even separate, they are just two aspects of nonorigination.

Nonorigination — or what in Buddhism is called “emptiness” is not a final fundamental thing that can be grasped or found either — if you find it you find that it dissolves into awareness and appearances and these dissolve back into nonorigination, endlessly.

Time unfolds as the process of this infinite loop — the Trinity of nonorigination, awareness and appearance — iterating. We are always either looking at an appearance, our awareness, or nonorigination. In either case as soon as we make such an observation what we find is that these dissolve into their counterparts. As we keep observing we trigger the process of cause-and-effect which continues to perpetuate appearances and that is what powers the universe so to speak. The energy we put into it by making observations drives it to “run” this program so to speak, endlessly iterating new moments of experience that then trigger us to make further observations and so on.

On a quantum level, the process of enacting awareness, via simple acts of observation — is literally what causes the universe to make quantum decisions that jolt the quantum field of possibilities to “collapse” onto a single possibility whenever we look for it. This is analogous to being able to cause liquid water to suddenly freeze into ice by just looking at it. When we don’t look, it’s water, but when we do look it instantly freezes into a particular shape.

We can never really see it in its water form, it always freezes just when we look for it. But we can infer the water from the frozen shapes that appear. Even ice has has waterlike qualities — it’s clear, and it melts back into water when heated after all. If we look closely at any observation (any shape made of ice in this analogy), to find its nature, this is analogous to heating the ice we are looking at, which melts it back to liquid form.

Once it melts we can no longer see it (in this analogy) until we make the next observation as we continue to look for it again. Our next observation is conditioned by the previous observation — the network of probabilities for what can appear next are changed by the previous observation — and this causes it to follow from it, statistically, rather than to be completely random — this is the process of cause-and-effect in a nutshell. Therefore our acts of observation crystallize and perpetuate our experience in an ongoing, recursive process.

Each act of observation effectively loads the dice for the next act of observation and so changes the odds of the next possible dicerolls. If the world did not work this way it would be totally random. Since it’s not totally random — it does appear to behave in a non-random fashion, we are able to make various kinds of predictions, there is a certain amount of consistency over time, this is how the universe must and does work. Cause-and-effect makes the universe non-random and non-randomness of the universe results in cause-and-effect operating.

Metascience: What are the Possible Beliefs We Might Hold?

So far we have explored some very deep questions about the origin and nature of the universe and, if one believes in God, then of God too. We have found that all these questions converge on the same ultimate reality — the reality of nonorigination.

But while they may all converge on that point eventually, there are many different schools of thought within science and religion, and regarding how they relate to one another. So how do we choose what to believe in?

It is necessary to make such choices in order to simply function on a day-to-day level, to resolve difficult moral questions, and to figure out how to live or what to do in the future. Many people just accept the choice that is handed to them by their parents, or by authorities they trust. But if one has the freedom and presence of mind to question this themselves, then on what basis can an intelligent choice be made?

It’s difficult to make sense of the range of belief system choices available, and their biggest differences or main points. One could proceed on an extensive voyage of exploration — surveying every field of science and religion over decades (what I did by default). But the whole task might be a lot faster and more efficient if one had a map to start with.

I propose a field of thinking about what to believe that we might call “Metascience” in which we make maps to help people navigate possible belief systems more intelligently. In this approach we address big philosophical questions from a higher level, starting by enumerating the space of possible beliefs we could hold about them — rather than by starting with a particular choice of belief. (Note: Another word for Metascience might simply be philosophy or metaphysics. But Philosophy and more specifically, metaphysics, have gotten totally lost, irrelevant, and non-objective. It’s time for a refresh.).

So, regarding the choice of beliefs about the relatoinship between God and the universe — Instead of immediately diving into the rathole of arguing the specifics of any one particular belief system or position on the issues, first let’s at least try try to agree on what the set of possible beliefs and positions is, and on a way to enumerate them as elegantly and usefully as possible. Is a universally agreeable metascience possible? Can we come up with a way to enumerate all the possible belief systems about God and the universe that everyone can agree with?

A Categorization of All Possible Beliefs About The Universe and God

So here is my first attempt at mapping out the exhaustive metascientific enumeration of all possible philosophies regarding God and the Universe.

(A)  Hierarchical Approach: Either the universe or God is more fundamental and/or includes the other

• Theories in which the universe – or all time and space – take place within God’s mind and/or body and is subject to God’s laws and will
• Theories in which God exists as something within the universe, subject to it’s physical laws and conditions

(B) Dualistic Approach: The universe and God are two separate things

• Theories in which God is the first-cause, creator or “blind watchmaker” who started the universe and then detached from it
• Theories in which God is watching the universe from some place outside and separate from it and may or may not intervene
• Theories in which God and the universe are separate things that co-exist within an even higher-order universe and/or pantheon
• Theories in which either God or the universe is more potent or real than the other, and they are separate things

(C) Non-Dualistic Approach: The universe and God are one unified thing

• Theories in which the universe is a vast, intelligent, aware, sentient being of some sort (that we name “God”)
• Theories in which God is just a synonym or label for the universe, or vice-versa.
• The universe and God are a dichotomy; they are neither the same nor different. The universe and God are distinct but connected or merged together as one entity (e.g. God or the universe is considered to be the fundamental aspect and the other is considered to be relative aspect of the same dichotomy, the wave-particle duality, space-time, matter-energy, mind-body, one-many, etc.). Or in other words, theories in which God and the universe are two sides of the same coin so to speak — two distinct sides of the same thing
• Theories in which either God exists and the universe doesn’t, or the universe exists and God doesn’t

(D) Existential Approach: The universe and/or God is a provisionally existing thing

• Theories in which God or the universe has only a provisional kind of existence that when analyzed proves to reduce to a deeper level of existence, or to non-existence.
• Theories in which God or the universe is merely a conceptual construct or label for something that actually has no valid existence of its own (e.g. “the horns of a rabbit”)
• Theories in which God is a conceptual label for something that is impossible (e.g. “this statement is not true)
• Theories in which God is a fictional character in a story (e.g. the character,
  “Aslan” in the Chronicles of Narnia), or is a mental fabrication or projection of someone’s mind
• Theories in which the universe is fictional but taking place – a mere fantasy or dream or a mental fabrication or projection of someone’s mind — it doesn’t exist in reality, it only exists in each of our own perceptions or at least in someone’s mind.
• Theories such as nihilism which posit that there is actually nothing at all (a contradictory, and irrational assertion)

(E) Nonconceptual Approach: The universe and/or God is inconceivable

• Theories in which the universe and/or God is neither posited to exist, not-exist, both exist and not-exist, or neither exist nor not-exist (e.g. the Buddhist theory of “emptiness” or “freedom from four logical extreme views”)
• Theories in which God or the concept of the universe is a conceptualization of something real but inconceivable (e.g. “infinity” or “zero”)
• Theories in which God and/or the universe cannot be conceived of for some axiomatic reason, such as being transcendental, beyond the scope of thought or words, beyond logic, not in the material realm, higher-dimensional, beyond time and space, etc.

There are no other major categories that I can think of regarding the Universe and God. I believe this may be then an exhaustive list. But feel free to add your own thoughts in the comments below.

Are These Questions Worthwhile?

At this point, for the skeptics among us, we should ask whether it is even meaningful and worthwhile to try to unify science and religion.

It is certainly clear that science has value. But what about religion?

Firstly, much of the world’s population believes in some form of religion and these beliefs are at the root of much of what takes place in the world — culturally, politically, economically and more. For that reason, if nothing else, we really should have as deep an understanding of all the various conceptions about God as we can. But that’s just the start. In fact there are sound scientific and philosophical reasons for exploring the topic of God as well. The theory that God originated the universe is just a valid a hypothesis as any other theory — and may even be testable at some point in the future. It’s certainly no more outlandish than some of the more exotic and hard-to-test cosmological hypotheses put forth in recent decades.

In addition, many people (including even many scientists) have had personal experiences that indicate that there is some greater entity beyond the body, mind or individual self, and perhaps even beyond the physical limits of space and time. While not everyone has had such experiences, and there is no way to validate the experiences of others, the fact that such experiences are so common and so similar, is another data-point that makes this topic worthy of consideration both by those who claim to have had such experiences, and by those who claim to have not had them. They may be artifacts of the particular architecture of the human body and brain, or they may be pointing to a deeper reality that exists just as objectively as the physical world.

Finally, from a purely scientific perspective, the origin of the universe is a mystery, and therefore the possibility of God is as much an open question as it ever was. Science has been able to learn about how the universe works to some degree, and to map parts of it, and even to form conjectures about how it has developed — but where it comes from, how it started (if it even has a beginning at all), and even where it is located ultimately are a mystery. If one posits any kind of a beginning — such as a Big Bang — then that immediately begs the question of where did the Beginning come from?

Religion has certainly learned a lot from science over the millennia. But perhaps, ironically, science has as much to learn from religion in coming millennia, at least when it comes to understanding and exploring the farthest possible reaches of cosmology and the mind. The strange relationship between mind and matter may be what the next great scientific revolution will focus on.

Similarities Between Sciences and Religions

While science and religion may disagree on certain points, at the very deepest level, they may actually be more compatible than we might think. In fact, I would go so far as to propose that a grand unification of science and religion may come about in the future as we probe ever deeper into the edges of what we know about cosmology, subatomic physics, and even our understanding of consciousness and the mind.

The strangeness at the boundaries of science already points to a reality that goes beyond a strict division of mind and matter. For example, the simple act of observation seems to have an influence on what is actually measured to take place, according to the field of quantum mechanics. Similarly, at the borders of cosmology, questions still abound on the origin, structure, and fate of the universe. And in particular, given the improbability of a universe such as ours, which seems to be precisely balanced to support the emergence of intelligent life, how did this universe happen?

In many cases scientists are very careful to state that they simply don’t know certain things yet. But at the same time, as scientific theories come into vogue, they often get out of control. For example the theory of the Big Bang. This particular theory, like most other scientific theories, has gone from being a new and contentious proposal, to a major and mainstream scientific belief, to a term that even non-scientists embraced as fact, and now today there is new evidence that perhaps the Big Bang theory is flawed and/or totally incorrect.

In the field of the philosophy of science, which studies how scientific paradigms are born, how they develop and compete, and how they are overturned, there are many other examples (the view of the Newtonian universe versus the view of Relativity, for example, or various explanations for the quantum world, and more recently String Theory). As scientific belief systems emerge, their proponents sometimes develop a kind of faith in the veracity of their beliefs that is not yet justified by the evidence, or that can never be justified in some cases — this scientific faith is quite similar to religious faith. It’s a strong belief in an explanation of nature for which there is some evidence but not yet final proof.

In fact, in science, theories can only be falsified, they can never be established as permanent and final. One never knows if and when new evidence may emerge that overturns the received view, or points to a deeper understanding.

It should also be noted that it is not the case that science is rational and religion is not. In fact, most if not all religions claim that that at least some of their beliefs are verifiable by individuals who follow a rational and repeatable process (for example, do certain things and you will get certain results). In addition at least some religions also apply rigorous formal logic to support their viewpoints. Those religions that provide an experimental method (do certain things and anyone will get predictable results) and that also apply rigorous logic to their reasoning, are applying a form of scientific method. It may be a weak form of scientific method, but it is not irrational.

So while science and religion have very different methodologies, at least with regard to their answers to the really Big Questions, such as the origin and ultimate nature of the universe, they both require a certain amount of faith, and they are both rational processes to some degree.

Differences Between Sciences and Religions

However there are also certain key differences between sciences and religions. In particular, many religions are built from axioms (creation myths, dieties, stories, traditions, and rules) which are established tautologically (they are considered to be true because simply they are defined to be true). For example, those religions which found their belief systems on ancient manuscripts that are said to have come directly for God, are building their belief systems from axioms. Such texts are claimed to be axiomatically true and cannot be disputed for they are God’s Word.

Some relgions also make the claim that the only way to test and verify the truth of their beliefs is to first take them on faith as true. In other words, the only way to verify that x is true is to first believe that x is true, and then after you believe it, the evidence will start to emerge. In other words, not having faith — asking questions or having doubts — actually prevents one from discovering the truth. It is the act of having faith that actually opens the door, so to speak.

Putting faith first is the opposite of the scientific method. The scientific method starts with doubt. It invites questioning — nothing is too sacred to examine, and if some theory can’t stand up to scrutiny, or can’t be shown through experiment or logic to be true, then it can’t be said to be scientific fact. In fact, to accept that something is true without having doubts, but prior to having proof, would be a grave scientific error. This is a key difference between the methodologies of sciences and religions in general.

However, different though it may be from the scientific method, the religious approach seems to work. Billions of people throughout human history who have followed various religions have been able to verify, for themselves at least, the authenticity of their beliefs. Whether or not the stories in a certain religious text are literally true or only metaphorical or allegorical, the fact remains that the religious process of faith, devotion, prayer and personal growth do lead, in a predictable and repeatable manner, to profound religious experiences and in some cases even to unexplainable “miracles” at times (such as the many documented cases of spontaneous healings, for example). While this is certainly not the scientific method, it appears to work pretty well nonetheless.

It is not my intention to prove that the scientific method of “proof before faith” is better or worse than the religious approach of “faith before proof.” In fact, I think they both have their place, and they both work, for different purposes.

The Boundary Between Science and Religion is Fuzzier Than One Might Think

The boundary between where science ends and religion begins is fuzzy at best. In fact, they are so intimately connected at the deepest levels that perhaps they will one day turn out to be the same thing.

Already we have found that on the quantum scale there is an intimate and strange connection between conscious observation and what appears to happen. This is not well understood yet, but it is observed experimentally. Yet we don’t have any real understanding of what consciousness is, or how it interacts with what is observed. The sciences have very little understanding of the mind at all. In fact, many scientists don’t even believe there is a mind; they think the brain is a machine and the mind is a kind of illusion. There is no soul, no consciousness, no being at all. Yet others disagree. The jury is still out.

Religions on the other hand have been studying consciousness for millennia, and some are downright scientific about it. For example the ancient Hindu and Buddhist tantric sciences provide extremely detailed and sophisticated technologies for using the breath, posture, visualization, sound, and concentration to bring about extremely unusual states of body and mind (which have recently have been measured in scientific laboratories in a number of studies). Religions are in some ways way ahead of science when it comes to understanding the mind.

The mind is one of the places where science and religion are going to collide and most likely converge. Another is the ultimate nature of the universe — the nature of space and time. The boundary between science and religion becomes fuzzier as one begins to explore the mind, the relationship between mind and matter, and simply as one views the universe at the largest or smallest scales.

There have been many past attempts by scientists at proving and disproving the existence of God. In fact the question of God’s existence was once considered an acceptable topic of enquiry by scientists such as for example, Sir Isaac Newton, and many others. In the past science was concerned with all questions about nature — including questions about the nature of reality and the mind, and even the possibility of a soul. But in recent times the focus of mainstream science has shifted far away from such topics — which are now seen as almost taboo. But why should they be taboo? They are just as much a subject for enquiry as ever. God has not been proved to exist or not-exist by science, and therefore the jury is still out. The question is whether there is any way to prove that God exists or not? It may in fact be possible to do this, scientifically, eventually.

In any case, just as is the case for the question of God, there are many scientific questions that also have not been answered yet, especially in the fields of cosmology and theoretical physics. Where does the universe come from? What created it? What came before the Big Bang (if there was a Big Bang)? What medium is space-time taking place in right now, or if there is nothing beyond space time then how did it ever happen, what does it come from, how could there be nothing beyond it? Does the universe have any edges and if so what is outside them? If there are multiple universes, what separates them from each other, or are they connected and if so how? Do all possible states of all possible universes already exist or are they truly unfolding over time? Is everything predetermined by the physical laws, or is it all open to chance, or is there some level of intelligence and creativity taking place in the universe?

Even if science someday were able to describe and define everything there is to know about the physical universe, there would still be something more to know that could not be proved or described or defined. Godel’s famous Incompleteness proof established this on a formal logical level — there will always be gaps in our knowledge — of any formal systems we construct. No formal system can be both consistent and complete at the same time. We will never have perfect scientific knowledge of the universe. And even if we could, it would simply beg the question of what is beyond that — no matter what we say the universe is, the question will always come up: well, then where does it come from and how or why is it happening?

Whether through science or religion, all paths lead to the possibility of something inconceivably beyond what we know. And this is where the boundary between science and religions gets so fuzzy that it dissolves completely.

Making a Choice

Assuming we can all at least agree on the meta-level choices (the set of possible choices), we can then discuss possible criteria for comparing, testing, and even ranking the various possible choices available to us.

At the end of the process of course there may be no final best choice that everyone accepts (in fact, I can guarantee there will not be!), nor any agreement as to what are the best or correct criteria for choosing among them. But at least we can all at least agree on what the choices are and how they compare to one another in various ways.

This could go a long way to promoting and improving tolerance and understanding. Better yet, this kind of process might even lead to useful meta-level or inter-belief-system dialogues that may eventually lead to important discoveries and even grand unifications in the future.

However, for now, regardless of what belief system we prefer, we simply have to accept that the belief system we choose, if any, is a matter of personal choice (some might call that faith, others might call it aesthetic preference, others might call it a hunch or intuition) — at least until such time as someone comes up with a way to objectively prove to everyone else that there is only one correct choice. Until that time, even if we have our own favorite belief system choice, we still have to keep some measure of open-mindedness in the face of the set of other choices available and the fact that we can’t today prove objectively (to everyone) that we made the right choice.

At least however, we should be clear that if we are willing to believe anything about the universe, there are strong reasons why we therefore should keep an open mind with regard to the possibility of God. It is not that huge a leap in fact. If we are willing to accept that something as vast and inconceivable as the universe exists, then why not God too? We really don’t have much solid grounds for holding any beliefs about such things — to do so is really just an act of faith either way. We should not have illusions about that. Believing in scientific explanations of the cosmos is really not that much different than believing in religious ones.

The good news at least is that so long as our conception of God has the properties of being uncaused and unconditioned, we are likely to have made the right choice. This also means that all the great religions, at least at their cores, are in agreement — they are all worshiping the same ultimate God, regardless of what different names they use for it. You really can’t go wrong as long as you believe in an ultimate nature that is uncaused and uncreated. However — where you certainly CAN go wrong is in imposing any further beliefs on it. And many make that mistake.

Nonduality

I have shown in this article that if one believes in the physical universe described by science, then in fact there is a logical requirement that the universe is ultimately nonoriginated.

I have also shown that the same holds for belief in God — God is also logically required to be nonoriginated.

Therefore the universe and God have the same ultimate nature.

In addition I have shown that for the universe to make choices about what happens from the set of all possibilities, observation, and therefore awareness, is required. Furthermore the nature of sentient beings, and of God, is precisely this unique capacity of awareness. Both the universe and what we think of as God are characterized by the same nature of being nonoriginated and aware.

In fact, at this level, the ultimate nature is not very different from the core idea of what God is. On an ultimate level there is not really much of a distinction between the ultimate nature of the universe and the ultimate nature of God — it is just one ultimate reality. The universe and God may be one thing, or they may be two things, or only one and not the other may exist, but in any and all of these cases, there is still only one ultimate nature: nonoriginated awareness.

There is no escape from this logic. There is no question that somewhere down the line, we must finally accept that there is something greater than the universe — whatever we think the universe is — and the characteristics of that greater thing are in fact the one common theme of the conception of God across all religions. We can name it what we want, and certainly different religions do. We also may have different perspectives on it, and add all sorts of other details. But what all the great religions have in common is an ultimate nature that is essentially transcendental.

In other words, science and religion are two sides of the same coin. You really can’t have one without the other. They are a dichotomy, but not a duality. They are distinct yet unified.

We do however have the freedom to choose our relative level beliefs about science, and our religious tradition. This freedom is an expression of the primordial freedom of the awareness — our ability to choose what to observe — and this in turn is the ultimate nature of reality. Intellectual freedom is therefore not only irrepressible, it is a reflection of the nature of the universe, it is our birthright.

On the ultimate level everything is unified, but on the relative level, there is no one correct science or religion, there will always be different views, and they probably won’t always agree on all points, and this is perfectly in accord with the freedom of the universe, and each individual. So while science and religion may be unified on the ultimate level, they certainly are not unified on the relative level, and in fact even within each indivividual field of science and each religion, there are differing viewpoints and schools of thought. And this is good.

There is a menu of different belief systems in both arenas and various items on the menu are or are not compatible with one another, or with the beliefs of others. It’s really our personal choice to make. However, what should be clear from the above argument is we have to choose both a main course and a desert: science is undeniable, and religion is unavoidable, they are two sides of the same coin.

Science and religion are different on the relative level (though not as different as some might think), but they definitely converge at ultimate level and this convergence is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of logic. Therefore, regardless of whether we prefer science or religion, or any particular sect within either camp, at least we should not err on the side of thinking they are mutually exclusive.

Unifying Physics and Consciousness: The Next Scientific Revolution

If you pursue science to the very edges, you reach nonorigination. Similarly if you become as close as possible to the diety in any religious tradition, you reach nonorigination. Moreover, nonorigination is the nature of appearances and awareness, and vice-verse. They are never separated. It’s a trinity.

The ultimate nature of the universe, and the ultimate nature of God (if you believe in a God) – must logically be precisely the same. This nature unifies the physical world of seemingly “external” sensory experiences and seemingly “internal” mental events, with the unfindable yet undeniable dimension of awareness, and the unfindable yet logically required nature of being nonoriginated.

The beauty of this is that on the ultimate level there really is no question at all about whether or not the universe exists, or whether or not God exists — the appearances of primordially aware nonorigination is the truth — and it is the most amazing miracle of all. It is irrefutable, it is logically required, and it establishes a basis for authentic and universal spirituality. One can logically derive or directly experience this logical trinity through the vehicle of focusing on and logically analyzing any phenomena (the universe, the mind, God, etc.). When this trinity is recognized as the nature of reality, and directly experienced as such, that is the deepest scientific observation or religious experience possible.

The universe including the body and all other physical things in space and time, the conceptual mind and its mental realm of thoughts and emotions, and all possible real or imaginary deities, all have at their ultimate root, the same primordially nonoriginated awareness.

Proving this once and for all in a non-religiously couched manner — using pure logical reasoning — enables science to progress beyond its present day limitations to finally begin to make sense of the strangeness of the quantum world and of the role and nature of consciousness, and the ultimate nature of space and time.

The next frontier in science will not be simply be a deeper understanding of the physical world — it will be a broader and more integrated understanding that includes both the physical world and the realm of consciousness — the mental realm.

To fully explain and understand the physical world science must find ways to include and measure the crucial role of conscious observers. Each physical event has both sides on a quantum level: the side of the observer and the side of what is observed. Science has so far been focused exclusively on understanding the side of what is observed. But what is observed cannot fully be understood or explained without an equal measure of scientific understanding of the observer and the act of observation.

Similarly, the only way to fully understand consciousness is to include and measure the crucial relationship between consciousness and the process of appearance (namely cause and effect). Both the physical world and consciousness are nonoriginated — they are empty of having an origin, not having an origin, having both, or having neither.

We don’t have the tools for measuring or exploring consciousness yet, but we’re close. Experiments that show the impact of observation on reality are indicators that consciousness is a phenomenon that can affect the observable world. This means that consciousness is indirectly detectable via measurements of the physical world around observers. It may be that consciousness — the act of observing — cannot be directly measured or observed except on its own — by and “within” each individual — but may still me indirectly measured or detected via its affects on the quantum field in the environment when it is present.

By analogy, this is similar to how space is measured, so it is possible to imagine doing this for consciousness. In the case of space, we cannot see it, touch it, or measure it directly. We can only infer things about it by measuring other things — like the way light travels, or the way things move. These indirect measurements lead us to an understanding of space.

Similarly we may be able to triangulate on consciousness by measuring the effects of various physical changes on consciousness (as reported by a conscious observer) and/or by the effects of consciousness (some observer) on physical phenomena (such as the Double Slit experiment). This is definitely an interesting possibility for further exploration, and perhaps the next scientific revolution is waiting just over the horizon in this direction.

Our civilization has not even scratched the surface of this new frontier — a unified science of physics and consciousness. But we will soon. We have to. It is unavoidable. Our quest for knowledge and understanding will take us there whether we like it or not. Already there are cracks in our present scientific theories, and experiments are showing us gaps and contradictions in our theories that we cannot explain. And the light is spilling through them.

I’ve written a new article about how content distribution has evolved, and where it is heading. It’s published here: http://www.siliconangle.com/social-media/content-distribution-is-changing-again/.

If you are interested in semantics, taxonomies, education, information overload and how libraries are evolving, you may enjoy this video of my talk on the Semantic Web and the Future of Libraries at the OCLC Symposium at the American Library Association Midwinter 2009 Conference. This event focused around a dialogue between David Weinberger and myself, moderated by Roy Tennant. We were forutnate to have an audience of about 500 very vocal library directors in the audience and it was an intensive day of thinking together. Thanks to the folks at OCLC for a terrific and really engaging event!

If you are interested in collective intelligence, consciousness, the global brain and the evolution of artificial intelligence and superhuman intelligence, you may want to see my talk at the 2008 Singularity Summit. The videos from the Summit have just come online.

(Many thanks to Hrafn Thorisson who worked with me as my research assistant for this talk).

Kevin Kelly recently wrote another fascinating article about evidence of a global superorganism. It’s another useful contribution to the ongoing evolution of this meme.

I tend to agree that we are at what Kevin calls, Stage III. However, an important distinction in my own thinking is that the superorganism is not comprised just of machines, but it is also comprised of people.

(Note: I propose that we abbreviate the One Machine, as “the OM.” It’s easier to write and it sounds cool.)

Today, humans still make up the majority of processors in the OM. Each human nervous system comprises billions of processors, and there are billions of humans. That’s a lot of processors.

However, Ray Kurzweil posits that the balance of processors is rapidly movingtowards favoring machines — and that sometime in the latter half of this century, machine processors will outnumber or at least outcompute all the human processors combined, perhaps many times over.

While agree with Ray’s point that machine intelligence will soon outnumber human intelligence, I’m skeptical of Kurzweil’s timeline, especially in light of recent research that shows evidence of quantum level computation within microtubules inside nuerons. If in fact the brain computes at the tubulin level then it may have many orders of magnitude more processors than currently estimated. This remains to be determined. Those who argue against this claim that the brain can be modelled on a Classical level and that quantum computing need not be invoked. To be clear, I am not claiming that the brain is a quantum computer, I am claiming that there seems to be evidence that computation in the brain takes place at the quantum level, or near it. Whether quantum effects have any measurable effect on what the brain does is not the question, the question is simply whether microtubules are the lowest level processing elements of the brain. If they are,then there are a whole lot more processors in the brain than previously thought.

Another point worth considering is that much of the brain’s computation is not taking place within the neurons but rather in the gaps between synapses, and this computation happens chemically rather than electrically. There are vastly more synapses than neurons, and computation within the synapses happens at a much faster and more granular level than neuronal firings. It is definitely the case thatchemical-level computations take place with elements that are many orders of magnitude smaller than neurons. This is another case for the brain computing at a much lower level than is currently thought.

In other words the resolution of computation in the human brain is still unknown. We have several competing approximations but no final answer on this. I do think however that evidence points to computation being much more granular than we currently think.

In any case, I do agree with Kurzweil that at least it is definitely the case that artificial computers will outnumber naturally occurring human computers on this planet — it’s just a question of when. In my view it will take a little longer than he thinks: it is likely to happen after 100 to 200 years at the most.

There is another aspect of my thinking on this subject which I think may throw a wrench in the works. I don’t think that what we call “consciousness” is something that can be synthesized. Humans appear to be conscious, but we have no idea what that means yet. It is undeniable that we all have an experience of being conscious, and this experience is mysterious. It is also the case that at least so far, nobody hasbuilt a software program or hardware device that seems to be having this experience. We don’t even know how to test for consciousness in fact. For example, the much touted Turing Test does not test consciousness, it tests humanlike intelligence. There really isn’t a test for consciousness yet. Devising one is an interesting an important goal that we should perhaps be working on.

In my own view, consciousness is probably fundamental to the substrate of the universe, like space, time and energy. We don’t know what space, time and energy actually are. We cannot actually measure them directly either. All our measurements of space, time and energy are indirect — we measure other things that imply that space, time and energy exist. Space, time and energy are inferred by effects we observe on material things that we can measure. I think the same may be true of consciousness. So the question is, what are the measureable effects ofconsciousness? Well one candidate seems to be the Double Slit experiment, which shows that the act of observation causes the quantum wave function to collapse. Are there other effects we can cite as evidence of consciousness?

I have recently been wondering how connected consciousness is to the substrate of the universe we are in. If consciousness is a property of the substrate, then it may be impossible to synthesize. For example, we never synthesize space, time or energy — no matter what we do, we are simply using the space, time and energy of the substrate that is this universe.

If this is the case, then creating consciousness is impossible. The best we can do is somehow channel the consciousness that is already there in the substrate of the universe. In fact, that may be what the human nervous system does: it channels consciousness, much in the way that an electrical circuit channels electricity. The reason that software programs will probably not become conscious is that they aretoo many levels removed from the substrate. There is little or no feedback between the high-level representations of cognition in AI programs and the quantum-level computation (and possibly consciousness) of the physical substrate of the universe. That is not the case in the human nervous system — in the human nervous system the basic computing elements and all the cognitive activity are directly tied to thephysical substrate of the universe. There is at least the potential for two-way feedback to take place between the human mind (the software), the human brain (a sort of virtual machine), and the quantum field (the actual hardware).

So the question I have been asking myself lately is how connected is consciousness to the physical substrate? And furthermore, how important is consciousness to what we consider intelligence to be? If consciousness is important to intelligence, then artificial intelligence may not be achievable through software alone — it mayrequire consciousness, which may in turn require a different kind of computing system, one which is more connected (through bidirectional feedback) to the physical quantum substrate of the universe.

What all this means to me is that human beings may form an important and potentially irreplaceable part of the OM — the One Machine — the emerging global superorganism. In particular today the humans are still the most intelligent parts. But in the future when machine intelligence may exceed human intelligence a billionfold, humans may still be the only or at least most conscious parts of the system. Because of the uniquely human capacity for consciousness (actually, animals and insects are conscious too), I think we have an important role to playin the emerging superorganism. We are it’s awareness. We are who watches, feels, and knows what it is thinking and doing ultimately.

Because humans are the actual witnesses and knowers of what the OM does and thinks, the function of the OM will very likely be to serve and amplify humans, rather than to replace them. It will be a system that is comprised of humans and machines working together, for human benefit, not for machine benefit. This is a very different future outlook than that of people who predict a kind of “Terminator-esque” future in which machines get smart enough to exterminate the human race. It won’t happen that way. Machines will very likely not get that smart for a long time, if ever, because they are not going to be conscious. I think we should be much more afraid of humans exterminating humanity than of machines doing it.

So to get to Kevin Kelly’s Level IV, what he calls “An Intelligent Conscious Superorganism” we simply have to include humans in the system. Machines alone are not, and will not ever be, enough to get us there. I don’t believe consciousness can be sythesized or that it will suddenly appear in a suitably complex computer program. I think it is a property of the substrate, and computer programs are just too many levels removed from the substrate. Now, it is possible that we mightdevise a new kind of computer architecture — one which is much more connected to the quantum field. Perhaps in such a system, consciousness, like electricity, could be embodied. That’s a possibility. It is likely that such a system would be more biological in nature, but that’s just a guess. It’s an interesting direction forresearch.

In any case, if we are willing to include humans in the global superorganism — the OM, the One Machine — then we are already at Kevin Kelly’s Level IV. If we are not willing to include them, then I don’t think will reach Level IV anytime soon, or perhaps ever.

It is also important to note that consciousness has many levels, just like intelligence. There is basic raw consciousness which simply perceives the qualia of what takes place. But there are also forms of consciousness which are more powerful — for example, consciousness that is aware of itself, and consciousness which is so highly tuned that it has much higher resolution, and consciousness which is aware of the physical substrate and its qualities of being spacelike and empty of any kind of fundamental existence. These are in fact the qualities of the quantum substrate we live in. Interestingly, they are also the qualities of reality that Buddhists masters also point out to be the ultimate nature of reality and of the mind (they do not consider reality and mind to be two different things ultimately). Consciousness may or may not be aware of these qualities of consciousness and ofreality itself — consciousness can be dull, or low-grade, or simply not awake. The level to which consciousness is aware of the substrate is a way to measure the grade of consciousness taking place. We might call this dimension of consciousness, “resolution.” The higher the resolution of consciousness is, the more acutely aware it is of the actual nature of phenomena, the substrate. At the highest  resolutionit can directly percieve the space-like, mind-like, quantum nature of what it observes. At the highest level of resolution, there is no perception of duality between observer and observed — consciousness perceives everything to be essentially consciousness appearing in different forms and behaving in a quantum fashion.

Another dimension of consciousness that is important to consider is what we could call “unity.” On the lowest level of the unity scale, there is no sense of unity, but rather a sense of extreme isolation or individuality. At the highest level of the scale there is a sense of total unification of everything within one field of consciousness. That highest-level corresponds to what we could call “omniscience.” TheBuddhist concept of spiritual enlightenment is essentially consciousness that has evolved to BOTH the highest level of resolution and the highest level of unity.

The global superorganism is already conscious, in my opinion, but it has not achieved very high resolution or unity. This is because most humans, and most human groups and organizations, have only been able to achive the most basic levels of consciousness themselves. Since humans, and groups of humans, comprise the consciousness of the global superorganism, our individual and collective conscious evolution is directly related to the conscious evolution of the superorganism as a whole. This is why it is important for individuals and groups to work on their own consciousnesses. Consciousness is “there” as a basic property of the physical substrate, but like mass or energy, it can be channelled and accumulated and shaped. Currently the consciousness that is present in us as individuals, and in groups of us, is at best, nascent and underdeveloped.

In our young, dualistic, materialistic, and externally-obsessed civilization, we have made very little progress on working with consciousness. Instead we have focused most or all of our energy on working with certain other more material-seeming aspects of the substrate — space, time and energy. In my opinion a civilizationbecomes fully mature when it spends equal if not more time on the concsiousness dimension of the substrate. That is something we are just beginning to work on, thanks to the strangeness of quantum mechanics breaking our classical physical paradims and forcing us to admit that consciousness might play a role in our reality.

But there are ways to speed up the evolution of individual and collective consciousness, and in doing so we can advance our civilization as a whole. I have lately been writing and speaking about this in more detail.

On an individual level one way to rapidly develop our own consciousness is the path of meditation and spirituality — this is most important and effective. There may also be technological improvements, such as augmented reality, or sensory augmentation, that can improve how we perceive, and what we perceive. In the not too distant future we will probably have the opportunity to dramatically improve the range and resolution of our sense organs using computers or biological means. We may even develop new senses that we cannot imagine yet. In addition, using the Internet for example, we will be able to be aware of more things at once than ever before. But ultimately, the scope of our individual consciousness has to develop on an internal level in order to truly reach higher levels of resolution and unity.Machine augmentation can help perhaps, but it is not a substitute for actually increasing the capacity of our consciousnesses. For example, if we use machines to get access to vastly more data, but our consciousnesses remain at a relatively low-capacity level, we may not be able to integrate or make use of all that new data anyway.

It is a well known fact that the brain filters out most of the information we actually percieve. Furthermore when taking a a hallucinogenic drug, the filter opens up a little wider, and people become aware of things which were there all along but which they previously filtered out. Widening the scope of consciousness — increasing the resolution and unity of consciousness, is akin to what happens when taking such a drug, except that it is not a temporary effect and it is more controllable and functional on a day-to-day basis. Many great Tibetan lamas I know seem to have accomplished this — the scope of their consciousness is quite vast, and the resolution is quite precise. They literally can and do see every detail of eventhe smallest things, and at the same time they have very little or no sense of individuality. The lack of individuality seems to remove certain barriers which in turn enable them to perceive things that happen beyond the scope of what would normally be considered their own minds — for example they may be able to perceive the thoughts of others, or see what is happening in other places or times. This seems to take place because they have increased the resolution and unity oftheir consciousnesses.

On a collective level, there are also things we can do to make groups, organizations and communities more conscious. In particular, we can build systems that do for groups what the “self construct” does for individuals.

The self is an illusion. And that’s good news. If it wasn’t an illusion we could never see through it and so for one thing spiritual enlightenment would not be possible to achieve. Furthermore, if it wasn’t an illusion we could never hope to synthesize it for machines, or for large collectives. The fact that “self” is an illusion is something that Buddhist, neuroscientists, and cognitive scientists all seem to agree on. The self is an illusion, a mere mental construct. But it’s a very useful one, when applied in the right way. Without some concept of self we humans would find it difficult to communicate or even navigate down the street. Similarly, without some concept of self groups, organizations and communities also cannot function very productively.

The self construct provides an entity with a model of itself, and its environment. This model includes what is taking place “inside” and what is taking place “outside” what is considered to be self or “me.” By creating this artificial boundary, and modelling what is taking place on both sides of the boundary, the self construct is able to measure and plan behavior, and to enable a system to adjust and adaptto “itself” and the external environment. Entities that have a self construct are able to behave far more intelligently than those which do not. For example, consider the difference between the intelligence of a dog and that of a human. Much of this is really a difference in the sophistication of the self-constructs of these two different species. Human selves are far more self-aware, introspective, and sophisticatedthan that of dogs. They are equally conscious, but humans have more developed self-constructs. This applies to simple AI programs as well, and to collective intelligences such as workgroups, enterprises, and online communities. The more sophisticated the self-construct, the smarter the system can be.

The key to appropriate and effective application of the self-construct is to develop a healthy self, rather than to eliminate the self entirely. Eradication of the self is form of nihilism that leads to an inability to function in the world. That is not somethingthat Buddhist or neuroscientists advocate. So what is a healthy self? In an individual, a healthy self is a construct that accurately represents past, present and projected future internal and external state, and that is highly self-aware, rational but not overly so, adaptable, respectful of external systems and other beings, and open to learning and changing to fit new situations. The same is true for a healthy collective self. However, most individuals today do not have healthy selves — they have highly delluded, unhealthy self-constructs. This in turn is reflected in the higher-order self-constructs of the groups, organizations and communities we build.

One of the most important things we can work on now is creating systems that provide collectives — groups, organizations and communities — with sophisticated, healthy, virtual selves. These virtual selves provide collectives with a mirror of themselves. Having a mirror enables the members of those systems to see the whole, and how they fit in. Once they can see this they can then begin to adjust their own behavior to fit what the whole is trying to do. This simplemirroring function can catalyze dramatic new levels of self-organization and synchrony in what would otherwise be a totally chaotic “crowd” of individual entities.

In fact, I think that collectives move through three levels of development:

• Level 1: Crowds. Crowds are collectives in which the individuals are not aware of the whole and in which there is no unified sense of identity or purpose. Nevertheless crowds do intelligent things. Consider for example, schools of fish, or flocks of birds. There is no single leader, yet the individuals, by adapting to what their nearby neighbors are doing, behave collectively as a single entity of sorts. Crowds are amoebic entities that ooze around in a bloblike fashion. They are not that different from physical models of gasses.
• Level 2: Groups. Groups are the next step up from crowds. Groups have some form of structure, which usually includes a system for command and control. They are more organized. Groups are capable of much more directed and intelligent behaviors. Families, cities, workgroups, sports teams, armies, universities, corporations, and nations are examples of groups. Most groups have intelligences that are roughly similar to that of simple animals. Theymay have a primitive sense of identity and self, and on the basis of that, they are capable of planning and acting in a more coordinated fashion.

• Level 3: Meta-Individuals. The highest level of collective intelligence is the meta-individual. This emerges when what was once a crowd of separate individuals, evolves to become a new individual in its own right, and is faciliated by the formation of a sophisticated meta-level self-construct for the collective. This evolutionary leap is called a metasystem transition — the parts join together to form a new higher-order whole that is made of the parts themselves. This new whole resembles the parts, but transcends theirabilities. To evolve a collective to the level of being a true individual, it has to have a well-designed nervous system, it has to have a collective brain and mind, and most importantly it has to achieve a high-level of collective consciousness. High level collective consciousness requires a sophisticated collective self construct to serve as a catalyst. Fortunately, this is something we can actually build, because as has been asserted previously, self is an illusion, a consturct, and therefore selves can be built, even for large collectives comprised of millions or billions of members.

The global superorganism has been called The Global Brain for over a century by a stream of forward looking thinkers. Today we may start calling it the One Machine, or the OM, or something else. But in any event, I think the most important work that we can can do to make it smarter is to provide it with a more developed and accurate sense of collective self. To do this we might start by working on ways toprovide smaller collectives with better selves — for example, groups, teams, enterprises and online communities. Can we provide them with dashboards and systems which catalyze greater collective awareness and self-organization? I really believe this is possible, and I am certain there are technological advances that can support this goal. That is what I’m working on with my own project, Twine.com. But this is just the beginning.

I’ve posted a link to a video of my best talk — given at the GRID ’08 Conference in Stockholm this summer. It’s about the growth of collective intelligence and the Semantic Web, and the future and role the media. Read more and get the video here. Enjoy!

Melissa Pierce is a filmmaker who is making a film about "Life in Perpetual Beta." It’s about how people who are adapting and reinventing themselves in the moment, and a new philosophy or approach to life. She’s interviewed a number of interesting people, and while I was in Chicago recently, she spoke with me as well. Here is a clip about how I view the philosophy of living in Beta. Her film is also in perpetual beta, and you can see the clips from her interviews on her blog as the film evolves. Eventually it will be released through the indie film circuit, and it looks like it will be a cool film. By the way, she is open to getting sponsors so if you like this idea and want your brand on the opening credits, drop her a line!

I had an interesting thought today about the long-term preservation and transmission of human knowledge.

The Wikipedia may be on its way to becoming the one of the best places in which to preserve knowledge for future generations. But this is just the beginning. What if we could encode the Wikipedia into the Junk DNA portion of our own genome? It appears that something like this may actually be possible — at least according some recent studies of the non-coding regions of the human genome.

If we could actually encode knowledge, like the Wikipedia for example, into our genome, the next logical step would be to find a way to access it directly.

At first we might only be able to access and read the knowledge stored in our DNA through a computationally intensive genetic analysis of an individual’s DNA. In order to correct any errors in the data from mutuation, we would also need to cross-reference this individual data with similar analyses from the DNA of other people who also carry this data in their DNA. But this is just the beginning. There are however ways to stored data such that there is enough redundancy to protect against degradation. Assuming we could do this we might be able to eliminate the need for cross referencing as a form of error correction — the data itself would be self-correcting so to speak. If we could accomplish this then the next step would be to find a way for an individual to access the knowledge stored in their DNA in real-time, directly. That’s a long way off but there may be a way to do this using some future nano-scale genomic-brain interface. This opens up some fascinating areas of speculation to say the least.

Why The Wikipedia?

The Wikipedia has certain qualities that make it better than other forms of knowledge preservation and transmission:

• The Wikipedia exists primarily in electronic form. It is not subject to age or decay like a physical encyclopedia or document. This means it can persist forever, and will not be lost to time, if it continues to be maintained electronically in the future.
• The Wikipedia is replicated in multiple locations around the world. The fact that it is so easy to replicate, and is so widely replicated means that it is less at risk of being lost due to a local disaster at any given storage location. It also means it is more likely to continue, somewhere, as a living document that goes on to reflect majority consensus reality into the distant future. It is highly improbable that it will ever suffer the same fate as certain ancient
  documents which only existed in one place and were subsequently lost in
  floods, fires, or wars, etc. At this point only a planet-wide extinction level event could erase the Wikipedia and/or prevent future generations from finding it.
• The Wikipedia is highly viral, it’s content is increasingly cited and it is far ahead of any competing system in terms of coverage and brand-recognition. Because so many other pieces of content on the Web and in other media refer to the Wikipedia as the world’s global authority for knowledge, it is considered increasingly authoritative and is increasingly visible and increasingly cited. The Law of Increasing Returns indicates that this will continue to self-amplify, making the Wikipedia the best candidate for an authoritative global repository of knowledge.

What this means is that if you have any knowledge that you want to preserve for future generations, a good place to put it is in the Wikipedia. Putting it there almost guarantees that it will propagate around the world and throughout the human-explored universe (in the future, if we become a spacefaring civilization), and into the distant future of human civilizations.

The Potential For Storing Knowledge in DNA

Is it possible to store knowledge — such as the Wikipedia — in human DNA? It would certainly be useful if we could do this. By storing knowledge in human DNA of living humans, or of common bacteria for that matter, it could then potentially be passed down and spread through generations into the far future. However the mutability of DNA over time might gradually introduce errors that would degrade the information within particular lines of DNA over long periods of time.

Perhaps this could however be mitigated by comparing DNA samples from a large cross-section of individuals within the population of descendants of original holders of DNA-knowledge-archives in the future — this would effectively enable statistical error cancellation. The farther in the future from the date at which the knowledge is “written” to the DNA of some number of humans, the more people’s DNA would be needed to eliminate the errors statistically. This would however in
principle counteract mutations and enable the reliable recovery of messages in DNA even very far in the future.

The fact that it is in principle possible to encode knowledge into human (or other) DNA begs the question of whether there is already knowledge stored there? It’s certainly worth a look! Maybe there is already a message there for us? One can only wonder if there is already an ancient “Wikipedia” of sorts already written there.

Interestingly enough, when certain statistical tests are run against human DNA,  it does seem to have properties that are indicative of written language, but only in the “junk” regions of the genome. Maybe it’s not “junk” after all. Below is an article that discusses a recent discovery related to this:

Language in junk DNA

You’ve probably heard of a molecule called DNA, otherwise known as “The Blueprint Of Life”. Molecular biologists have been examining and mapping the DNA for a few decades now. But as they’ve looked more closely at the DNA, they’ve been getting increasingly bothered by one inconvenient little fact – the fact that 97% of the DNA is junk, and it has no known use or function! But, an usual collaboration between molecular biologists, cryptoanalysists (people who break secret codes), linguists (people who study languages) and physicists, has found strange hints of a hidden language in this so- called “junk DNA”.

Only about 3% of the DNA actually codes for amino acids, which in turn make proteins, and eventually, little babies. The remaining 97% of the DNA is, according to conventional wisdom, not gems, but junk.

The molecular biologists call this junk DNA, introns. Introns are like enormous commercial breaks or advertisements that interrupt the real program – except in the DNA, they take up 97% of the broadcast time. Introns are so important, that Richard Roberts and Phillip Sharp, who did much of the early work on introns back in 1977, won a Nobel Prize for their work in 1993. But even today, we still don’t know what introns are really for.

Simon Shepherd, who lectures in cryptography and computer security at the University of Bradford in the United Kingdom, took an approach, that was based on his line of work. He looked on the junk DNA, as just another secret code to be broken. He analysed it, and he now reckons that one probable function of introns, is that they are
some sort of error correction code – to fix up the occasional mistakes that happen as the DNA replicates itself. But even if he’s right, introns could have lots of other uses.

The next big breakthrough came from a really unusual collaboration between medical doctors, physicists and linguists. They found even more evidence that there was a sort-of language buried in the introns.

According to the linguists, all human languages obey Zipf’s Law. It’s a really weird law, but it’s not that hard to understand. Start off by getting a big fat book. Then, count the number of times each word appears in that book. You might find that the number one most popular word is “the” (which appears 2,000 times), followed by the second most popular word “a” (which appears 1,800 times), and so on. Right down at the bottom of the list, you have the least popular word, which might be “elephant”, and which appears just once.

Set up two columns of numbers. One column is the order of popularity of the words, running from “1″ for “the”, and “2″ for “a”, right down “1,000″ for “elephant”. The other column counts how many times each word appeared, starting off with 2,000 appearances of “the”, then 1,800 appearances of “a”, down to one appearance of “elephant”.

If you then plot on the right kind of graph paper, the order of popularity of the words, against the number of times each word appears you get a straight line! Even more amazingly, this straight line appears for every human language – whether it’s English or Egyptian, Eskimo or Chinese! Now the DNA is just one continuous ladder of squillions of rungs, and is not neatly broken up into individual words (like a book).

So the scientists looked at a very long bit of DNA, and made artificial words by breaking up the DNA into “words” each 3 rungs long. And then they tried it again for “words” 4 rungs long, 5 rungs long, and so on up to 8 rungs long. They then analysed all these words, and to their surprise, they got the same sort of Zipf Law/straight-line-graph for the human DNA (which is mostly introns), as they did for the human languages!

There seems to be some sort of language buried in the so-called junk DNA! Certainly, the next few years will be a very good time to make a career change into the field of genetics.

So now, around the edge of the new millennium, we have a reasonable understanding of the 3% of the DNA that makes amino acids, proteins and babies. And the remaining 97% – well, we’re pretty sure that there is some language buried there, even if we don’t yet know what it says. It might say “It’s all a joke”, or it might say “Don’t worry, be happy”, or it might say “Have a nice day, lots of love, from your friendly local DNA”.
(source)

Now to complete this thought: what if the information-carrying capacity of the so-called Junk DNA of the human genome is sufficient to hold the content of the Wikipedia? Then all we would need is some way of writing to it — perhaps via gene therapy via infection by a virus that carries a copy of the Wikipedia.

This would enable volunteers to accept copies of the Wikipedia into their DNA and become vectors for the Wikipedia. They and their descendants would become walking encyclopedias and would preserve human knowledge for future generations. If only some people had this done then they and their lineages would be a sort of priesthood with particular importance for the future of humanity. It
sounds like the basis for a really great science-fiction thriller!

By copying the Wikipedia into our own DNA we might be able to ensure that wherever human beings end up in the universe, the Wikipedia will go with them. Even if in some distant world humans destroy their civilization in a nuclear holocaust or are almost wiped out by an asteroid and have to rebuild from the stone-age again, they will eventually rediscover genomics and soon after that they will find the Wikipedia in their genome.

This is a kind of “backup strategy” for our civilization and all the knowledge we consider to be most important. Of course it is not clear yet whether the Junk DNA could carry enough information to encode the entire Wikipedia, nor is it clear that the Junk DNA is actually “junk” — perhaps there is already something there that should not be overwritten? Or perhaps it serves some other purpose in human
development and evolution that we shouldn’t mess around with. It remains to be seen.

This is a five minute video in which I was asked to make some predictions for the next decade about the Semantic Web, search and artificial intelligence. It was done at the NextWeb conference and was a fun interview.

Learning from the Future with Nova Spivack from Maarten on Vimeo.

I’ve been thinking lately about whether or not it is possible to formulate a scale of universal cognitive capabilities, such that any intelligent system — whether naturally occurring or synthetic — can be classified according to its cognitive capacity. Such a system would provide us with a normalized scientific basis by which to quantify and compare the relative cognitive capabilities of artificially intelligent systems, various species of intelligent life on Earth, and perhaps even intelligent lifeforms encountered on other planets.

One approach to such evaluation is to use a standardized test, such as an IQ test. However, this test is far too primitive and biased towards human intelligence. A dolphin would do poorly on our standardized IQ test, but that doesn’t mean much, because the test itself is geared towards humans. What is needed is a way to evaluate and compare intelligence across different species — one that is much more granular and basic.

What we need is a system that focuses on basic building blocks of intelligence, starting by measuring the presence or ability to work with fundamental cognitive constructs (such as the notion of object constancy, quantities, basic arithmetic constructs, self-constructs, etc.) and moving up towards higher-level abstractions and procedural capabilities (self-awareness, time, space, spatial and temporal reasoning, metaphors, sets, language, induction, logical reasoning, etc.).

What I am asking is whether we can develop a more "universal" way to rate and compare intelligences? Such a system would provide a way to formally evaluate and rate any kind of intelligent system — whether insect, animal, human, software, or alien — in a normalized manner.

Beyond the inherent utility of having such a rating scale, there is an additional benefit to trying to formulate this system: It will lead us to really question and explore the nature of cognition itself. I believe we are moving into an age of intelligence — an age where humanity will explore the brain and the mind (the true "final frontier"). In order to explore this frontier, we need a map — and the rating scale I am calling for would provide us with one, for it maps the range of possible capabilities that intelligent systems are capable of.

I’m not as concerned with measuring the degree to which any system is more or less capable of some particular cognitive capability within the space of possible capabilities we map (such as how fast it can do algebra for example, or how well it can recall memories, etc.) — but that is a useful second step. The first step, however, is to simply provide a comprehensive map of all the possible fundamental cognitive behaviors there are — and to make this map as minimal and elegant as we can. Ideally we should be seeking the simplest set of cognitive building blocks from which all cognitive behavior, and therefore all minds, are comprised.

So the question is: Are there in fact "cognitive universals" or universal cognitive capabilities that we can generalize across all possible intelligent systems? This is a fascinating question — although we are human, can we not only imagine, but even prove, that there is a set of basic universal cognitive capabilities that applies everywhere in the universe, or even in other possible universes? This is an exploration that leads into the region where science, pure math, philosophy, and perhaps even spirituality all converge. Ultimately, this map must cover the full range of cognitive capabilities from the most mundane, to what might be (from our perspective) paranormal, or even in the realm of science fiction. Ordinary cognition as well as forms of altered or unhealthy cognition, as well as highly advanced or even what might be said to be enlightened cognition, all have to fit into this model.

Can we develop a system that would apply not just to any form of intelligence on Earth, but even to far-flung intelligent organisms that might exist on other worlds, and that perhaps might exist in dramatically different environments than humans? And how might we develop and test this model?

I would propose that such a system could be developed and tuned by testing it across the range of forms of intelligent life we find on Earth — including social insects (termite colonies, bee hives, etc.), a wide range of other animal species (dogs, birds, chimpanzees, dolphins, whales, etc.), human individuals, and human social organizations (teams, communities, enterprises). Since there are very few examples of artificial intelligence today it would be hard to find suitable systems to test it on, but perhaps there may be a few candidates in the next decade. We should also attempt to imagine forms of intelligence on other planets that might have extremely different sensory capabilities, totally different bodies, and perhaps that exist on very different timescales or spatial scales as well — what would such exotic, alien intelligences be like, and can our model encompass the basic building blocks of their cognition as well?

It will take decades to develop and tune a system such as this, and as we learn more about the brain and the mind, we will continue to add subtlety to the model. But when humanity finally establishes open dialog with an extraterrestrial civilization, perhaps via SETI or some other means of more direct contact, we will reap important rewards. A system such as what I am proposing will provide us with a valuable map for understanding alien cognition, and that may prove to be the key to enabling humanity to engage in successful interactions and relations with alien civilizations as we may inevitably encounter as humanity spreads throughout the galaxy. While some skeptics may claim that we will never encounter intelligent life on other planets, the odds would indicate otherwise. It may take a long time, but eventually it is inevitable that we will cross paths — if they exist at all. Not to be prepared would be irresponsible.

There has been a lot of hype about artificial intelligence over the years. And recently it seems there has been a resurgence in interest in this topic in the media. But artificial intelligence scares me. And frankly, I don’t need it. My human intelligence is quite good, thank you very much. And as far as trusting computers to make intelligent decisions on my behalf, I’m skeptical to say the least. I don’t need or want artificial intelligence.

No, what I really need is artificial stupidity.

I need software that will automate all the stupid things I presently have to waste far too much of my valuable time on. I need something to do all the stupid tasks — like organizing email, filing documents, organizing folders, remembering things, coordinating schedules, finding things that are of interest, filtering out things that are not of interest, responding to routine messages, re-organizing things, linking things, tracking things, researching prices and deals, and the many other rote information tasks I deal with every day.

The human brain is the result of millions of years of evolution. It’s already the most intelligent thing on this planet. Why are we wasting so much of our brainpower on tasks that don’t require intelligence? The next revolution in software and the Web is not going to be artificial intelligence, it’s going to be creating artificial stupidity: systems that can do a really good job at the stupid stuff, so we have more time to use our intelligence for higher level thinking.

The next wave of software and the Web will be about making software and the Web smarter. But when we say "smarter" we don’t mean smart like a human is smart, we mean "smarter at doing the stupid things that humans aren’t good at." In fact humans are really bad at doing relatively simple, "stupid" things — tasks that don’t require much intelligence at all.

For example, organizing. We are terrible organizers. We are lazy, messy, inconsistent, and we make all kinds of errors by accident. We are terrible at tagging and linking as well, it turns out. We are terrible at coordinating or tracking multiple things at once because we are easily overloaded and we can really only do one thing well at a time. These kinds of tasks are just not what our brains are good at. That’s what computers are for – or should be for at least.

Humans are really good at higher level cognition: complex thinking, decisionmaking, learning, teaching, inventing, expressing, exploring, planning, reasoning, sensemaking, and problem solving — but we are just terrible at managing email, or making sense of the Web. Let’s play to our strengths and use computers to compensate for our weaknesses.

I think it’s time we stop talking about artificial intelligence — which nobody really needs, and fewer will ever trust. Instead we should be working on artificial stupidity. Sometimes the less lofty goals are the ones that turn out to be most useful in the end.

My company, Radar Networks, has just come out of stealth. We’ve announced what we’ve been working on all these years: It’s called Twine.com. We’re going to be showing Twine publicly for the first time at the Web 2.0 Summit tomorrow. There’s lot’s of press coming out where you can read about what we’re doing in more detail. The team is extremely psyched and we’re all working really hard right now so I’ll be brief for now. I’ll write a lot more about this later.

Twine

Whenever a scientist says something like, don’t worry our new experiment could never get out of the lab, or don’t worry the miniature black hole we are going to generate couldn’t possibly swallow up the entire planet, I tend to get a little worried. The problem is that just about every time a scientist has said something is patently absurd, totally impossible or could never ever happen, it usually turns out that in fact it isn’t as impossible as they thought. Now here’s a new article about scientists creating new artificial lifeforms, based on new genetic building blocks — and once again there’s one of those statements. I’m guessing that this means that in about 10 years some synthetic life form is going to be found to have done the impossible and escaped from the lab — perhaps into our food supply, or maybe into our environment. Don’t get me wrong — I’m in favor of this kind of research into new frontiers. I just don’t think anyone can guarantee it won’t escape from the lab.

I’ve been thinking for several years about Knowledge Networking. It’s not a term I invented, it’s been floating around as a meme for at least a decade or two. But recently it has started to resurface in my own work.

So what is a knowledge network? I define a knowledge network as a form of collective intelligence in which a network of people (two or more people connected by social-communication relationships) creates, organizes, and uses a collective body of knowledge. The key here is that a knowledge network is not merely a site where a group of people work on a body of information together (such as the wikipedia), it’s also a social network — there is an explicit representation of a social relationship within it. So it’s more like a social network than for example a discussion forum or a wiki.

I would go so far as to say that knowledge networks are the third-generation of social software. (Note this is based in-part on ideas that emerged in conversations I have had with Peter Rip, so this also his idea):

• First-generation social apps were about communication (eg.
  messaging such as Email, discussion boards, chat rooms, and IM)
• Second-generation social apps were about people and content (eg. Social networks, social media sharing, user-generated content)
• Third-generation social apps are about relationships and knowledge  (eg. Wikis, referral networks, question and answer systems, social recommendation systems, vertical knowledge and expertise portals, social mashup apps, and coming soon, what we’re building at Radar Networks)

Just some thoughts on a Saturday morning…

Web 3.0 — aka The Semantic Web — is about enriching the connections of the Web. By enriching the connections within the Web, the entire Web may become smarter.

I  believe that collective intelligence primarily comes from connections — this is certainly the case in the brain where the number of connections between neurons far outnumbers the number of neurons; certainly there is more "intelligence" encoded in the brain’s connections than in the neurons alone. There are several kinds of connections on the Web:

1. Connections between information (such as links)
2. Connections between people (such as opt-in social relationships, buddy lists, etc.)
3. Connections between applications (web services, mashups, client server sessions, etc.)
4. Connections between information and people (personal data collections, blogs, social bookmarking, search results, etc.)
5. Connections between information and applications (databases and data sets stored or accessible by particular apps)
6. Connections between people and applications (user accounts, preferences, cookies, etc.)

Are there other kinds of connections that I haven’t listed — please let me know!

I believe that the Semantic Web can actually enrich all of these types of connections, adding more semantics not only to the things being connected (such as representations of information or people or apps) but also to the connections themselves.

In the Semantic Web approach, connections are represented with statements of the form (subject, predicate, object) where the elements have URIs that connect them to various ontologies where their precise intended meaning can be defined. These simple statements are sometimes called "triples" because they have three elements. In fact, many of us are working with statements that have more than three elements ("tuples"), so that we can represent not only subject, predicate, object of statements, but also things like provenance (where did the data for the statement come from?), timestamp (when was the statement made), and other attributes. There really is no limit to what kind of metadata can be stored in these statements. It’s a very simple, yet very flexible and extensible data model that can represent any kind of data structure.

The important point for this article however is that in this data model rather than there being just a single type of connection (as is the case on the present Web which basically just provides the HREF hotlink, which simply means "A and B are linked" and may carry minimal metadata in some cases), the Semantic Web enables an infinite range of arbitrarily defined connections to be used.  The meaning of these connections can be very specific or very general.

For example one might define a type of connection called "friend of" or a type of connection called "employee of" — these have very different meanings (different semantics) which can be made explicit and also machine-readable using OWL. By linking a page about a person with the "employee of" link to another page about a different person, we can express that one of them employs the other. That is a statement that any application which can read OWL is able to see and correctly interpret, by referencing the underlying definition of "employee of" which is defined in some ontology and might for example specify that an "employee of" relation connects a person to a person or organization who is their employer. In other words, rather than just linking things with the generic "hotlink" we are all used to, they can now be linked with specific kinds of links that have very particular and unambiguous meaning and logical implications.

This has the potential at least to dramatically enrich the information-carrying capacity of connections (links) on the Web. It means that connections can carry more meaning, on their own. It’s a new place to put meaning in fact — you can put meaning between things to express their relationships. And since connections (links) far outnumber objects (information, people or applications) on the Web, this means we can radically improve the semantics of the structure of the Web as a whole — the Web can become more meaningful, literally. This makes a difference, even if all we do is just enrich connections between gross-level objects (in other words, connections between Web pages or data records, as opposed to connections between concepts expressed within them, such as for example, people and companies mentioned within a single document).

Even if the granularity of this improvement in connection technology is relatively gross level it could still be a major improvement to the Web. The long-term implications of this have hardly been imagined let alone understood — it is analogous to upgrading the dendrites in the human brain; it could be a catalyst for new levels of computation and intelligence to emerge.

It is important to note that, as illustrated above, there are many types of connections that involve people. In other words the Semantic Web, and Web 3.0, are just as much about people as they are about other things. Rather than excluding people, they actually enrich their relationships to other things. The Semantic Web, should, among other things, enable dramatically better social networking and collaboration to take place on the Web. It is not only about enriching content.

Now where will all these rich semantic connections come from? That’s the billion dollar question. Personally I think they will come from many places: from end-users as they find things, author content, bookmark content, share content and comment on content (just as hotlinks come from people today), as well as from applications which mine the Web and automatically create them. Note that even when Mining the Web a lot of the data actually still comes from people — for example, mining the Wikipedia, or a social network yields lots of great data that was ultimately extracted from user-contributions. So mining and artificial intelligence does not always imply "replacing people" — far from it! In fact, mining is often best applied as a means to effectively leverage the collective intelligence of millions of people.

These are subtle points that are very hard for non-specialists to see — without actually working with the underlying technologies such as RDF and OWL they are basically impossible to see right now. But soon there will be a range of Semantically-powered end-user-facing apps that will demonstrate this quite obviously. Stay tuned!

Of course these are just my opinions from years of hands-on experience with this stuff, but you are free to disagree or add to what I’m saying. I think there is something big happening though. Upgrading the connections of the Web is bound to have a significant effect on how the Web functions. It may take a while for all this to unfold however. I think we need to think in decades about big changes of this nature.

I’ve been thinking since 1994 about how to get past a fundamental barrier to human social progress, which I call “The Collective IQ Barrier.” Most recently I have been approaching this challenge in the products we are developing at my stealth venture, Radar Networks.

In a nutshell, here is how I define this barrier:

The Collective IQ Barrier: The potential collective intelligence of a human group is exponentially proportional to group size, however in practice the actual collective intelligence that is achieved by a group is inversely proportional to group size. There is a huge delta between potential collective intelligence and actual collective intelligence in practice. In other words, when it comes to collective intelligence, the whole has the potential to be smarter than the sum of its parts, but in practice it is usually dumber.

Why does this barrier exist? Why are groups generally so bad at tapping the full potential of their collective intelligence? Why is it that smaller groups are so much better than large groups at innovation, decision-making, learning, problem solving, implementing solutions, and harnessing collective knowledge and intelligence?

I think the problem is technological, not social, at its core. In this article I will discuss the problem in more depth and then I will discuss why I think the Semantic Web may be the critical enabling technology for breaking through the Collective IQ Barrier.

The Effective Size of Groups

For millions of years — in fact since the dawn of humanity — humansocial organizations have been limited in effective size. Groups aremost effective when they are small, but they have less collectiveknowledge at their disposal. Slightly larger groups optimize both effectiveness and access to resources such as knowledge and expertise. In my own experience working on many different kinds of teams, I think that the sweet-spot is between 20and 50 people. Above this size groups rapidly become inefficient andunproductive.

The Invention of Hierarchy

The solution that humans have used to get around this limitation in the effective size of groups is hierarchy.When organizations grow beyond 50 people we start to break them intosub-organizations of less than 50 people. As a result if you look atany large organization, such as a Fortune 100 corporation, you find ahuge complex hierarchy of nested organizations and cross-functionalorganizations. This hierarchy enables the organization to createspecialized “cells” or “organs” of collective cognition aroundparticular domains (like sales, marketing, engineering, HR, strategy,etc.) that remain effective despite the overall size of theorganization.

By leveraging hierarchy an organization of even hundreds ofthousands of members can still achieve some level of collective IQ as awhole. The problem however is that the collective IQ of the wholeorganization is still quite a bit lower than the combined collectiveIQ’s of the sub-organizations that comprise it. Even in well-structured, well-managed hierarchies, the hierarchy is still less thanthe sum of it’s parts. Hierarchy also has limits — the collective IQof an organization is also inversely proportional to the number ofgroups it contains, and the average number of levels of hierarchybetween those groups (Perhaps this could be defined more elegantly asan inverse function of the average network distance between groups inan organization).

The reason that organizations today still have to make suchextensive use of hierarchy is that our technologies for managingcollaboration, community, knowledge and intelligence on a collectivescale are still extremely primitive. Hierarchy is still one of the only and best solutions we have at our disposal. But we’re getting better fast.

Modern organizations are larger and far more complex than ever would have beenpractical in the Middle Ages, for example. They contain more people,distributed more widely around the globe, with more collaboration andspecialization, and more information, making more rapid decisions, thanwas possible even 100 years ago. This is progress.

Enabling Technologies

There have beenseveral key technologies that made modern organizations possible: the printing press,telegraph, telephone, automobile, airplane, typewriter, radio,television, fax machine, and personal computer. These technologies haveenabled information and materials to flow more rapidly, at less cost,across ever more widely distributed organizations. So we can see that technology does make a big difference in organizational productivity. The question is, can technology get us beyond the Collective IQ Barrier?

The advent of the Internet, and in particular the World Wide Webenabled a big leap forward in collective intelligence. These technologies havefurther reduced the cost to distributing and accessing information andinformation products (and even “machines” in the form of software codeand Web services). They have made it possible for collectiveintelligence to function more rapidly, more dynamically, on a wider scale, and at lesscost, than any previous generation of technology.

As a result of evolution of the Web we have seen new organizationalstructures begin to emerge that are less hierarchical, moredistributed, and often more fluid. For example, virtual teams that caninstantly form, collaborate across boundaries, and then dissolve backinto the Webs they come from when their job is finished. Thisprocess is now much easier than it ever was. Numerous hosted Web-basedtools exist to facilitate this: email, groupware, wikis, messageboards, listservers, weblogs, hosted databases, social networks, searchportals, enterprise portals, etc.

But this is still just the cusp of this trend. Even today with thecurrent generation of Web-based tools available to us, we are still notable to effectively tap much more of the potential Collective IQ of ourgroups, teams and communities. How do we get from where we are today(the whole is dumber than the sum of its parts) to where we want to bein the future (the whole is smarter than the sum of its parts)?

The Future of Productivity

The diagram below illustrates how I think about the past, present and future of productivity. In my view, from the advent of PC’s onwards we have seen a rapid growth in individual and group productivity, enabling people to work with larger sets of information, in larger groups. But this will not last — soon as we reach a critical level of information and groups of ever larger size, productivity will start to decline again, unless new technologies and tools emerge to enable us to cope with these increases in scale and complexity. You can read more about this diagram here.

http://novaspivack.typepad.com/nova_spivacks_weblog/2007/02/steps_towards_a.html

In the last 20 years the amount of information that knowledgeworkers (and even consumers) have to deal with on a daily basis has mushroomed by a factor of almost 10orders of magnitude and it will continue like this for several moredecades. But our information tools — and particular our tools forcommunication, collaboration, community, commerce and knowledgemanagement — have not advanced nearly as quickly. As a result thetools that we are using today to manage our information andinteractions are grossly inadequate for the task at hand: They were simply not designed tohandle the tremendous volumes of distributed information, and the rate of change ofinformation, that we are witnessing today.

Case in point: Email. Email was never designed for what it is beingused for today. Email was a simple interpersonal notification andmessaging tool and essentially that is what it is good for. But todaymost of us use our email as a kind of database, search engine,collaboration tool, knowledge management tool, project management tool,community tool, commerce tool, content distribution tool, etc. Emailwasn’t designed for these functions and it really isn’t very productive whenapplied to them.

For groups the email problem is even worse than it is for individuals –not only is everyone’s individual email productivity declining anyway,but collectively as groupsize increases (and thus group information size increases as well),there is a multiplier effect that further reduces everyone’semail productivity in inverse proportion to the size of the group.Email becomes increasingly unproductive as group size and informationsize increase.

This is not just true of email, however, it’s true of almost all theinformation tools we use today: Search engines, wikis, groupware,social networks, etc. They all suffer from this fundamental problem.Productivity breaks down with scale — and the problem is exponentially worse than it is for individuals in groups and organizations. But scale is increasing incessantly — that is a fact — and it will continue to do so for decades at least. Unless something is done about this we will simply be completely buried in our own information within about a decade.

The Semantic Web

I think the Semantic Web is a critical enabling technology that will help us get through this transition. It willenable the next big leap in productivity and collective intelligence.It may even be the technology that enables humans to flip the ratio so thatfor the first time in human history, larger groups of people canfunction more productively and intelligently than smaller groups. Itall comes down to enabling individuals and groups to maintain (andultimately improve) their productivity in theface of the continuing explosion in information and social complexitythat they areexperiencing.

The Semantic Web provides a richer underlying fabric for expressing,sharing, and connecting information. Essentially it provides a betterway to transform information into useful knowledge, and to share andcollaborate with it. It essentially upgrades the medium — in this case the Web and any other data that is connected to the Web — that we use for our information today.

By enriching the medium we can inturn enable new leaps in how applications, people, groups andorganizations can function. This has happened many times before in thehistory of technology.  The printing press is one example. The Web is a more recent one. The Web enriched themedium (documents) with HTML and a new transport mechanism, HTTP, forsharing it. This brought about one of the largest leaps in humancollective cognition and productivity in history. But HTML really onlydescribes formatting and links. XML came next, to start to provide away to enrich the medium with information about structure –the parts of documents. The Semantic Web takes this one step further –it provides a way to enrich the medium with information about the meaning of the structure — what are those parts, what do various links actually mean?

Essentially the Semantic Web provides a means to abstract andexternalize human knowledge about information — previously the meaningof information lived only in our heads, and perhaps in certainspecially-written software applications that were coded to understandcertain types of data. The Semantic Web will disrupt this situation by providingopen-standards for encoding this meaning right into the medium itself.Any application that can speak the open-standards of the Semantic Webcan then begin to correctly interpret the meaning of information, andtreat it accordingly, without having to be specifically coded tounderstand each type of data it might encounter.

This is analogous to the benefit of HTML. Before HTML everyapplication had to be specifically coded to each different documentformat in order to display it. After HTML applications could all juststandardize on a single way to define the formats of differentdocuments. Suddenly a huge new landscape of information becameaccessible both to applications and to the people who used them.The Semantic Web does something similar: It provides a way to makethe data itself “smarter” so that applications don’t have to know somuch to correctly interpret it. Any data structure — a document or adata record of any kind — that can be marked up with HTML to define its formatting, can also be marked up with RDFand OWL (the languages of the Semantic Web) to define its meaning.

Once semantic metadata is added, the document can not only bedisplayed properly by any application (thanks to HTML and XML), but itcan also be correctly understood by that application. For example theapplication can understand what kind of document it is, what it isabout, what the parts are, how the document relates to other things,and what particular data fields and values mean and how they map todata fields and values in other data records around the Web.

The Semantic Web enriches information with knowledge about what thatinformation means, what it is for, and how it relates to other things.With this in hand applications can go far beyond the limitations ofkeyword search, text processing, and brittle tabular data structures.Applications can start to do a much better job of finding, organizing,filtering, integrating, and making sense of ever larger and morecomplex distributed data sets around the Web.

Another great benefit ofthe Semantic Web is that this additional metadata can be added in atotally distributed fashion. The publisher of a document can add theirown metadata and other parties can then annotate that with their ownmetadata. Even HTML doesn’t enable that level of cooperative markup (exceptperhaps in wikis). It takes a distributed solution to keep up with ahighly distributed problem (the Web). The Semantic Web is just such adistributed solution.

The Semantic Web will enrich information and this in turn will enable people, groups and applications to work with information more productively. In particular groups and organizations will benefit the most because that is where the problems of information overload and complexity are the worst. Individuals at least know how they organize their own information so they can do a reasonably good job of managing their own data. But groups are another story — because people don’t necessarily know how others in their group organize their information. Finding what you need in other people’s information is much harder than finding it in your own.

Where the Semantic Web can help with this is by providing a richer fabric for knowledge management. Information can be connected to an underlying ontology that defines not only the types of information available, but also the meaning and relationships between different tags or subject categories, and even the concepts that occur in the information itself. This makes organizing and finding group knowledge easier. In fact, eventually the hope is that people and groups will not have to organize their information manually anymore — it will happen in an almost fully-automatic fashion. The Semantic Web provides the necessary frameworks for making this possible.

But even with the Semantic Web in place and widely adopted, moreinnovation on top of it will be necessary before we can truly breakpast the Collective IQ Barrier such that organizations can in practiceachieve exponential increases in Collective IQ. Human beings are only able to cope with a few chunks ofinformation at a given moment, and our memories and ability to processcomplex data sets are limited. When group size and data size growbeyond certain limits, we simply cannot cope, we become overloaded andjammed, even with rich Semantic Web content at our disposal.

Social Filtering and Social Networking — Collective Cognition

Ultimately, to remain productive in the face of such complexity wewill need help. Often humans in roles that require them to cope with large scales of information, relationships andcomplexity hire assistants, but not all of us can affordto do that, and in some cases even assistants are not able to keep upwith the complexity that has to be managed.

Social networking andsocial filtering are two ways to expand the number of “assistants” weeach have access to, while also reducing the price of harnessing the collective intelligence of those assistants to just about nothing. Essentially these methodologies enable people toleverage the combined intelligence and attention of large communitiesof like-minded people who contribute their knowledge and expertise for free. It’s a collective tit-for-tat form of altruism.

For example, Diggis a community that discovers the most interesting news articles. Itdoes this by enabling thousands of people to submit articles and voteon them. What Digg adds are a few clever algorithms on top of this for rankingarticles such that the most active ones bubble up to the top. It’s notunlike a stock market trader’s terminal, but for a completely differentclass of data. This is a great example of social filtering.

Anothergood example are prediction markets, where groups of people vote onwhat stock or movie or politician is likely to win — in some cases bybuying virtual stock in them — as a means to predict the future. Ithas been shown that prediction markets do a pretty good job of makingaccurate predictions in fact. In addition expertise referral serviceshelp people get answers to questions from communities of experts. Theseservices have been around in one form or another for decades and haverecently come back into vogue with services like Yahoo Answers. Amazonhas also taken a stab at this with their Amazon Mechanical Turk, whichenables “programs” to be constructed in which people perform the work.

I think social networking, social filtering, prediction markets,expertise referral networks, and collective collaboration are extremelyvaluable. By leveraging other people individuals and groups can stayahead of complexity and can also get the benefit of wide-areacollective cognition. These approaches to collective cognition arebeginning to filter into the processes of organizations and othercommunities. For example, there is recent interest in applying socialnetworking to niche communities and even enterprises.

The Semantic Webwill enrich all of these activities — making social networks andsocial filtering more productive. It’s not an either/or choice — thesetechnologies are extremely compatible in fact. By leveraging acommunity to tag, classify and organize content, for example, themeaning of that content can be collectively enriched. This is alreadyhappening in a primitive way in many social media services. TheSemantic Web will simply provide a richer framework for doing this.

The combination of the Semantic Web with emerging social networkingand social filtering will enable something greater than either on it’sown. Together, together these two technologies will enable much smarter groups, social networks, communities and organizations. But this still will not get us all the way past the Collective IQBarrier. It may get us close the threshold though. To cross thethreshold we will need to enable an even more powerful form ofcollective cognition.

The Agent Web

To cope with the enormous future scale andcomplexity of the Web, desktop and enterprise, each individual and group willreally need not just a single assistant, or even a community of humanassistants working on common information (a social filtering communityfor example), they will need thousands or millions of assistants working specificallyfor them. This really only becomes affordable and feasible if we canvirtualize what an “assistant” is.

Human assistants are at the top ofthe intelligence pyramid — they are extremely smart and powerful, and they are expensive — they  should not beused for simple tasks like sorting content, that’s just a waste oftheir capabilities. It would be like using a supercomputer array tospellcheck a document. Instead, we need to free humans up to do thereally high-value information tasks, and find a way to farm out thelow-value, rote tasks to software. Software is cheap or even free and it can be replicated as much asneeded in order to parallelize. A virtual army of intelligent agents is less expensive than a single human assistant, and much more suited to sifting through millions of Web pages every day.

But where will these future intelligent agents get their intelligence? In past attempts at artificial intelligence, researchers tried to buildgigantic expert systems that could reason as well as a small child forexample. These attempts met with varying degrees of success, but theyall had one thing in common: They were monolithic applications.

I believe that that future intelligent agents should be simple. They should not be advanced AI programs or expert systems. They should be capable of a few simple behaviors, the most important of which is to reason against sets of rules and semantic data. The basic logic necessary for reasoning is not enormous and does not require any AI — it’s just the ability to follow logical rules and perhaps do set operations. They should be lightweight and highly mobile. Insteadof vast monolithic AI, I am talking about vast numbers of very simpleagents that working together can do  emergent, intelligent operations en masse.

For example search — you might deploy a thousand agents to search all the sites about Italy for recipes and then assemble those results into a database instantaneously.  Or you might dispatch a thousand or more agents to watch for a job that matches your skills and goals across hundreds of thousands or millions of Websites. They could watch and wait until jobs that matched your criteria appeared, and then they could negotiate amongst themselves to determine which of the possible jobs they found were good enough to show you. Another scenario might be commerce — you could dispatch agents to find you the best deal on a vacation package, and they could even negotiate an optimal itinerary and price for you. All you would have to do is choose between a few finalist vacation packages and make the payment. This could be a big timesaver.

The above examples illustrate how agents might help an individual, but how might they help a group or organization? Well for one thing agents could continuously organize and re-organize information for a group. They could also broker social interactions — for example, by connecting people to other people with matching needs or interests, or by helping people find experts who could answer their questions. One of the biggest obstacles to getting past the Collective IQ Barrier is simply that people cannot keep track of more than a few social relationships and information sources at aany given time — but with an army of agents helping them, individuals might be able to cope with more relationships and data sources at once; the agents would act as their filters, deciding what to let through and how much priority to give it. Agents can also help to make recommendations, and to learn to facilitate and even automate various processes such as finding a time to meet, or polling to make a decision, or escalating an issue up or down the chain of command until it is resolved.

To make intelligent agents useful, they will need access to domain expertise. But the agents themselves will not contain any knowledge or intelligence of their own. The knowledge will exist outside on the Semantic Web, and so will the intelligence. Their intelligence, like their knowledge, will be externalized and virtualized in the form of axioms or rules that will exist out on the Web just like web pages.

For example, a set of axioms about travel could be published to the Web in the form of a document that formally defined them. Any agent that needed to process travel-related content could reference these axioms in order to reason intelligently about travel in the same way that it might reference an ontology about travel in order to interpret travel data structures. The application would not have to be specifically coded to know about travel — it could be a generic simple agent — but whenever it encountered travel-related content it could call up the axioms about travel from the location on the Web where they were hosted, and suddenly it could reason like an expert travel agent. What’s great about this is that simple generic agents would be able to call up domain expertise on an as-needed basis for just about any domain they might encounter. Intelligence — the heuristics, algorithms and axioms that comprise expertise, would be as accessible as knowledge — the data and connections between ideas and information on the Web.

The axioms themselves would be created by human experts in various domains, and in some cases they might even be created or modified by agents as they learned from experience. These axioms might be provided for free as a public service, or as fee-based web-services via API’s that only paying agents could access.

The key is that model is extremely scaleable — millions or billions of axioms could be created, maintained, hosted, accessed, and evolved in a totally decentralized and parallel manner by thousands or even hundreds of thousands of experts all around the Web. Instead of a few monolithic expert systems, the Web as a whole would become a giant distributed system of experts. There might be varying degrees of quality among competing axiom-sets available for any particular domain, and perhaps a ratings system could help to filter them over time. Perhaps a sort of natural selection of axioms might take place as humans and applications rated the end-results of reasoning using particular sets of axioms, and then fed these ratings back to the sources of this expertise, causing them to get more or less attention from other agents in the future. This process would be quite similar to the human-level forces of intellectual natural-selection at work in fields of study where peer-review and competition help to filter and rank ideas and their proponents.

Virtualizing Intelligence

What I have been describing is the virtualization of intelligence — making intelligence and expertise something that can be “published” to the Web and shared just like knowledge, just like an ontology, a document, a database, or a Web page. This is one of the long-term goals of the Semantic Web and it’s already starting now via new languages, such as SWRL, that are being proposed for defining and publishing axioms or rules to the Web. For example, “a non-biologicalparent of a person is their step-parent” is asimple axiom. Another axiom might be, “A child of a sibling of your parent is your cousin.” Using such axioms, an agent could make inferences and do simple reasoning about social relationships for example.

SWRL and other proposed rules languages provide potentialopen-standards for defining rules and publishing them to the Web sothat other applications can use them. By combining these rules withrich semantic data, applications can start to do intelligent things,without actually containing any of the intelligence themselves. The intelligence– the rules and data — can live “out there” on the Web, outside the code of various applications.

All theapplications have to know how to do is find relevant rules, interpret them, and apply them. Even the reasoning that may be necessary can be virtualized into remotely accessible Web services so applications don’t even have to do that part themselves (although many may simply include open-source reasoners in the same way that they include open-source databases or search engines today).

In other words, just as HTML enables any app to process and formatany document on the Web, SWRL + RDF/OWL may someday enable any application to reasonabout what the document discusses. Reasoning is the last frontier. Byvirtualizing reasoning — the axioms that experts use to reason aboutdomains — we can really begin to store the building blocks of humanintelligence and expertise on the Web in a universally-accessibleformat. This to me is when the actual “Intelligent Web” (what I callWeb 4.0) will emerge.

The value of this for groups and organizations is that they can start to distill their intelligence from individuals that comprise them into a more permanent and openly accessible form — axioms that live on the Web and can be accessed by everyone. For example, a technical support team for a product learns many facts and procedures related to their product over time. Currently this learning is stored as knowledge in some kind of tech support knowledgebase. But the expertise for how to find and apply this knowledge still resides mainly in the brains of the people who comprise the team itself.

The Semantic Web provides ways to enrich the knowledgebase as well as to start representing and saving the expertise that the people themselves hold in their heads, in the form of sets of axioms and procedures. By storing not just the knowledge but also the expertise about the product, the humans on the team don’t have to work as hard to solve problems — agents can actually start to reason about problems and suggest solutions based on past learning embodied in the common set of axioms. Of course this is easier said than done — but the technology at least exists in nascent form today. In a decade or more it will start to be practical to apply it.

Group Minds

Someday in the not-too-distant-future groups will be able toleverage hundreds or thousands of simple intelligent agents. Theseagents will work for them 24/7 to scour the Web, the desktop, theenterprise, and other services and social networks they are related to. They will help both the individuals as well as the collectives as-a-whole. They willbe our virtual digital assistants, always alert and looking for thingsthat matter to us, finding patterns, learning on our behalf, reasoningintelligently, organizing our information, and then filtering it,visualizing it, summarizing it, and making recommendations to us sothat we can see the Big Picture, drill in wherever we wish, and makedecisions more productively.

Essentially these agents will give groups something like their own brains. Today the only brains in a group reside in the skulls of the people themselves. But in the future perhaps we will see these technologies enable groups to evolve their own meta-level intelligences: systems of agents reasoning on group expertise and knowledge.

This will be a fundamental leap to a new order of collective intelligence. For the first time groups will literally have minds of their own, minds that transcend the mere sum of the individual human minds that comprise their human, living facets. I call these systems “Group Minds” and I think they are definitely coming. In fact there has been quite a bit of research on the subject of facilitating group collaboration with agents, for example, in government agencies such as DARPA and the military, where finding ways to help groups think more intelligently is often a matter of life and death.

The big win from a future in which individuals and groups canleverage large communities of intelligent agents is that they will bebetter able to keep up with the explosive growth of information complexity andsocial complexity. As the saying goes, “it takes a village.” There is just too much information, and too many relationships, changing too fast and this is only going to get more intense in years to come. The only way to cope with such a distributed problem is a distributed solution.

Perhaps by 2030 it will not be uncommon for Individuals and groups to maintain largenumbers of virtual assistants — agents that will help them keep abreast of themassively distributed, always growing and shifting information and sociallandscapes. When you really think about this, how else could we eversolve this? This is really the only practical long-term solution. But today it is still a bit of a pipedream; we’re not there yet. The key however is that we are closer than we’ve ever been before.

Conclusions

The Semantic Web provides the key enabling technology for all ofthis to happen someday in the future. By enriching the content of theWeb it first paves the way to a generation of smarter applications andmore productive individuals, groups and organizations.

The next majorleap will be when we begin to virtualize reasoning in the form ofaxioms that become part of the Semantic Web. This will enable a newgeneration of applications that can reason across information andservices. This will ultimately lead to intelligent agents that will be able to assist individuals,groups, social networks, communities, organizations and marketplaces sothat they can remain productive in the fact of the astonishinginformation and social network complexity in our future.

By adding more knowledge into our information, the Semantic Webmakes it possible for applications (and people) to use information moreproductively. By adding more intelligence between people,  information,and applications, the Semantic Web will also enable people andapplications to become smarter. In the future, these more-intelligentapps will facilitate higher levels of individual and collectivecognition by functioning as virtual intelligent assistants forindividuals and groups (as well as for online services).

Once we begin to virtualize not just knowledge (semantics) but alsointelligence (axioms) we will start to build Group Minds — groups that have primitive minds of their own. When we reach this point we will finally enable organizations to breakpast the Collective IQ Barrier: Organizations will start to becomesmarter than the sum of their parts. The intelligence of anorganization will not just be from its people, it will also come fromits applications. The number of intelligent applications in anorganization may outnumber the people by 1000 to 1, effectivelyamplifying each individual’s intelligence as well as the collectiveintelligence of the group.

Because software agents work all the time,can self-replicate when necessary, and are extremely fast and precise,they are ideally-suited to sifting in parallel through the millions or billions ofdata records on the Web, day in and day out. Humans and even groups ofhumans will never be able to do this as well. And that’s not what theyshould be doing! They are far too intelligent for that kind of work.Humans should be at the top of the pyramid, making the decisions,innovating, learning, and navigating.

When we finally reach this stage where networks of humans and smartapplications are able to work together intelligently for common goals,I believe we will witness a real change in the way organizations arestructured. In Group Minds, hierarchy will not be as necessary — the maximum effectivesize of a human Group Mind will be perhaps in the thousands or even themillions instead of around 50 people. As a result the shape of organizations in thefuture will be extremely fluid, and most organizations will be flat orcontinually shifting networks. For more on this kind of organization,read about virtual teams and networking, such as these books (by friends of mine who taught me everything I know about network-organization paradigms.)

I would also like to note that I am not proposing “strong AI” — a vision in which we someday makeartificial intelligences that are as or more intelligent thanindividual humans. I don’t think intelligent agents will individually be very intelligent. It will only be in vast communities of agents that intelligence will start to emerge. Agents are analogous to the neurons in the human brain — they really aren’t very powerful on their own.

I’m also not proposing that Group Minds will beas or more intelligent as the individual humans in groups anytime soon. I don’t think thatis likely in our lifetimes. The cognitive capabilities of an adult human are the product of millions of years of evolution. Even in the accelerated medium of the Web where evolution can take place much faster in silico, it may still take decades or even centuries to evolve AI that rivals the human mind (and I doubt such AI will ever be truly conscious, which means that humans, with their inborn natural consciousness, may always play a special and exclusive role in the world to come, but that is the subject of a different essay). But even if they will not be as intelligent as individual humans, Ido think that Group Minds, facilitated by masses of slightly intelligent agents and humans working in concert, can goa long way in helping individuals and groups become more productive.

It’s important to note that the future I am describing is notscience-fiction, but it also will not happen overnight. It will take atleast several decades, if not longer. But with the seeminglyexponential rate of change of innovation, we may make very large stepsin this direction very soon. It is going to be an exciting lifetime forall of us.

Japanese scientists have developed a technique that can encode 100-bit messages into the DNA of common bacteria. The bacteria replicate and pass the message down from generation to generation for at least thousands of years. Because there are millions or more copies of the message it can survive gradual degradation or mutuations (so they claim). Perhaps by taking a sample of the message across a large number of descendant bacteriums any errors or mutations can be detected and corrected. The message that was encoded was ""e=mc² 1905".

I’ve written about the potential of storing messages in DNA in the past here, and here.

What’s interesting of course is that since this is possible it begs the question of whether there are already messages encoded into the DNA of various living things on Earth? We might want to look at E Coli, or other common organisms, or perhaps human, dolphin, and whale DNA. We might also want to look at birds and lizards since they come down more directly from dinosaurs. Who knows — maybe a long long time ago someone left us messages there, or their signature at least.

There are two places that I think it is most likely that we will first receive messages from aliens, if we ever do:

1. Our own DNA (or that of other living species on Earth)
2. The Internet. It’s the logical place to establish communication with us. Perhaps via a Myspace page…

Nice article in Scientific American about Gordon Bell’s work at Microsoft Research on the MyLifeBits project. MyLifeBits provides one perspective on the not-too-far-off future in which all our information, and even some of our memories and experiences, are recorded and made available to us (and possibly to others) for posterity. This is a good application of the Semantic Web — additional semantics within the dataset would provide many more dimensions to visualize, explore and search within, which would help to make the content more accessible and grokkable.

Google’s Larry Page recently gave a talk to the AAAS about how Google is looking towards a future in which they hope to implement AI on a massive scale. Larry’s idea is that intelligence is a function of massive computation, not of “fancy whiteboard algorithms.” In other words, in his conception the brain doesn’t do anything very sophisticated, it just does a lot of massively parallel number crunching. Each processor and its program is relatively “dumb” but from the combined power of all of them working together “intelligent” behaviors emerge.

Larry’s view is, in my opinion, an oversimplification that will not lead to actual AI. It’s certainly correct that some activities that we call “intelligent” can be reduced to massively parallel simple array operations. Neural networks have shown that this is possible — they excel at low level tasks like pattern learning and pattern recognition for example. But neural networks have not proved capable of higher level cognitive tasks like mathematical logic, planning, or reasoning. Neural nets are theoretically computationally equivalent to Turing Machines, but nobody (to my knowledge) has ever succeeded in building a neural net that can in practice even do what a typical PC can do today — which is still a long way short of true AI!

Somehow our brains are capable of basic computation, pattern detection and learning, simple reasoning, and advanced cognitive processes like innovation and creativity, and more. I don’t think that this richness is reducible to massively parallel supercomputing, or even a vast neural net architecture. The software — the higher level cognitive algorithms and heuristics that the brain “runs” — also matter. Some of these may be hard-coded into the brain itself, while others may evolve by trial-and-error, or be programmed or taught to it socially through the process of education (which takes many years at the least).

Larry’s view is attractive but decades of neuroscience and cognitive science have shown conclusively that the brain is not nearly as simple as we would like it to be. In fact the human brain is far more sophisticated than any computer we know of today, even though we can think of it in simple terms. It’s a highly sophisticated system comprised of simple parts — and actually, the jury is still out on exactly how simple the parts really are — much of the computation in the brain may be sub-neuronal, meaning that the brain may actually a much much more complex system than we think.

Perhaps the Web as a whole is the closest analogue we have today for the brain — with millions of nodes and connections. But today the Web is still quite a bit smaller and simpler than a human brain. The brain is also highly decentralized and it is doubtful than any centralized service could truly match its capabilities. We’re not talking about a few hundred thousand linux boxes — we’re talking about hundreds of billions of parallel distributed computing elements to model all the neurons in a brain, and this number gets into the trillions if we want to model all the connections. The Web is not this big, and neither is Google.

One reader who commented on Larry’s talk made an excellent point on what this missing piece may be: “Intelligence is in the connections, not the bits.”The point is that most of the computation in the brain actually takesplace via the connections between neurons, regions, and perhapsprocesses. This writer also made some good points about quantumcomputation and how the brain may make use of it, a view that forexample Roger Penrose and others have spent a good deal of time on.There is some evidence that brain may make use of microtubules andquantum-level computing. Quantum computing is inherently about fields,correlations and nonlocality. In other words the connections in thebrain may exist on a quantum level, not just a neurological level.

Whether quantum computation is the key or not still remains to bedetermined. But regardless, essentially, Larry’s approach is equivalentto just aiming a massively parallel supercomputer at the Web and hopingthat will do the trick. Larry mentions for example that if allknowledge exists on the Web you should be able to enter a query and geta perfect answer. In his view, intelligence is basically just search ona grand scale. All answers exist on the Web, and the task is just tomatch questions to the right answers. But wait? Is that all thatintelligence does? Is Larry’s view too much of an oversimplification?Intelligence is not just about learning and recall, it’s also aboutreasoning and creativity. Reasoning is not just search. It’s unclearhow Larry’s approach would address that.

In my own opinion, for global-scale AI to really emerge the Web has toBE the computer. The computation has to happen IN the Web, betweensites and along connections — rather than from outside the system. Ithink that is how intelligence will ultimately emerge on a Web-widescale. Instead of some Google Godhead implementing AI from afar for thewhole Web, I think it is more likely that every site, app and person onthe Web will help to implement it. It will be much more of a hybridsystem that combines decentralized human and machine intelligences andtheir interactions along data connections and social relationships. Ithink this may emerge from a future evolution of the Web that providesfor much richer semantics on every piece of data and hyperlink on theWeb, and for decentralized learning, search, and reasoning to takeplace within every node on the Web. I think the Semantic Web is anecessary technology for this to happen, but it’s only the first step.More will need to happen on top of it for this vision to reallymaterialize.

My view is more of an “agent metaphor” for intelligence — perhaps itis similar to Marvin Minsky’s Society of Mind ideas. I think that mindsare more like communities than we presently think. Even in our ownindividual minds for example we experience competing thoughts, multiplethreads, and a kind of internal ecology and natural selection of ideas.These are not low-level processes — they are more like agents — theyare actually each somewhat “intelligent” on their own, they seem to besomewhat autonomous, and they interact in intelligent almost socialways.

Ideas seem to be actors, not just passive data points — they arecompeting for resources and survival in a complex ecology that existsboth within our individual minds and between them in socialrelationships and communities. As the theory of memetics proposes,ideas can even transport themselves through language, culture, andsocial interactions in order to reproduce and evolve from mind to mind.It is an illusion to think that there is some central self or “I” thatcontrols the process (that is just another agent in the community infact, perhaps one with a kind of reporting and selection role).

I’m not sure the complex social dynamics of these communities ofintelligence can really be modeled by a search engine metaphor. Thereis a lot more going on than just search. As well as communication andreasoning between different processes, there may in fact be feedbackacross levels from the top-down as well as the from the bottom-up.Larry is essentially proposing that intelligence is a purely bottom-upemergent process that can be reduced to search in the ideal, simplestcase. I disagree. I think there is so much feedback in every directionthat medium and the content really cannot be separated. The thoughtsthat take place in the brain ultimately feedback down to the neuralwetware itself, changing the states of neurons and connections –computation flows back down from the top, it doesn’t only flow up fromthe bottom. Any computing system that doesn’t include this kind offeedback in its basic architecture will not be able to implement trueAI.

In short, Google is not the right architecture to truly build a globalbrain on. But it could be a useful tool for search andquestions-and-answers in the future, if they can somehow keep up withthe growth and complexity of the Web.

Here is my timeline of the past, present and future of the Web. Feel free to put this meme on your own site, but please link back to the master image at this site (the URL that the thumbnail below points to) because I’ll be updating the image from time to time.

This slide illustrates my current thinking here at Radar Networks about where the Web (and we) are heading. It shows a timeline of technology leading from the prehistoric desktop era to the possible future of the WebOS…

Note that as well as mapping a possible future of the Web, here I am also proposing that the Web x.0 terminology be used to index the decades of the Web since 1990. Thus we are now in the tail end of Web 2.0 and are starting to lay the groundwork for Web 3.0, which fully arrives in 2010.

This makes sense to me. Web 2.0 was really about upgrading the “front-end” and user-experience of the Web. Much of the innovation taking place today is about starting to upgrade the “backend” of the Web and I think that will be the focus of Web 3.0 (the front-end will probably not be that different from Web 2.0, but the underlying technologies will advance significantly enabling new capabilities and features).

See also: This article I wrote redefining what the term “Web 3.0″ means.

See also: A Visual Graph of the Future of Productivity

Please note: This is a work in progress and is not perfect yet. I’ve been tweaking thepositions to get the technologies and dates right. Part of thechallenge is fitting the text into the available spaces. If anyone outthere has suggestions regarding where I’ve placed things on thetimeline, or if I’ve left anything out that should be there, please letme know in the comments on this post and I’ll try to read just and update the image from time to time. If you would like to produce abetter version of this image, please do so and send it to me forinclusion here, with the same Creative Commons license, ideally.