Whispers of the Ghost Part 2: The neural Network, Net

The 'Neural Net' will be the platform of the future

Since 2009, I have seen and digested the entire Ghost In the Shell (GITS) offering; the 3 movies and the 40 odd episodes that make up the 2 series. Nothing has changed, one tattoo and one massive life transition later, I find myself wondering why so few people share my secret: almost everything around us, not just technology but society at large, can be extrapolated from this ‘animated essay’.

Here are a few of the essential concepts from GITS that I have used to know what the future (and the evolving present) holds:

1. The neural network - the Net

Neural pathways and the network of knowledge we create from birth to death are a mystery. We have yet to understand what consciousness is.

This does not prevent us from being able to model knowledge and create silicon based networks (graphene and plastic even) that mimic real life social interaction. My definition of a neural network is a self-aware and dynamic network of information and memory.

In GITS, the human mind is 90% cyberized. If you find this disturbing, consider the extent to which your essential brain functions are either used up by or being ‘transmitted’ onto a computer based platform. The knowledge worker responds to a digital terminal for the majority of his/her work. He adds to this digital repository and derives his/her livelihood from it. We communicate, therefore we live. The machine we hold in our hands or nest in our laps is eventually going to make its way directly in our brains; it is only logical that this be so.

In this transition lies an important variable: the Interface (an area I intend to cover in a separate document). The touch screen, the keyboard, the voice app are all interfaces. They feel highly personalized but are not yet virtual. We still touch, feel and grope our devices.

The interface of the future will reside in our senses and be hard-wired onto our brain. It will not just be intuitive, it will be part of the actual thought process.   

Whatever neural networks currently exist, they will migrate to the Net. We will all be connected, all the time. Its an exciting possibility not merely because of what it offers, but what it gets rid of: barriers to knowledge. The only barriers that will exist are those enforced by regulation and judicial power. Unlike today, the flow of knowledge will not (I hope) be controlled by physical and proprietary tools.

As is made clear in the premise of GITS, this neural network, of a global connected Net, will eventually (in a moment of artistic license with sound logic) create an altogether evolved form of intelligence. At the time of its creation, the Singularity theory had not created as many waves. Given its theoretical and highly abstract real life computing application, I prefer to follow the model argued by Roger Penrose (in ‘The Emperor’s new mind’); AI cannot emerge from algorithmic environments. The Net of the future will only become self-aware to the extent that an individual (community, tribe) is able to live, think and operate within an entirely virtual domain. This would still need input from the rest of the network, and its ability to think and act ‘conscious’ is still a transposed ability, not a unique creation. It is the only area that my view differs with that of Shirow (and Koestler).

In essence, the neural network in GITS is the existence of a Net that uses human knowledge and direct input from users in real time. It is not directly related to current neural network theories, yet it can be a very close proxy for what they hope to achieve.

I once wrote that the time was nigh for us to be able to ‘Google each other’s brains’. The Net would be just that. And more. Whatever emergent phenomena it spawns will be our next ‘leap’.

(to be continued...)

Whispers of the Ghost

Symbol of the 'Individual Eleven' 

Whispers of the Ghost

The concepts behind my greatest inspiration

Almost everything I have learnt about future technologies, I have learnt from the Japanese. Specifically, from one Japanese artist (philosopher) named Masumune Shirow.  

As an expose of art used to give life to a philosophical concept, the world of ‘Ghost in the Shell’ (GITS) is, for me (and possibly my generation), unparalleled in its technological significance.

I was 22 when I first saw ‘Ghost in the Shell’ the 1996 classic. I was in university and the setting was perfect; we thought in Ideals, we oriented ourselves towards the future, made ripe with knowledge and eager for immediate application. I was blown away, inspired, rewired. It would be one of the few permanent imprints on my mind. All else has faded, been rethought and changed; the power of that animation resonates perpetually. The memory of what I have learnt from it tugs and pokes at my senses.

The movie (derived from the Manga) itself was inspired by a white paper titled ‘The ghost in the machine’ by Arthur Koestler. A philosophical work that addresses the Cartesian duality paradigm by rejecting its premise. Shirow adopts this thinking, and in the treatment of this structuralist essay creates a world where art meet deep insight.

I ended up working in general management which I feel was one of my biggest mistakes. In 2009, at the age of 30, I tried to make amends and started my own design firm. On that occasion, the setting was far from perfect; family, friends, economics and international wars made the process almost impossible. The inner push to attempt this was, in no small part, inspired by GITS and the possibilities of working, creating and living ‘futuristically’.

The idea behind my org chart was derived by GITS: an open source firm, specializing in finding the right ‘designer’ for the client, looking to build creative products. No restrictions of scale and scope, the name says it all (inspired by the studio behind the original movie): Intense Designs Creative Committee. I wanted to create a Committee of creative folk, each member responsible for one medium. My dream was to one day operate a ‘tool shed’; a conceptual model of delivering design solutions for almost any project. A ‘hub and spoke’ model organization where the craft is realized by tapping into freelancers and virtual teams.

Everyone was to be connected yet no one was to be restricted. All workflows would converge at the ‘Cloud’;  there the work was accumulated and centralized for archiving. The Cloud was a conceptual tool, aimed at providing the back-end needed to make design a reality. It was both an infrastructure and a thought process. Even as I write these words, I find it difficult to explain the essence. Suffice to say, it was modeled around the ‘Stand Alone Complex’. An independent entity that operates within the global network, meshing with it but retaining its own identity.

It was to be the team of the future. Or, if you live in the future like I do, the team for today. I believe it to have been one of the most significant endeavors of my life, and brings me today to pen an introduction to the ‘origin’ of my motivation.  

(to be continued...)

The destructive power of Art

Sartre was an intellect with a violent message

Art destroys. It is a force of such strife and internal conflict that the artist, moved to express him or herself on canvas or on paper, is often a disturbed individual.

Which does not mean that there are no artists who are at peace with themselves; I have always wondered if this peace was in itself a source of inspiration for them or a delusion of the self.

I grew up fascinated by the lunacy of Van Gogh. His misery is apparent. Sometimes they place him next to works inspired by him, and the dissonance is obvious.

All great works of art are either commissioned for cultural space, making them not art in its purest form, or they are made under the duress of angst. In art galleries, where art is collected and pinned up, there is a tendency to categorize and objectify art. A masking occurs at this moment. People gather there, in a collective form of appreciation which, at the surface, seems to be a very positive thing.

The art gallery is a construct. It is not the natural way for art to be shared. I would even go as far as to question if art need be shared universally. It is as if all the exotic beasts are collected from all over the fauna and are placed under the same roof. There is something revolting about the process. I feel at odds with the people who I share the experience with. Their lack of understanding makes me angry and makes me want to tear at the very fabric of expression that is being exposed.

Art is destructive; it is destructive because it is deconstruction in the first instance, the instance when it is undergoing creation. In the instances of time that follow, the artist has in fact destroyed himself; the more complete his art the more complete his destruction. He wants not to be of this world anymore. He wants release that, perhaps, he should have sought in death. Yet a clean death is beyond him.

Art destroys me bit by bit, tearing at soul by being. It reminds me that I am, still, naked. Decades after having come out of my mother’s womb, I am still without clothes that really cover me. I want to be the artist, I want to be in the Art itself; yet I cannot.

The line between deconstruction and destruction is so fine that I have never really wanted to dwell on it.

The Nazis wanted to reconstruct by deconstruction, destruction being the ultimate result. It is an expose of the innate misery of man that he, when given the power to do so, he aims to deconstruct and reconstruct relentlessly. All he ends up achieving is massive destruction, often with millions giving up their lives for the purpose. The aim of starting from the root is an aim, quite clearly, of the artist made man of power (because he is rich, or idolized, or talked about). His suggested point of departure is the rhizome, a cellular structure which explodes with a mass and leads to cancer.

The monk who sets himself on fire is also an artist. His work is seen by being unseen instantly. He wipes himself off the face of the canvas, without trace, yet he leaves his mark. He has destroyed his being yet he has deconstructed rather than destroyed the ideal. This is the Art that is to be admired. It gives no sense of longing, does not incite escapism. It does not make me wish for a better world for myself. The world of Monet or the words of Shakespeare only remind me that there will never be a reality for me that can compare to the realities they created.

I came across Sartre, that philosophical terrorist, very early in my life. His was a militant work; I would say a violent body of thought.

Violence is a way of life, perhaps the only way for life to continue on (do we not tear apart our mother’s wombs? Would we not suckle out all of their life juices, blind and newly born, if we needed to?).

A person who experiences such vehement outrage at his own being that being alive amongst people causes him nausea; this person is the ultimate intellect of terror. His only source of peace is the acceptance of life without rooted meaning in life itself. His is an Art that denounces existence at any higher level and wants to ensure that life’s every instance is to be taken into account, our every pain to be considered; that is not life. 

Life is an abstract concept. It has no real meaning at the individual level, it is given meaning only temporarily, and a poor sense of meaning that is. While humanity pretends to give voice to ‘life’, this is a useless and powerless voice; having no bearing on the abject lack of happiness of my life. So Sartre (and many others) used their art to destroy the fictional fiber that connects humans with a more illusory sense of life. 

By making the man, the woman, responsible for feeling life, they destroyed (and with the same violence as the Mongol horde) what was once the fantastical life of the collective.

Art destroys when truly appreciated; it gives false hope and escape to the naked eye.