Essay 1: Information and our Next Evolutionary Leap

Many years ago, The Jesuit scholar, Teilhard de Chardin, claimed that the biological (physical) evolution of our species had probably reached its climax; in biological terms, we could not evolve much further. Consequently, he suggested, that we are rapidly approaching a new evolutionary threshold, in which mind and spirit, rather than biology, will provide the context for evolutionary emergence. This new stage he named as psychic evolution.

Information Explosion

The exponential growth of information, evidenced throughout the closing decades of the 20th. century, supports this claim. Processing information provides the primary work-outlet in the world of our time. And the communication of information continues to rise with greater speed, accuracy, and efficiency.

Central to this explosion is the computer with its technology now doubling every five years. Computational skills which might take the human brain several hours, can be achieved by modern computers in a matter of seconds. In fact, computer technology measures its speed not in hours, minutes or even seconds, but in terms of the nanosecond – which literally means one-billionth of a second.

Artificial Intelligence (AI):

The notion that the intelligence created through computerised technology might catch up with, and even outpace, human intelligence, has been the subject of intense study in recent decades. Will machines develop a type of brain that might be more advanced and sophisticated than the human brain?

There is no clear consensus on this matter, as one can glean from the several web pages on the subject (e.g., http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Intelligence; http://www.singinst.org/intro/AI.html). Obviously, proponents from the world of technology tend to warm to the prospects that lie ahead, while those of a philosophical or religious persuasion opt for the view that the human brain will probably co-evolve with this new breakthrough, and is likely to remain superior to it.

Intelligent Machines

A much more promising, albeit perilous development is that of intelligent machines and their interactive role in the human intelligence of the future. This is the topic explored by the inventor and futurist, Ray Kurzweil in his mammoth work, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Viking/Penguin, 2005). More details in his web pages: http://www.Singularity.com; http://www.KurzweilAI.net

Kurzweil reviews not just how machines might develop brains (AI), but far more importantly how the intelligence of machines can be used to evoke unprecedented potentials in the human brain. The future, he suggests may not be about replacing the human brain, but aiding breakthroughs which evolution itself desires for humanity. In this process nanobots will be crucial. These are microchips that are invisible to the human eye, potentially capable of carrying massive quantities of information. They can be inserted into many different organisms, much like a pace-maker can be inserted to help regulate the human heart.

Kurzweil’s particular interest is the development of procedures whereby such nanobots can be inserted into the neurons of the human brain, thus modifying significantly the way humans act, think and generally behave. He claims that the strategy to do so is already well advanced and prognosticates that it will be an approved procedure by the year 2045 CE.

At that stage – mid way through the present century – intelligent machines will be smarter than the conventional wisdom Homo Sapiens has known for over 100,000 years. We will be into a new exciting and dangerous world!

Posthuman or Transhuman ?

To date, scholars have described this new creature as the posthuman. (bibliography below; web pages: http://www.answers.com/topic/posthuman; http://www.incipientposthuman.com), a concept Kurzweil does not find helpful (see p.374). To me the term makes poor evolutionary sense, using dualistic overtones which are dangerously simplistic. As indicated above, Kurzweil wagers that the breakthrough will enhance rather than diminish human potential – largely depending on the quality of awareness with which we appropriate this new development.

I wish to suggest that what Kurzweil is describing – without necessarily agreeing with all the details – is the Teilhardian notion of psychic evolution coming to fuller fruition, perhaps, even reaching a high point of maturation. In 1957, the biologist, Julian Huxley coined the terms transhuman to describe this new development; the word has taken on other meanings since then (see http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism). Information, knowledge and wisdom become the core ingredients of this new evolutionary stage. The “intelligent machines” contrary to the widespread fear of undermining human intelligence, are evoking new potentials and horizons of understanding which could bring forth in a more explicit way, the richer giftedness identified by other disciplines (e.g., transpersonal psychology), over the past fifty years.

The Shadow Side

Kurzweil devotes the concluding chapters of his book to the prospect that this new technology could end up in the wrong hands and reap untold havoc for humanity as well as for several other organisms inhabiting Planet Earth. The breakthrough could easily become a nightmare. Many of us are only too well aware of the destructive desires of those who release worms, viruses and other lethal mechanisms into the communication networks; this is small stuff compared to deliberately infecting the workings of the human brain.

Kurzweil argues that it is up to governments to put ethical and protective measures in place, and concedes that, thus far, in information technology governments have failed dismally. In our globalised world, corporations often outwit nation states (individually and collectively) thus leaving ordinary citizens at the mercy of dangerous and destructive forces. Kurzweil believes that governments will rise to this challenge; while I share his optimism on several matters outlined in his recent book, this is one I cannot support.

Conclusion:

For over thirty years, I have publicly supported Teilhard’s suggestion that our species is on the brink of a new evolutionary breakthrough, which in evolutionary terms is likely to take decades rather than single years. Consistently, I have regarded the information explosion as a major component of this breakthrough. I see two processes that now need to coalesce to see the whole thing through:

a) A technological dimension of the type Kurzweil describes which will not make us automatons, but creatures imbued with new wisdom thanks to the contribution which intelligent machines can make to our evolutionary unfolding.

b) A mystical dimension, empowering us to discern and discriminate between wisdom that will enhance growth and flourishing as distinct from that which could wreck untold havoc on our species and the earth itself. Kurzweil makes no illusion to this second dimension and this I regard as the major weakness of an otherwise timely and impressive read.

Related Reading: N. Katherine Hales (1999), How We Became Posthuman. Elaine L. Graham (2002), Representations of the Post/Human. Francis Fukuyama (2002), Our Posthuman Future.

+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+

ESSAY 2: From Universe to Multiverse

(READER’s NOTE: Officially, the word multiverse means several universes exisiting simultaneously. It is sometimes used to refer to the possibility that other universes existed before the present one, and others may succeed it. I use the term with BOTH meanings in mind).

Galileo was hammered by the Catholic Church for endorsing the Copernican theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun, putting the Sun and not the Earth at the centre of the Milky Way galaxy. We were awakening to a new expansive view of the universe, although it would take almost another 400 years before we would break the firm grip of ecclesiastical control and scientific reductionism. In 1650, the noted Biblical scholar, Archbishop James Ussher calculated that the creation of the world took place on Oct. 23rd, 4004 BCE, and that the end of the world would occur at noon on Oct 23rd., 1997. That became standard Catechetical teaching in many parts of the Christian world up to about 1960.

Meanwhile, a mind-shift had happened in the early 1900s with Einstein’s theories of Relativity and the formulation of the Quantum Theory. It was no longer the Earth that engaged the searching mind but the universe at large, now so complex and mysterious that talk about its beginning or end seemed short-sighted and even irrelevant.

Towards the Big Bang

With the Hubble discoveries of the late 1920s and the pioneering work of the Belgian priest-astronomer, Georges Lemaitre, the seeds were sown for the leading theory of 20th. Century science: The Big Bang. The term was coined by Fred Hoyle in the 1940s but only became a formal theory after the discovery of the cosmic background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1963. From a single point of energy, 13-15 billion years ago, everything we know in creation today began to unfold, including Planet Earth which first evolved about 4.0 billion years ago.

That which gave us the evidence for the Big Bang threw up other imponderables, particularly the discovery of powerful gravity in the distant horizons of time-space. The strength of the gravity waves suggests that great quantities of matter exist out there somewhere. Its nature and location we know nothing about as yet, but scientists are forced to the bewildering conclusion that the observable world comprises at most 10% of the known universe, which means we know nothing about 90% of the created universe.

It has taken discoveries of this nature to challenge the arrogance with which we humans study and propose theorise about the created universe. The real issue of course is neither discovery nor study, but POWER. We feel we have the right to be in control, absolute control and this is still the driving force behind a great deal of modern science, and sadly behind a good deal of religious dogmatism as well.

Another Quantum Leap ?

Finally we come to the real big stuff: the multiverse. The story can be traced back to 1957 when an American doctoral student, Hugh Everett (supervised by the Princeton professor, John A. Wheeler), proposed the possible existence of several rather than one universe. His argument is based on mathematical equations derived from Quantum Theory which also leads to the notion that the universe is self-creating and poised for indefinite growth and expansion.

In the 1981, the idea of a multiverse got an added boost from Alan Guth’s inflationary theory. Quantum theory postulates the existence of an original empty space (hence, the quantum vacuum), consisting of energy movements (fluctuations) from which all matter is shaped and formed. Guth proposes that the fluctuations initially manifest like bubbles in a foam, and shortly after the big bang, these bubbles expanded (inflated) each becoming a mini-universe in its own right. A great deal of experimental evidence supports this proposal. And it is strongly endorsed by leading scientists of our time including Andri Linde (Moscow & Stanford), Marin Rees (Cambridge), Brian Green (Columbia), Paul Davies (Sydney).

I find the adoption of fractal geometry particularly inspiring: “Recent versions of inflationary theory assert that instead of being a ball of fire, the universe is a huge growing fractal.” (Andrei Linde). Fractals are revolutionary new mathematical image-like concepts, in which we find repeated patterns buried deeper and deeper (a bit like a Russian doll). The more we unravel the observable pattern (through computer simulations) the more we find it repeated in the subsistent layers. It is a wonderful exposition of the leading principle of the new physics: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, yet the whole is contained in each part. (for more on fractals see my book, Quantum Theology, 2004, pp.51-53).

Theological Implications.

For those who wish to delve deeper, the web pages I cite at the end will provide additional information on these complex ideas. How do we relate these discoveries to the realm of faith, Christian or otherwise? I offer a few thoughts.

1. Long before religion ever evolved, humans believed that the divine was intimately involved in creation. All the religions support this idea. Is creation then a kind of primary revelation of God to us? If so, we need to attend carefully to how we understand creation.

2. Our human tendency especially in the past 2000 years is to reduce creation to a human artefact, one we can use and subdue to our advantage; all the major religions, to one degree or another, endorse this orientation. Consequently, we can no longer assume that the religious understandings of creation are in any way adequate – spiritually or theologically.

3. Although scientists also embrace the addictive preoccupation with power and control, many of their intuitions into cosmic and planetary life may be much more spiritually informed than the insights of formalised religions. On the other hand, several of these scientific insights are congruent with those of great mystics from all the religious traditions of humankind.

4. Christian theologians exhibit strong concern about the notion of creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing). They wish to retain this belief in order to safeguard divine initiative, and presumably their understanding of divine power. Today, we understand the primordial nothingness as a substratum of seething creativity. Perhaps, for God, the notion of a beginning-point is of no significance. Might it not be another anthropocentric fascination!

5. Scriptures of all traditions allude to the end of the world. It is very explicit in the Christian and Muslim traditions. Contemporary science is rapidly moving towards the notion of a world without beginning or end. Might this not be a stronger indicator of truth, rather than the anti-world stance that underpins some of the major religions?

6. The big fear – scientifically and religiously – generated by many of these new ideas concerns our human place and role in the plan of creation. It is abundantly clear that we are not in charge, that we are not the ultimate species in any sense, that we rely on many other aspects of creation to survive on earth, that we are one small organism among so many others, and disturbingly, not as wise as we would like to think. So what is our purpose? Of all the responses to this question the one I find most challenging and inspiring is the proposal that we are creation becoming aware of itself. Our unique vocation – and contribution to creation – is to enhance the growth in consciousness. An awesome responsibility! (Perhaps, this is what all the great mystics were, and are, about!)

7. Theologically, the crucial issue is around the notion of revelation. If the divine has been disclosing creativity and meaning in the entire story of creation, throughout these billions of years, why restrict the empowerment of the divine to religiously-validated time and culture boundaries? Somehow, it does not seem to make sense anymore!

Useful Source material:

Erwin Laszlo (2004), Science and the Akashic Field. http://www.edge.org: edited by John Brockman, engages leading scientists in ongoing dialogue. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm : Ned Wright’s no frills site. Note the section “News of the Universe” written for general audiences. http://www.MichaelACorey.com: picks up some of the religious issues arising from the New Cosmology.

More… http://www.diarmuid13.com/index.php?f=data_current_issues&a=0