Project Proposal Draft II

Project Proposal Draft II

Seaman and Rossler’s neosentience, as described in {ref}, is a promising new area of research into both the nature of consciousness and the ability to create its homologue within a system.  My contribution to this project seeks to incorporate evolutionary forces into their program to increase an eventual neosentient system’s robustness and complexity.  Additionally and relatedly, I’d like to discuss the possibility of a neopsychological or neosociological perspective on these systems and incorporate these perspectives into the theory.

Evolution as the Qualities of persistence

I’d like to advance a novel perspective on the mechanism of evolution, natural selection, as the peculiar nature of certain persistent systems.  This perspective will yeild insights into and place specific demands upon neosentient systems design.

Neosentient systems as iterative

Following the perspective on persistence advanced above, I’ll argue that neosentient systems design must be iterative and will require large amounts of time to manifest/evolve.

Darwinian hierarchies

Following Gould, I’ll analyse particular components of neosentient systems that are candidates for Darwinian individuality.  Additionally, I’ll examine the necessary role of ‘bookeeper’ (e.g. the homolog to the gene).  Gould’s rejection of the ‘selfish gene’ paradigm will be reiterated and emphasized as unsuitable for neosentience.

Neopsychological and Neosociological: Interrelatedness

Following Collins and others, I’d like to assert & defend the psycho-social perspective as it relates to neosentience research.

Individuality within Sociality
Neosentient systems will have to develop individualities.  This, I will argue, will be co-emergent with a nascent neosentient society.

Stepping into the Neosentient stream: a new self-organizing system

In summary, I’ll advance a vision of neosentince deeply embeded into time.  The system and its design will be construed as the setting in motion of a system of entropic maintenance and shunting.  These characteristics it will share with the beginning of life on eath and the development of human sentience and intelligence.  Finally, I’ll advance but not support the assertion that the temporal, evolutionary paradigm of neosentient systems design is the only method that has the capability of producing such a system.



Autistic neosentience

I was thinking today about some of the characteristics of neosentient systems.  Would these systems be similar to other systems we are familiar with?

If the systems were entrained upon each other, we would have to be able to empathize with them to perceive their sentience.  This is the science-fiction trope of cloudlike or otherwise difficult to perceive sentient organisms (networks of sentience trees, etc).  Similarly, we could design neosentient systems to be observable by us, but the remote possibility exists that such systems already exist, unperceived by us.  This observeation is inteneded to expand our understanding of the forms that neosentience might take.

Moving on to the topic at hand, though, I grew interested in neosentient ‘pathologies’.  Autism is an interesting example of a human ‘pathology’ which has no pathogen (since the vaccine claims have been retracted), but is rather structural.  Autistic humans become more entrained upon non-humans than upon humans to the point where empathy is meager or non-existent.  (There is a course a spectrum of inter-human entrainment that yields a variety of personalities and behaviors. See also Randall Collins’ interaction ritual chains.  My connection of his work to psychology may be new, I can’t recall.)  A peculiar feature of severe autism seems to be the lack of social identity.  And our perception of sentience requires a social component as the object of empathy.  Stories of miraculous computational feats performed by autistic humans both serve as an observable confirmation of their sentience/intelligence(right words here?) and evidence of their deep entrainment upon the ahuman patterns they experience (e.g. dates, times, numbers, colors, images, sounds).

I suppose the upshot of these observations is that neosentient systems may very well have structural ‘pathologies’ that limit or prohibit our interacting with them or even perceiving their sentience.  Additionally, a neosentient archetype may be capable of multiple states, including pathological ones, depending on the circumstances under which it operates.