Children of the Mind

Preamble

Before we go any further, there are some things you need to know. I am a philosopher at heart, and enjoy wondering about abstract concepts and ideas to the point where they become real scenarios in my head. The idea for writing this came shortly after I've finished readings Orson Scott Card's Children of the Mind, the last book in his fascinating Ender's Game series.

I finished this series one month after reading all of Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, and two months after finishing the 16th volume of the Dune saga. There are some interesting ideas in all of these books, especially in Children of the Mind and the fourth Dune book, the God-Emperor of Dune, but I think what fascinated me most lately was the way Card imagined his Universe to be set up.

That being said, reach for your popcorn, put your feet up, and enjoy.

Chapter I

Theoreticians and futurologists have been discussing the way our species is bound to evolve for decades, and yet there appears to be no consensus. Rather than taking this as a failure, I think that this speaks volumes as to the huge array of opportunities we still have opened in front of us.

That is not to say that I don't have faith in our species' ability to carry on. Nature itself would not allow us to become extinct except through our own stupidity. And boy, we have a lot of that, whether we like to admit it or not. The thing that I find most interesting to contemplate, if you will, is the path we will take in the coming centuries in order to grow.

Developing beyond all imaginable limits is supposed to be our main objective as a sentient, intelligent species, and doing so is not all that complicated. There are currently a lot of things weighing us down, but most of them can be cut loose, therefore opening the way for … for what?

I suppose that there are two main directions in which we can grow, and they both imply the mind, or the human brain, whatever you want to call it. One of these avenues of growth implies augmenting the functionality of our minds artificially, whereas the other implies expanding our consciousness and level of awareness to a whole new level.

If we look at this issue from a neuroscientific perspective, then it becomes obvious that we still have a lot to incorporate into ourselves. There are severe limitations our brains are subjected to at this point, but these boundaries exist simply because we haven't had enough practice at removing them. As we all well know, evolution acts on imperatives, and given that there aren't too many people who are even aware of these limitations, progress is bound to be slow.

Still, it will occur (we have to believe that, otherwise what's the point?). One example of such a boundary is our inability to plan for the long run. Our ancestors never needed to be able to see things in perspective for more than a year in advance, and so we're stuck with this at least for the foreseeable future. The neat part is that introducing training aimed at removing this limit in our societies can speed up evolution, if only by a small margin.

Our lack of planning skills is related to the “shortcuts” our brains take in processing sensory or other input data. I've covered this issue more extensively here and here, so check out these links (and preferably the books they review) if you want.

Chapter II

Still, these limitations can all be overcome, and we can learn to become even more intelligent beings. I tend to favor a future in which people unlock the full power of their minds. I am not necessarily talking about mystical properties or things of this sort, but rather about putting our full potential to the use.

There was something in Children of the Mind that really captured my attention, which was the concept of a philote. Card described it as a truly indivisible block of matter that belonged to any structure in the Universe, no matter how small. A proton may contain one, and an electron as well. These philotes act like strands, twining with each other as the structures they underlie become increasingly complex.

What this means is that philotes originating in an atomic nucleus would twine with those of electrons around it, and then with the philote strand of another atom. A multi-atomic molecule would naturally produce a stronger philotic twine, and so on. The total of philotic links produced by all atoms, molecules, tissues and organs in the body would be a thick strand that could twine with the planet's, or with other people's.

The interesting concept Card then introduces is that of an aiùa, an intelligent philote that can control the large philotic twine of an intelligent life form. Only complex philotes can become aiùas, since they need to be capable of remembering the “patterns” of philotic twining in any structure they control. Each person in his Universe had such an aiùa, as did all animals and plants. Rocks and inorganic materials, on the other hand, did not have aiùas, but were simply philotically twined with their surroundings.

What I find especially interesting about this way of looking at things is that it provides – perhaps intentionally? – an explanation for why people feel bound to each other. At the same time, if this were true in actuality, it could convince many people that the ancients were right to worship Gaia as Mother Nature, a conscious entity that governed all natural relationships and interactions on the planet.

But returning to individuals in Children of the Mind, what stands out immediately is the fact that two individuals' philotic strands can twine together. While this is not visible and in any way measurable by scientific instruments, it can be seen by observers located Outside of reality. While not prominently featured in the first three books of the series, philotic twining plays a central role in the fourth one.

Unconscious twining is proposed as an explanation for why people feel drawn to each other without any logical explanation. I suppose that, in a broader sense, one could equate an aiùa to the soul, even though the religious or spiritual components are missing. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the answer to so many of life's mysteries were so simple?

As it stands, it's very unlike that that is the case. But the idea does provide an interesting framework to think about the future. When I first thought about this, I instantly connected Card's perspective on things with Frank Herbert's idea of how humanity would look like 10,000 years from now.

Chapter III

In the Dune series, an apocalyptic war against thinking machines leads humanity to ban electronics completely, so as to avoid a similar occurrence in the future. This, in turn, leads to the formation of several groups of highly specialized individuals, who use their minds to fulfill a number of functions.

The Bene Gesserits learn to control and manipulate the inner chemistry of their bodies, just like some meditation practitioners can do even today. The Mentats learn to use their brains to handle information just like a computer would, compiling large amounts of data mentally, and then deriving first-through-fourth-order projections based on that information. Ultimately, Guild Navigators can bend spacetime with their minds, so as to make instantaneous space travel possible.

The human mind again plays an important role in the way our species handles itself in the distant future. But these authors take several things for granted, things that are now realities which seem immovable, and which are little-thought-of anyway. When I spoke about expanding our consciousness and level of awareness to a whole new level earlier, I was mostly referring to figuring out important aspects of our daily behavior, such as the fact that we are selfish and violent.

I don't meant these things in their classical, accepted sense. We all know that we are selfish, and some of us even boast it openly. What I'm talking about is realizing that there is a degree of selfishness even in the most seemingly-altruistic things we do, such as giving to the poor, or opening ourselves up to a good friend. In my opinion, being selfish in this manner is nothing to be ashamed of.

Rather, we should embrace who we are, as a species, even if that involves accepting some things that current societies frown upon. Reaching the ideals promoted by religion, of letting go of selfishness, is both impossible, and unlikely to happen even if we try. Indeed, Buddhists take a more balanced approach on things, teaching that we should try to be a part of the natural equilibrium.

Our violence is also built-in. I mean, look at us, creating family groups, hunter-gatherer groups, and later on cities, countries and entire societies just so that we can keep our natural, competitive and aggressive impulses in check as much as possible. Exerting this control is one of the primary anthropological imperatives for forming societies, and this should be accepted as fact and embraced. I'm not saying it's the only reason, but it's one of the most important ones.

Anything we do from now on, in terms of trying to better ourselves, should not try to work against these things that partially make us who we are, but rather embrace them and work with them. I do believe that this would make our jobs a lot easier for years to come. Granted, the process will be very long and extremely intense, and not even our grandchildren's grandchildren will live to see it completed. In fact, I doubt that we will ever reach our full mental development potential, and not because we're incapable of doing this, but because the potential itself is simply massive.

Still, the enormity of the work we have ahead of ourselves should in no way deter us from it. I do feel a certain degree of helplessness and frustration coming from societies around the world today. Though many call one people or another dumb and stupid, I believe wholeheartedly that people know or suspect, deep inside, that something is amiss in the way things are carried out today, in the way society is led, in the way we treat each other and ourselves and so on.

Chapter IV

I think that the thing – or aspect of ourselves – we need to fight most in order to unlock our potential of figuring out how we work is our innate, hardwired tendency not to change our minds once we've understood something, or accepted it as true. Examples of this abound, and include everything from a scientist not willing to let go of their theories because they've spent all their lives on it, to a religious fanatic who would never listen to any argument against what they believe, even if the argument makes sense, or is very logical and obvious to anyone else.

We've transformed the ability to shut out everything that does not agree with our ill- and fast-formed opinions to the rank of art, even if our (pre)conceptions are based on precisely the type of mental shortcuts and limitations I mentioned earlier. A huge portion of the certainty we feel when defending our beliefs against other's arguments comes from the fact that we are rarely aware when our brain has committed a mistake (which it does very often), or when it's keeping us from admitting it.

Indeed, the whole issue boils down to the amount of trust we have in ourselves, insofar at least as the mind goes. I'm not discussing the benefits of being a self-sufficient person that trusts itself, but look at the issue from a strictly mental perspective, if you will. When scientists talk about the benefits of applying the scientific method to our everyday lives, this is primarily what they mean.

The method is simple. Look at everything with just the right dose of skepticism, form your opinion on it based on the best available evidence, and continuously search for things that reinforce it in an objective manner. At the same time, remain open to arguments, facts and evidence that might disprove what you believe.

When all is said and done, the fact remains that every concept or idea we believe in has multiple aspects, facets and perspectives, and each individual can arrive at the same conclusion through a different path. For anyone to claim that their path is better, or the only true one (hint!), it means to advertise their own ignorance out in the open. This is especially true for spiritual things, which are by definition not organized, but which society tries to organize in order to control.

I think one of the most important things we need to achieve before we move forward is determining how we can trust ourselves without actually trusting ourselves. Questioning everything about your inner self is an overwhelmingly complex task that literally takes up a huge part of the brain's processing power. This is why even the most intelligent philosophers default to our species' “standard” ways from time to time, when the effort becomes unbearable.

Even if this is very difficult, it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that there is no other way forward. I once touched on this issue during a phone call with a dear friend of mine, telling her that everything life (or Nature, or God, or karma, or whatever you want to call it) sends our way has to be just a little bit difficult, in order to separate those who really wanted something from those who just think they did. I will not continue on this line of thought, since it can easily be misconstrued as New Age spirituality, and it was not in the context of our conversation.

I think there is also a certain dose of unfounded fear in the way we look at things, which is augmented by pressure from society, by mundane worries (that are no doubt important, but not that  important), by our own thought patterns, beliefs, our environment and so on. But one cannot expect to reach a higher level of understanding, or relating concepts, of understanding seemingly-unrelated phenomena, without stepping on a few “imaginary” toes (see above) and diverting attention from other mental processes that now keep you in a tight grip.

I am by no means advocating a life of being forever alone, detached from society, aloof, or whatever else. I am just saying that giving some of these thoughts at least a few minutes a day could do wonders.

Another thing that we need to become more aware of – and this time fight hard against – is the us/them distinction. This is a very broad concept, which is unconsciously generated by the mind whenever we enter a new group that shares the same hobbies, culture, religion, origin (such as our families and extended families), worldview, passions, views on economy and society, and everything else. It is also important to realize that we belong more to some groups than to others.

What this does is make us more attuned to individuals in the same group (it could be that this is one of the main sources of empathy), while at the same time making us more susceptible to display aggression, lack of trust and other non-desirable traits to people who are not a part of the group. This distinction underlies behaviors such as all possible types of discrimination.

When we gain the skill to catch our minds in the act of cataloging others as members of a different group, then we can stop it. As long as the process carries on being unconscious, the distinction will remain, as will all behaviors stemming from it.

Throughout the Ender's Game series, Orson Scott Card utilizes a very interesting distinction between groups, which he applies to intelligent species throughout the Universe, but which I think applies to humans as well. He catalogs sentient beings as either utlanning, framling, ramen, varelse or djur.

Utlannings is strangers that belong to our own species, and are part of the same culture. A stranger you meet on the street, but have never seen before, belongs to this category. A framling however, is also a member of the same species, but who belongs to different culture. When the first explorers discovered the Americas, they were framling to the Native Indians.

In the book, ramen are members of an alien intelligence who understand us, and may be willing to coexist with us peacefully, although they may choose not to. However, opportunities for communication exist, and may be taken advantage of. Varelse are sentient aliens with whom we can't communicate, or who refuse communication, and against which we are entitled to use violence. Djurs are creatures only interested in destruction, which would kill us whenever they had the chance.

I think that the us/them distinction is reflected clearly in the differences between utlanning and framling, as envisioned by Card. This is something I have to think about more in-depth, and will probably cover in the future.

Conclusion