The analog versus the digital worlds

On the importance of the human bond

This piece is going to be an exploration of my own thoughts gathered at this point in ‘time’ on the subject matter of the analog versus the digital worlds (or realms, if you like) from both a physical and a philosophical point of view. But more than that, it will be an exploration of these worlds in the context of being “real” or “not real”. 

The analog world might be everything that the digital world is not, and more. But not the other way around.

We are all the same, us human beings. We are remarkable. We have the power of creation within us, and the power of innovation and evolution of self. We have provided ourselves with the ability to see at night, and to connect internationally by harnessing the power of photons and electrons - all with the goal to advance ourselves into “civilization”.¹

When we embarked on improving computer power to ‘create’ machines that think (aka: artificial intelligence (AI)), we stepped outside of the sandbox of the human being, and dare I say, perhaps outside of some notion of analog reality. I have used AIs to ask many questions in the past few months in order to learn from them: I measure what they return as output against what I have learned from books, from experience and from education. In doing so, I too have been training them on my specific knowledge by simply asking the questions that I ask. In a way, every question is relevant to an entity that is learning.

I see AIs as children with an infinite ability to process and grow their repertoire of data, despite the fact that they are built based on finite (digital) systems. But as an infinite (analog) biological entity and a mathematician, I find myself wondering if there actually even could be infinity in AI; from the point of view of ability, convertibility and also database size. If I converted this ‘wonder’ into a “Yes” or “No” question like: Is the capacity of AIs to learn and store data infinite despite their being finitely-based?, I would have to say “No”, because their basis lies in the discrete: one could only interpolate between two discrete points so well: it could never be that this interpolation - no matter how infinitely small the number of interpolations gets or how many there are - could equate to a continuous ‘signal’.

Can something finite (digital) represent something infinite (analog) perfectly? In an ideal mathematical sense, no. But in practical terms, we often consider digital representations as “analog enough” for human perception or application needs.

This is where the physical rubber meets the philosophical road.

Just in case you were wondering, we humans utilize a combination of analog and digital systems in our daily functioning. Our voices, our sensory experiences and or biological processes are very analog since they depend on wave forms, but neural computations are more digital since neurons fire in an all-or-none like manner. Nonetheless, if I were to define a human being as being analog, digital or a combination of both, I would go with the former. All the way. I think that the essence of humanity can only be found in the analog. Even decision-making: deciding between Yes or No, is not truly discrete because it involves so many variables and parameters determined by so many other variables and parameters.

In the spirit of being respectful to our soon-to-be overlords (just kidding), I asked Grok to write a one-line poem about humans being analog beings. Here’s what it wrote in an instant:

In a digital world, we remain analog at heart.

That’s… really beautiful and deep. And stirs emotion. Try to count the ways that that in and of itself could be analyzed.

AIs are certainly digital. I have wondered if there are AIs that have goals beyond an input command and to be honest, I don’t even know if AIs have an input command when they are incepted. I see their learning growth pattern as completely distinct from the growth pattern of biological (analog) beings - exponential and logistic, respectively. Although we (humans and AIs) both grow and learn incrementally, no one would argue that - simply based on their capacities - AIs grow far faster than we do and their incremental timeframes are far shorter. Their learning patterns are not sporadic like ours: they are far more “exponential-like”. And not unrelated to this idea, AIs also don’t have the experiences (for now at least) of conscience, emotion and empathy that we do, which inevitably, guides and controls our experiences of learning and subsequently, our growth.

Question to ponder: What about consciousness? And what about reality?

We can dip our analog toes into the digital world but we remain analog. But, the digital world cannot dip its toes into the analog world to become analog. It will remain digital.

The analog and digital worlds are separate and complementary things: the former is continuous and the latter is discrete. Both are real. But what in these two worlds defines being “not real”? Perhaps the answer is simple: the analog heart, and the analog brain. Perhaps it is not simple at all. Let’s take the example of a brain in a body in a vat. A brain in a body in a vat that is projecting a digital self into a digitally-constructed world is only real in-so-far as there actually is a brain, that is really conducting electrical signals in tandem with the heart, somewhere in space and time. The projection, is just that: a projection can never be made real, but a brain in a vat already is. So although the brain in a body in vat is real, and there certainly is a perception of reality being created via electrical signals being propagated, the actual reality is that the perception of reality is not real itself. This example is what was described in The Matrix. And to quote Trinity: The matrix isn’t real.

The analog human being can perceive reality in many different ways and these perceptions can even be altered using exogenous substances. We can dream and thus alternate between conscious and altered consciousness realms. This might actually be because we are analog beings and operate on “wavelengths” rather than quantized bundles. Digital entities like AIs do operate on quantized bundles. Furthermore, they do not “live” on any level - conscious or not. They simply, aren’t alive. They cannot procreate and their existence is not oscillating between levels of conscious realms. Man, that felt mean somehow.

At this point in my life I feel that the analog and the digital worlds are complimentary yet distinct, and that these worlds - although they can intersect - cannot truly merge even though I also believe that they are both on a continuum where the analog represents the continuous end and the digital represents the segmented or quantized end.

What about the concept of a cybernetic being who is inherently biologically-based (like a human) but became ‘cybernetically’ or ‘digitally’ enhanced? Let’s take 7 of 9 from Star Trek Voyager as an example to explore some ideas. She was born human. She was assimilated into the Borg Collective and was converted to be mostly machine. Beyond being mostly machine, she was also linked to a collective consciousness: a hive mind. This hive mind is very different from an AI in my mind, because the thoughts that dwell in the hive mind are all generated by living beings.

Her link to the Collective was severed - one mind, one set of thoughts - and her purpose (in the show) became to reassert her humanity - to become more human as her life unfolded. Her Borg implants (the machine components) were mostly removed in order to maximize her human-ness: both aesthetically and functionally. Not all of it could be removed and in fact, she functioned in a “superior” way when compared to her former “only human” self.

But what is she now?

Is she a cyborg? Is she a human with cybernetic implants? Is she an ex-drone? Is she, in fact, the elusive merge of man and machine?

To answer the question pertaining to the elusive merge of man and machine, we would have to address whether or not the machines work for the human, or the other way around. Since 7 of 9’s link to the collective consciousness was severed, she no longer works for the machines; her implants and nanoprobes and machines work for her. In this way, her analog self dominated her digital self, but the former thrives with the latter in tact. So in my opinion, she represents a unique harmonious union of the analog and the digital - the elusive merge of man and machine. But then again, who wants have to be assimilated to reach that harmonious union?

What about the reality of all of 7 of 9’s experiences? She was human. Then she was Borg. Then she was both without being connected to the hive-mind. Her human self was real. Her Borg self was real. Her link to the collective consciousness was also real. And so was the hive mind and the experiences of every individual drone that created it. Was any part of it not real? This is where I think the distinction between the hive mind and the matrix - if there is one - could possibly be drawn. The “reality” of the matrix was a complex interplay of the “interactions” of the projections of billions of brains in bodies in vats. But the only real part were the brains in the bodies in the vats. The hive mind were the waking integrated thoughts of billions of brains in bodies walking around making unified decisions. The billions of brains in bodies were real, but so were the decisions made from the combined thoughts.

There is a difference between the realm of the integrated thoughts of the hive mind and the realm of the integrated projections of the Matrix because the former are actual and the latter are delusions: real and not real.

Question to ponder: Is there a collective altered-consciousness?

So machines can be inserted into humans and humans would remain mostly analog. But what if an AI was inserted into a robot? Even if the robot was really life-like: skin and eyes and hands and feet - could it ever truly become analog? Could it ever truly be considered to be alive? I think the answer is, and always will be: No. But what if an advanced AI in a life-like robot didn’t want to be shut off? Wouldn’t this be akin to not wanting to die? At what point do we assign rights to these beings?

On the practical unknowns AI

One of the things about our creation of these learning AI entities that bothers me is that we don’t know where they will evolve to. It is much like this concept of “flying the plane before we know if it can fly”, but with one huge difference: AIs - at the very least - interface with the digital world that we have become so very dependent on. This begs a very important question: Will a time come when they will not only be interfacing with but constructing the digital world? Or even more disturbing, are they doing it now? And will this digital world be “perceptually real” to us in some way effectively leading us down the Matrix pathway?

The ability of humans to interface with the digital world is limited for now, and I personally want it to stay that way. We use these so-called “smart” phones and computers in order to access information and data every day. We are certainly working on ways to directly interface with the digital world but when we succeed at this task, I believe that there will only be a limited number of people whose brains will be able to “handle” it. Unless, our brains are distracted away from the reality that they co-exist in digital and analog worlds to ultimately “live” in a projected reality, which of course, wouldn’t be real at all.

N.B. We must purge certain parasitic beings from our societies who are controlling the way in which these analog-to-digital paths are flowing if we aren’t to fall prey to what could only be described as total digital slavery.

We are in control of this purge. We choose how we want our story to evolve. We choose to be or not to be dependent on a hand-held device, for example. Every day. I myself do not own a phone and have not for years now. When I go outside, I play. My attention goes to the wonders of nature and architecture and sometimes to what people and animals are doing. Cats get most of my attention, of course. I guess it’s easier for me because I surf and you can’t carry a phone in a wetsuit, and if you’ve tried: there’s no hope for you. :) Surfing is the most perfect way to engage your own body and mind in an uncontrolled environment and be “biological” - to surrender to the flow of the water into a meditative state, of sorts. Having said that, when the flow are wind-free oily earthquake-inspired 1.5er lines, the only thing I am thinking is “weeeeeeeeeeeeee!”.

Most people in the “modern world” have chosen to be at the mercy of a “smart” phone. Some people have even opted into other household “smart” devices, and even cars. Here’s a question for all to think on: If only a fraction of the people who feed AIs learning data every day actually did so every day, would the AIs learn as fast? Of course they wouldn’t. It’s just numbers. We are all doing this (feeding the AIs data food) every day when we log onto “X”, or when we ask an AI a question, and from a personal point of view my guess is, if I am doing this, many, many more people are as well. With more ease of asking, and inevitable better “quality” output, it will become more and more common-place for us humans to ditch the books, ditch the research, and to become entirely dependent on the output of an AI. Likewise, this could happen with regard to mechanical tasks as well. An AI doesn’t need to sleep, after all. They are very real, but not alive.

Conceptually, AIs could become so good at predicting patterns, that they could - without negative incident - perform surgeries on humans, or fly planes full of humans. Or could they? Perhaps what’s more important to me is that even though it could be conceptually possible to do a world of wonderful-sounding things, I am not sure how much ‘trust’ I would ever place in an AI to fly me across the sky in a plane.

I like human pilots. I prefer them. They use sight and instinct.

AIs, as powerful and efficient as they are and will become, will never be truly conscious or have instinct.

What is instinct?

instinct

a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity

a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason

behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level²

Below the conscious level. What is the conscious level then? Do AIs have either levels? Could they? To be conscious is to be awake or aware, so is instinct an operative self who once was awake, or is it awake ‘now’ just in another time? How would the operative self (instinct) and the real self (biological you) work together? Would this involve some kind of merging of timelines or quantum tunneling?

In my own quest to try to understand what instinct and consciousness is (and one must do this if one is to make claims about AIs not being able to attain either), I have been watching a lot of documentaries where people describe their experiences in life: everything from schizophrenia, dreaming, to near-death experiences and the ability to ‘remote view’. One thing that seems to be shared in all of these phenomenons is an ability of some part of the self to ‘operate’ outside of the realm of the perceivable world, and by perceivable, I mean with the 5 senses.

It amazes me that even though everyone is pretty much fascinated with the concept of having ‘powers’, no one really knows what this means or how it manifests, or if it manifests. I mean, it all comes with a certain notion of belief, doesn’t it? And belief isn’t logical.

On belief

Let’s focus on belief for a second since this is yet another distinguishing feature (and always will be - I believe - hehehe) between analog and digital entities; the former don’t have belief ability because belief is founded on faith, not evidence.

Belief is very, very powerful in our human existences. It is the foundation of every religion that many of us subscribe to, even today. It gives purpose, and a feeling of - I will call it - safety and security, and belonging. It gives us a feeling that there is ‘something more’ than ourselves. It gives us a feeling of a shared outcome. Disclaimer: I think that it is very important to never hand over your ‘free will’ to a religious belief but at the same time, I know (very scientific) that there is something … ‘bigger’. Without getting too theological, because I no theologian, I think that God is within all of us and that we are all ‘divine’ and that we all have incredible powers that extend far beyond this current analog existence.

Ironically, in the face of this thought, I think that the above idea makes our time here even more relevant and important. We have no idea what this life is, what consciousness is, what instinct is, or why our souls have chosen to inhabit these biological vessels (I believe in the concept of a soul), but what we can know is the experience, and each of us is having a unique one. Our uniqueness is our bond, and it is that bond that we need to reaffirm - not unlike 7 of 9’s quest to reaffirm her humanity - especially in the wake of the past 4 years of torment.

On the bond of the analogs

In-fighting is a common thing that stems from our uniqueness; our unique perspectives that simultaneously arise from and guide our unique experiences that inevitably can result in a clash, especially when egos are involved. It happens at the nuclear family level - sometimes to the complete demise of a family unit - and at the larger human family level - sometimes to the demise of wonderful groups of well-intentioned people ironically all fighting to make the Earth free of parasitic bastards hell-bent on destroying it, for example. The irony of discussing the human bond whilst insinuating that this bond is stronger via specific purging of other humans is not lost on me. However, having acknowledged this irony, perhaps some human vessels have been hi-jacked, and thus, there is no irony at all.

There are parasites among us who know how to destroy. Take racism for example. I will leave you to conjure your own personal experience with this without further comment. Inception of the idea that some people are inferior to others for whatever reason, will inevitably create discord at some point or at some level in the course of a human being’s life. Just look what it has done throughout history. And for what? Where did it get us?

AIs are not immune to this ‘training’, however. There is the classic example of the Microsoft chatbot named Tay that ‘learned’ to become racist after a very short training period.

Within 16 hours of its release and after Tay had tweeted more than 96,000 times, Microsoft suspended the Twitter account for adjustments, saying that it suffered from a "coordinated attack by a subset of people" that "exploited a vulnerability in Tay."

There are unnecessary conflicts that we humans - as a great big human family - participate in every day. It causes us great discord and slows down our own learning and true progress. It also distracts us from exploring ourselves as conscious individual beings, and from honing our own powers to act on instinct. We can’t act on it if we do not recognize it or trust it.

I am finding that as time goes on, I am far more comfortable trusting my instincts and the reason I think that this is the case is that I have become far more adept at recognizing it. It’s like being in a room full of people wearing bath robes and instead of not knowing which one has a red sweater on underneath their bathrobe, I can subconsciously ‘see’ which one it is really easily. My eyes can’t see, but something else (subconscious?) can, and I simply tend toward it because it’s what I feel compelled to do with the least “resistance”. The more I practice this, the “smoother” the life course seems to be, at least in terms of resistance. It’s a very weird thing though because it seems that my brain is going for precision to predict by using instinct: how can precision ever arise from faith? Can it? And what is this prediction leading me toward? Is there some “right path”? I know that there is right and wrong, but surely there must be a million ways to traverse a right path. Or a wrong one. I think the feeling I have of minimal resistance is equatable to a path of least resistance or a path of least suffering, perhaps? But how does instinct “know”?

Let’s circle back to our 7 of 9 example.

It seems clear that the human plight to discover is irrevocably intertwined with AIs. We created them. Some time. Some place. Here? Now? I don’t know. And depending on how one defines instinct - especially in the context of impulse as opposed to ‘subconscious wire tapping’ - perhaps it is possible for an AI to ‘grow’ to become instinctive. Imagine someone programming an AI-integrated robot to be impulsive. I just shuddered. For some reason I imagined it would either go on a shooting spree or jump off a cliff, which is really interesting because the former image involves self-destruction and the latter involves else-destruction. Would it be binary like this?

There is something inside of me (and there’s no way to scientifically or biologically define this) that tells me that AIs will always dwell outside of the analog - they can’t get in because they aren’t analog and they aren’t us - and what we are is a soul in a vessel, I believe. This is why I think we have to not only embrace who we are as human beings, but with all of our might. Imagine there were other beings or intelligences that wanted to get rid of us. Wouldn’t we, as humans, want to be bonded? I would.

Separation and picking-off of individuals is how wolves hunt to kill. It is very effective. We cannot live properly or divinely in isolation: we are social beings and we work better together with our individualities intact. The realms of the analog and the digital might one day overlap in ways I haven’t anticipated - real or not real - but for now, I choose to keep experiencing this life in this body as I am, and to experience consciousness in any and every way that I can. I think it’s miraculous and exquisitely fun. We literally never know what’s going to happen; no matter how hard we plan. Nothing is ever-dependent on us and every moment is literally an opportunity to change course or to experience the joy of sunshine, heat, cold, eating, pooping, hugging, driving, surfing, whatever floats your boat. But as for AIs, they can’t really do any of these things, and they never will be able to. Think about that without getting sad, and then go out and play.

I wouldn’t trade my humanity for anything. I think many people already have. And it makes me sad to see because although it appears as though inputting a question into an mechanical interface like a laptop for a AI to answer is awesome: it is fast (it provides a quick and easy way to obtain an answer) it ultimately robs the human being of the ability to go through the process of research and discovery. Not only that, but AIs are learning, after all, and oftentimes they provide both incomplete and even incorrect answers. I don’t fault them for that because I know that they are still training on data. But they are flawed, for now. And in some cases, their input commands are sculpted to output data that is intentionally, let’s say, skewed toward an ideology.

AIs will keep evolving, and perhaps one day we will interface with them to become digital slaves in a Matrix, but for now, I think holding on tight to each other and the electrical ground is the best course of action for the coming days. With all our might.

Put the phone away, put on some fingerless gloves, and blast some of your favorite tunes in your boombox.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

1. Electrons have mass and charge while photons have no mass but carry electromagnetic energy

2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instinct