Vargr, June, 2006<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This was originally written to be included in Weaving the Fringe<\/em>, an anthology that unfortunately never came together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Any sufficiently advanced\ntechnology is indistinguishable from magic.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n – Arthur C.\nClark\u2019s Third Law of Prediction<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n It seems to be an innate human desire to seek to extend our\nawareness and perception of the environment around us, as well as expand our\ncontrol over it. Over previous millennia\nit has often been the purview of magic to achieve these goals, but as\ntechnology has developed, it has been moving into the niche in our personal\nspheres that used to belong to magic alone. \nThe encroachment of technology into this realm is not limited to\nindividual space. It has also changed the way in which individuals interact and\ncollaborate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In place of the fetishes and charms carried by pre-industrial\ncultures, we now sport an array of electronic devices which allow us to\ncommunicate over long distances, capture the images and sounds of our\nenvironment, and store information in ways unimaginable to our ancestors. We rely on them to feel safe. They have become our talismans and\namulets. In a broader scope, we have\nalso used technology to create new ways of storing and using information\nitself. We have rendered the mnemonic\nmethods of the orators and alchemists of the past obsolete with our new capabilities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Nowhere\nis magical technofetishism more pronounced in contemporary <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n culture,\nthen in the \u2018magick\u2019 rituals practiced by technopagans.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n – Amanda Fernbach, Fantasies of Fetishism<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n It is not an unusual thing that many magicians have begun to\nassimilate a wide range of technology into their practices. Despite some appearances to the contrary,\nmagic is an innately practical activity. \nIt seeks to instantiate the will of the magician in the phenomenal\nworld, and in many traditions, the results are far more important than the\nmethodology. In both the physical and\nvirtual worlds, we create and use tools in order to extend our capabilities. The nature of these tools can range from\nphysical artifacts to mathematical algorithms. \nWhichever tools are the most effective, and produce the greatest return\nfor the energy expended are the ones which will naturally be used. It is not necessary to expend energy and time\ntoward achieving results through esoteric means when the use of technology will\naccomplish the same ends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The incorporation of technology into magic is by no means a\n21st<\/sup>-century phenomenon. One\nof the most prolific, if often over-looked, chaos magicians of the 20th<\/sup>\ncentury, William S. Burroughs, documented the incident in which he used audio\ntape recordings to project a desired reality upon his environment. After receiving terrible service and\ntreatment at a restaurant, he dubbed discordant sounds over an ambient base\ntrack he recorded on the street nearby. He\nthen played the composite tape outside of the restaurant, which resulted in it\ngoing out of business.[1]<\/a> The\ntechniques Burroughs used are still applicable today, but there is obviously a\nfar wider array of technology available to execute them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A prominent side-effect of the ubiquity of personal\ncommunications technology is the emergence of a vast human intelligence network<\/em>. \nThe phenomenon of emergence<\/em>\nitself has become an increasingly popular topic of study even as this has\noccurred. Emergence, simply explained,\nis the effect which occurs when a number of discrete units of intelligence or\ncapability interact with one another in a network in order to produce behavior\nor capabilities which exceed the predicted sum of the contributing units. One of the best real-world examples of this\nis the bee hive. The hive mind<\/em> which results from the\ncoordinated fashion in which bees work together is greater than the sum of its\nparts. This super-organism is capable of feats of\nexploration, engineering, and memory that far exceed the capabilities of\nsingular insects. For example, the\ncollective memory of a hive possesses a memory of three months. This is twice as long as the life of an\naverage bee[2]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n The behavior of insects and their hives have also been\nstudied in order to create swarming machines. \nThese relatively simple and autonomous machines are programmed to seek\nout and interact with others of their own kind. \nThis can produce a number of complex, unanticipated behaviors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The\nhuman being is a machine. An automated\nmachine.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n – Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The human intelligence network comprises a powerful\nparallel-processing supercomputer in which the brains of the human beings who\ncontribute to it serve as the processors. \nIt is not synonymous with the Internet, though the Internet is often\nseen as the most prominent infrastructure upon which this network of human\nbio-computers interacts. The\nproblem-solving capacity of large numbers of human collaborators can be seen in\na number of arenas, but one of the most interesting is the way in which players\nof alternate reality games (ARGs) cooperate via online message boards to\nquickly solve complex puzzles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The effectiveness with which this network can function\nacross the arbitrary political boundaries which divide the earth into ultimately\nephemeral sovereign nations is an illustration of its capability. The joke goes that on the Internet, no one\nknows you\u2019re a dog. In reality, the\ncapability of the network to obfuscate the nationality, gender, religion, and\nother demographic factors which frequently contribute to discrimination serve\nas an egalitarian force which levels the playing field between participants in\nthe collective. In this collaborative\ninformation space, the mental capability and unique life experience of each human\nnode becomes more important than the physical form and location of that person\nin meat-space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The capability to network effectively also leads to a\ngreater production of information. The\nrate at which humanity is creating information is growing exponentially. Researchers at the University of California\nhave predicted that humanity, assisted by the machines that we have created,\nwill have created more new information between 2003 and 2006 than during the\nprior 300,000 years of human history.[3]<\/a> The availability of resources such as distributed\ncomputing over high-speed fiber-optic networks, particularly between computers\nwhich are composed themselves of numerous CPUs working in parallel, have given\nmankind the ability to model the workings of the physical universe at both ends\nof the scale of existence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I believe that the human intelligence network is merely a\nwaypoint on the larger collective human journey toward some level of\nsingularity. This event has been\nproposed by a number of authors and philosophers under various names. One interpretation of this concept is the Omega Point<\/em> described by Jesuit\nphilosopher Teilhard De Chardin which emphasizes a growing connection among\nhumanity as our population increases:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pushed one against the other by the growth of their number and by the proliferation of their connections, approached one to the other by the reawakening of a common force and by the feeling of a common anxiety, the future human kind will form nothing but an unified consciousness<\/em>. [4]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n A less spiritual, more mechanistic interpretation of this\nunion is the Technological Singularity<\/em>\ndescribed by mathematician and science fiction author Vernor Vinge. This scenario assumes the creation of\nartificial intelligence, which Vinge suggested would likely occur sometime\nbetween 2005 and 2030 in his 1993 essay The\nComing Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era<\/em>.[5]<\/a> This interpretation is based on the earlier\nwork of physicist John Von Neumann, among others. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Whichever is the preferred vision of the future of mankind,\nthere seems to be a recurring undercurrent, that there will come some point in\nthe future at which man, like so many other animals before us, will either embrace\nour potential or become extinct. The\nargument as to whether or not our technology will ever be capable of creating\nartificial intelligence is still not settled. \nSome researchers in the field have come to consider it an inevitable\noccurrence, while others have become disillusioned after so much work in the\nfield has still not produced it, that they believe at this point that it will\nnever happen. If the principle of\nemergence does in fact apply to humanity as it does to other organisms and\nmachines, then AI is not required for this to happen, and a purely biological state\nof unity may be our ultimate future as a race.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, I believe that the attainment of human\nsingularity, if it is to occur at all, will be through the use of technology\nrather than spiritualism. In the real\nworld, a human relationship with the divine is most often manifest through\nmonolithic religions which are based upon rigidly codified dogma. Regardless of their intents, the effect of these\nfaiths is not to unify humanity as a species, but rather to fragment us into competing\nfactions, each bent on spreading the tenets of that particular faith to as many\nothers as possible. The directive to\nengage in this dissemination is itself often a requirement of membership. When several large religions which\nincorporate this belief come into conflict with each other, the results can be\ncatastrophic. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Technology can be customized and packaged differently in\nvarious regions in order to have broad appeal across demographic groups. In addition to this fact, despite jokes to\nthe contrary, brand loyalty is seldom a strong enough motivator to lead to holy\nwar. Communications protocols and\nbroadly supported data standards are capable of uniting users into groups of\nglobal scope, crossing language and religious barriers in a way that allows an\nunacknowledged commonality to piggyback along with commercial motives like a\nremora on a shark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “We may think we’re connected to the universe, we may\nwell be in control of our personal space as a result of these technologies, we\nmay think we’re networking, but it’s in a one-on-one system. It’s a\nfetishization of connectedness, an illusion.” <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n – Graeme Turner,<\/em> University of\nQueensland<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ironically, the same technology which empowers us, extends\nus, and has the potential to unite us can also isolate and distract us. The above quote is from an article which\nreviewed the 25th<\/sup> anniversary of the Sony Walkman.[6]<\/a> I also think that it makes an appropriate\nintroduction to an examination of the view which opposes the concept of\nsingularity through technology. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The virtual personal space which is created by the use of\nheadphones on portable music players has been lamented as being detrimental to\nsocial interaction since the introduction of the aforementioned Walkman. This space does not invite interaction. A\nsimilar phenomenon is evident in the use of cell phones in public spaces. Although communication is taking place, it\ndoes not leave the speaker open and approachable for interaction with others in\ntheir immediate environment. The device\nwhich offers constant connectivity paradoxically also acts as a barrier to face\nto face conversation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n There are cultural factors other than religion and\ntechnology itself that will impact the possibility of attaining a human\nsingularity of any type. Whereas some\ncultures actively promote a sense of social solidarity among their citizens,\nothers emphasize the sanctity of the rugged individual. Besides a purely social force, this is also a\nside-effect of certain marketing practices which seek to instill in consumers a\nsense of isolation which can then be satisfied by the advertised product. Besides these general factors, any number of special\ninterests might have their own reasons for keeping the status quo and\npreventing humanity from achieving its apex. \nA perusal of the wide range of conspiracy theories available online will\nprovide a deep pool of potential spectres to fill this role. Again in this matter there are no absolutes,\nas the commercial and governmental entities which may be perceived as opponents\nto unity have also invested a great deal of money in the creation of the most\nlikely infrastructure through which it may occur. References:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n De Chardin, Teilhard. (cited in) \u201cThe Noosphere Concept.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n http:\/\/noosphere.cc\/noosphere.html<\/a>,\naccessed 6\/22\/06.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kelly, Kevin. Out of\nControl.<\/em> Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 1994.<\/p>\n\n\n\n P-Orridge,\nGenesis Breyer. \u201cMagic Squares and Future Beats.\u201d in Richard Metzger ed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Book of Lies<\/em>. New York: The\nDisinformation Company Ltd. 2003.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Quill, Greg. \u201cWalls of Walkman.\u201d Toronto\nStar, Jul. 25, 2004.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vinge,\nVernor. \u201cThe Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-<\/p>\n\n\n\n Human Era\u201d. http:\/\/www-rohan.sdsu.edu\/faculty\/vinge\/misc\/singularity.html<\/a>,\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n accessed 6\/21\/06.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Von\nBaeyer, Hans Christian. Information: The\nNew Language of Science.<\/em> Cambridge: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Harvard University Press. 2003. [1]<\/a>\nP-Orridge p. 106<\/p>\n\n\n\n [2]<\/a> Kelly p.\n12<\/p>\n\n\n\n [3]<\/a> von\nBaeyer p. 4<\/p>\n\n\n\n [4]<\/a> De\nChardin,<\/p>\n\n\n\n [5]<\/a> Vinge,\n1993<\/p>\n\n\n\n [6]<\/a> Quill,\n2004.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Vargr, June, 2006 This was originally written to be included in Weaving the Fringe, an anthology that unfortunately never came together. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. – Arthur C. Clark\u2019s Third Law of Prediction It seems to be an innate human desire to seek to extend our awareness and perception of the … Continue reading From the Vaults: Magic, Technology, and the Emergence of the Human Singularity<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-109","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/spikevision.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/spikevision.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/spikevision.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spikevision.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spikevision.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=109"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/spikevision.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":311,"href":"https:\/\/spikevision.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109\/revisions\/311"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/spikevision.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spikevision.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spikevision.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n