(UN)INTELLIGENCE. ASHLEY KIRK
INTRODUCTION The leader of the free world is a failing businessman that advocates that climate change is merely bad weather and that any person or group that might disagree with his opinion is classified as ‘fake news’. Conflict remains a real issue across many, if not all, parts of the world. Our obsession with fossil fuels and money is almost a laughable subject, not because it's actually funny but because of how stupid it really is. It contributes nothing to our sense of happiness, wellbeing or freedom, in fact, it brings the opposite of these things. It feels as though our evolution of (un)intelligence is on an apocalyptic trajectory. Technology is adding a dimension to our lives that many of us don’t fully understand and is acting at large to the hands of capitalism - further fuelling the large corporations and governments with everything they need to keep us where they need us for the good of profitability. Technology has the power to provide great things for the good, yet on the whole, it feeds acts of incivility, unsustainable desire, and selfishness. When I stop and consider all these thoughts, I can’t help but to question what actually is intelligence? And it would be almost comforting to learn that we are living in a simulation as Elon Musk (McCormick 2016) suggests because it feels like, if we are not, we are in deep shit. Intelligence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills”. However, when examining the idea of intelligence, it’s possible to see that one person’s intelligence is another person’s horror. What it exactly is, by definition, may lie somewhere between technology, progress, and biological life. Whether that be our ingenuity that helped us create tools and ultimately the prospect for Artificial Intelligence? Perhaps it’s our progress as the human race and everything it stands for? Could the biological world show us what it is? These questions are embarked upon in a critical journey to challenge our current idea of intelligence.
TECHNOLOGICAL DREAMS The rise of technology has seen many speculate about its influences on the future of our world and intelligence, both human and non-human, from virtual environments to singularity. A recent exhibition, Collusion 2019, caught my attention. The exhibition on the emergence of digital forces included a number of projects questioning our potential futures. Studio Above and Below presented a proposition for an evolved state of consumerism and evolved desires in the digital age. They tell the story of overconsumption in the developed world and our vulnerability to external digital influences. Their exhibit consisted of four everyday consumer items displayed almost as artefacts in the middle of a darkened room. Placed in front of each of these artefacts was a mixed reality headset. The headset would reimage these artefacts, create variation or abstract them completely. As we involve more technology in our lives our desires change, in fact, I think we consume more as a result, because we are made aware of more and more ‘things’. This method of superimposing variations leads to the question if these new technologies could reverse this effect. Perhaps, but inevitably I feel that it will both demand a change in how we think and also change the way we think. In the words of Heidegger (1969, p56) “With this approaching
technological dream state in the atomic age could so captivate, bewitch, dazzle, and beguile man that calculative thinking may someday come to be accepted and practiced as the only way of thinking." Through the expansion of our digital lives, our intelligence is continually seeking new ways of experience. Immersive platforms are rising, games like Minecraft can now be played in virtual reality, creating digital worlds collaborating with millions, globally. Living in a more augmented world, perhaps some might say an immersive world, is an interesting prospect because of how it might affect our ways of thinking. In this context, how long will our environment, our habitats continue to matter to us? What will become of our reality if we can live in virtuality, with video-game-like consumption modalities, will it matter? Will we matter anymore? Will our thoughts be real? In his book The Mind is Flat, Nick Chater explores cognition, perception and our boundary of consciousness. In basic terms, he suggests that our brains simply make it up as we go along, “Consciousness is limited to an awareness of our interpretation of the sensory world”. “Our conscious experience is determined by what the brain thinks is present - the output of the cycle of thought, not the input.” (Chater, 2019, p176 -177). Whether the input is real or not, our brains have the imaginative capacity to make things appear real - a hallucination. Therefore, it is possible that digital inputs could inflict this kind of cognitive engagement. Our engagement, or levels of such, do depend on the particular sensory stimuli, and also how many and which of our senses are being targeted at that time. Although our imaginative leaps are, according to Chater (2019 p208), “at the very core of human intelligence. The ability to select, recombine, and modify past precedents to deal with present experience is what allows us to be able to cope with an open-ended world we scarcely understand.” Technology has be made possible by our intelligence and with it we have achieved many things. For context, the definition of technology used here is that all unnatural creations of human origin are technology. Amongst our achievements capacitated by our technology we face many global issues, which paradoxically are possible to route origin from our technologies. Conflict, climate change, incivility, cultural and social disparity all have a
clear causal link to technology and this is to name but a few. However, before I blame technology for all the wrong in the world there needs to be consideration toward ‘user error’ - our (un)intelligence with the application of technology. As an alternative standpoint, I argue that we are not actually as techno-minded as we believe, merely living within a delusional fantasy that we are in fact masters. Consider the automobiles many of us drive, most are powered by 160-year-old technology. We build our houses the same way we have for centuries despite huge shifts in materials and construction techniques available. If we were to embrace technology entirely, perhaps we would now live in a world like those speculated by the writers of sci-fi movies, and if this were the case could it can save us from the aforementioned crises? To do so would demand a colossal shift of current human thinking: one that is unachievable within our current techno-dream state. I think this is an interesting proposition, that our lives could be so much simpler, much more intelligent if we changed our habits of consumerism, of desire and of waste through clever implementation of technology. Could we then enjoy more of the world around us instead of the material stopping us from actually doing so right now? Although many believe this would further accelerate our destruction and that we should return to a pre-industrial, pre-tech life, but this risks damaging our idea of progress...
IDEA of PROGRESS “Of course, our failures are a consequence of many factors, but possibly one of the most important is the fact that society operates on the theory that specialisation is the key to success, not realising that specialisation precludes comprehensive thinking.” (Buckminster Fuller 1969 p24) Humans have existed for around two million years and throughout this, relatively short history, have evolved into the most dominant species in existence. It was through this ecological dominance and ever-increasing social conditions that we are thought to have accelerated our evolution, and our intelligence. As more intelligence was gained, we harnessed it to continually develop intricate tools with which to empower our dominance. These tools, objects in most part, aid us with tasks to harvest the necessary fuel for life whether this be the earth's resources (water, minerals, and raw materials) or those things we consider essential to fulfil our basic needs like food, heat and shelter. As our armoury of tools became larger, we were able to utilise these tools, to inhabit more of planet earth and to extract more resources to fuel population increases and so on. At the centre of the Human definition of progress lies the act of conquering: we strive to conquer. As we populate, we educate to develop new and complex ways of conquering; through technology we can conquer more things, in less time and with more profit. But at what cost? Our current idea of progress is fuelling our journey on an apocalyptic path – our (un)intelligence. The ‘progress’ of humans is perhaps the sole cause of the problems we face. Progress then is indifferent from the act of conquering. Whether learnt or engrained within our species i.e. inherited from apes – we have an overwhelming desire to conquer. Technology only fuels this ideology, with every advancement it feeds our addiction to conquer. Heidegger (1971 p114) explains this very danger, the idea that humans can control nature: “What threatens man in his very nature is the . . . view that man, by the peaceful release, transformation, storage, and channelling of the energies of physical nature, could render the human condition . . . tolerable for everybody and happy in all respects.” (Heidegger 1971 p114). An arrogance of humanity, if there ever was. Our progression is the very reason we are now utilising our technology to intervene with nature. A very noble movement on face value, but it is the very consequence of the Anthropocene. Whilst its commencement is still undecided, our current geological age: the age of the human, is defined by the mass effect humans have had across the natural world. We have forced the evolution of species, altered our global climate and pushed countless species of flora and fauna to extinction. As we continue through the Anthropocene, we will be required to become increasingly involved in order to save nature from our quest to conquer and maybe even protect ourselves from the consequences of our progress. In doing so we attempt to fix what we started. I believe that reversal is not possible, instead, we will enter a post-Anthropocene. A singularity where we may not exist in the way we know now, but an evolved state where technology and biological life are co-existing.
I often contemplate what the earth would be like without humans, or simply without our human (un)intelligence. How different would the world be? Eduardo Khon (2013) makes the suggestion in his book: How Forests Think: An Anthropology Beyond The Human, that this is possible if we learn that human modes of thinking are not the only kinds of thinking available to us. However, like me he questions “do the all-too-human contexts in which we live bar us from such an endeavour? Are we forever trapped inside our linguistically and culturally mediated ways of thinking?” (Khon 2013 p41). We are learning to think differently, as natures’ symbolic communication is becoming more obvious to us through the very crises mankind faces and as a result makes us more aware than ever that "Our exceptional status is not the walled compound we thought we once inhabited.” An important “anthropology that focuses on the relations we humans have with non-human beings forces us to step beyond the human." (Khon 2013 p 42). Khon is talking here about gaining intelligence from the biological world, it's true that civilisations do exist that share similarities, Buddhist disposition is perhaps an obvious example and we would do well to remember that every living thing has intelligence, at some level or other when defined as ‘the ability to adapt, to change or the ability to make choices’. If our idea of progress took more learnings from the Buddhists, or the natural world then perhaps our lives would be far simpler and indeed far more intelligent.
BIOLOGICALLY THINKING Slime mould (Physarum polycephalum) is as happy as a single cell or, when multiplied, as a larger organism.
Invisible to the human eye in its singular state, when aggregated to an organism it becomes a glowing bright yellow mass which grows large polyps. You will find it on the floors of the great rainforests, efficiently navigating its way around as a whole system feasting on decomposing matter as it does so. Once known as fungi, these organisms which we still don’t really understand are now classed as Protists (Wilk 2016). Why do we not understand this biological marvel? Mainly because they act in an entirely different way to that which we have come to see as a conventional; they are almost alien-like. In an experiment by Toshiyuki Nakagaki a Japanese researcher they successfully re-mapped Japan’s rail network in the most efficient way possible. Nakagaki placed oatmeal at the locations of many major rail intersections on a map of Japan and introduced cells of slime mould to the map. Over 24 hours the cells multiplied and together it navigated between these intersections using the most efficient route. A visible, bright yellow vein-like network could be seen at the end of the experiment as proof. But how could this be; after all slime mould has no brain; no intelligence – or does it? From decentralised co-operation and problem-solving to a new discovery - memories. In 2016 researchers found that Slime mould had a form of memory and in recent studies titled: Memory inception and preservation in slime moulds by Broussard, Delescluse, Pérez-Escudero and Dussutour (2019) these findings have been developed further. Through absorption, the organism is able to record certain properties of elements it has come into contact with. It can then use this record of absorbed elements to adapt and create a memory. The next time it meets with these same particular elements it does not come as a surprise. Over time the slime mould can become faster at spreading over the said element i.e.it adapts to the presence of the element. This ‘knowledge’ may live on within subsequent generations of the slime mould and it is thought to provide some form of evolutionary role, but little is known about that at this stage. I find this truly fascinating and would argue that this is, in fact, intelligence – in terms of the mould’s ability to learn and adapt. Slime mould is the perfect example of biological thinking - its both hard to understand but also so clearly represented. “Understanding the behaviour of polycephalum requires a reconsideration of the meaning of intelligence.” (Wilk 2016). This is also true if we are to consider intelligence beyond humans. Khon’s (2013) definition of biological thoughts “An organism with its adaptations constitutes a guess of what the world is like, and if such guess shows up in subsequent generations then it’s because it fits that world in some way or another. This fittedness is a representation – it is a thought.” Our arrogance stands in the way of the realisation that we are not the sole intelligent beings, not the only communicators. Khon (2013 p42) advocates this concept through the exploration of semiosis “signs are not exclusively human affairs. All living beings sign.”. Indeed, communication is more than language, or language is more than just speaking. If we observe the natural world it can be seen to communicate continuously whether it be through biological communications between trees or physical symbolic representations to other species. For
example, if you approach a bird in the park, it will likely acknowledge your approach, freezing its movement momentarily whilst it makes an assessment of the situation. It will likely have learnt that, at a certain distance humans pose no threat but if you approach that one step too far, it will fly away for this is a communication which the bird interprets as a threat. So whilst we might think we, as humans, have intelligence at a level which surpasses all other beings on earth why then do we still not fully understand so many aspects of the natural world (like how the most simplest of organisms like the slime mould can learn and adapt) and this is despite our (perceived) higher level thinking and the boundless technology at our behest?
CONCLUSION Human ideas of progress have become infectiously powerful, they have too much importance within society, so much so that it continues to fuel our separation to nature. Our desire to conquer is an addiction, a trait that we will not rid of easily, or perhaps at all. Our perceived intelligence is, in fact, a stupidity, an unintelligence and one which may have disastrous consequences for our species, and perhaps the Earth as a whole. Perhaps, though, we need to embrace a new phase as the technocrats suggest and that we need to entrust technology to save us and the world we live in. This might mean that we have to learn to accept things that will not be what they are now but that instead we will enter a new stage of evolution; one which might be termed a post-technological paradigm. A shift that will see us develop a new role within a more virtual world with augmented habitats. A world in which intelligent machines become commonplace and we implement wide-scale weather manipulation to deal with our changing climate and thus make it possible to survive. That futuristic view is ironically outdated, a civilisation that has been portrayed in many science fiction titles over the last four or five decades. A prediction that would have been so if we respected changed and what it can offer. I would like to offer an alternative hypothesis - I feel that nature is the domain that can provide us with the greatest intelligence. That does not mean we need to rid ourselves of technology but rather change our application of it, moreover change our current ways of thinking, because technology cannot succeed to or benefit us with our current application modalities. Through our failures we are now augmenting our current ways of thinking onto nature in the hope that we can fix the problems we have created. However, I fear that as Einstein said “you cannot deal with the problem by using the same mode of thinking that created the problem.”. We still hold the view that we are separate from the rest of the planets’ living things and if we are to think beyond the human, we have a hope at proceeding on a kinder path. A path that I think will include technology but not as we conceive of it today – but rather a shift in our present destructive human modes of its implementation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Above The Surface - Short Trailer [WWW Document], n.d. . Vimeo. URL https://vimeo.com/332966788 (accessed 5.13.19). Broussard, Delescluse, Pérez-Escudero and Dussutour, 2019. Slime mould absorbs substances to memorise them | Drupal [WWW Document]. URL https://www.cnrs.fr/en/slime-mould-absorbs-substances-memorise-them (accessed 6.10.19). CSTMS Berkeley, n.d. Eduardo Kohn, “Thinking with a Forest’s Thoughts.” Dreyfus, H., 2002. Heidegger on Gaining a Free Relation to Technology, in: Heidegger Reexamined: Art, Poetry and Technology. Routledge, pp. 163–174. Eduardo Kohn, 2013. How forests think: toward an anthropology beyond the human / Eduardo Kohn. University of California Press, 2013, Berkeley. Heidegger, M., 1977. The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Garland Publishng, New York. James, B., n.d. Heidegger & Faulkner Against Modern Technology [WWW Document]. Philosophy Now. URL https://philosophynow.org/issues/125/Heidegger_and_Faulkner_Against_Modern_Technology Martin Heidegger, 1971. Poetry, language, thought / Martin Heidegger ; translations [from the German] and introduction by Albert Hofstadter. Harper and Row, New York ; London. McCormick, R., 2016. Odds are we’re living in a simulation, says Elon Musk [WWW Document]. The Verge. URL https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/2/11837874/elon-musk-says-odds-living-in-simulation (accessed 6.6.19). Nick Chater, author, 2018. The mind is flat: the illusion of mental depth and the improvised mind / Nick Chater. Penguin Books, London. R. Buckminster Fuller, 1969. Operating manual for spaceship Earth., New Edition 2008/2015. ed. Lars Muller Publishers, Zurich, Switzerland. Wilk, E., 2016. Slime Intelligence | Rhizome [WWW Document]. URL https://rhizome.org/editorial/2016/aug/16/slime-intelligence/ (accessed 5.12.19).