The Limits of Symbolic Intelligence
Symbolic intelligence as it appears in humans only evolves in humans. There is evidence of kinds of symbolic intelligence in other species, but no other species on the planet exhibits symbolic intelligence in the way humans do.
Since the rise of scientific method in the 17th century humans have progressively come more and more to trust symbolic intelligence in its scientific mode, precisely because of the success it has progressively demonstrated. This success began with the objective structure and behaviour of nature, and the scientific investigation of that still continues. But then it also moved on into the understanding of what this symbolic intelligence in humans itself, then created. And that, too, continues. The whole structure of the human-made world is built on symbolic intelligence, and has, over time, progressively reflected more and more of what symbolic intelligence does in its scientific/rational mode.
A symbol is a compression. It compresses the whole field of possibility into one thing. A thing that immediately, if you understand the symbol, represents what it stands for. But for that, first, you have to understand the symbol.
What it actually stands for, doesn't necessarily have to be something that has a specific meaning. The letter "A" for example, is a symbol, but it doesn't, in itself, have any specific meaning. It might have done once, perhaps, but not any more. However, when we put it into the context of other symbols, other letters, to make a word, for example, or into the context of other words, the combined relation of the symbols can have specific meaning. Or even meaning that is not very specific. The words themselves are symbols. And the sentences that they may construct, are symbols.
The way symbols are created is not necessarily something that can be extracted from the symbol itself. And just as the meanings of words may change, the meaning embodied in symbols can change.
But symbols do not create themselves. They are created through intelligence. And that's what's symbolic intelligence is. It is intelligence that works with symbols. Where the symbols are condensations of a field of possibility, that may be combined, whose meaning depends on connection and contact with other symbols, and whose meaning may change.
So there is a whole field of possibility that can become condensed into a more limited field of symbols. And for a symbol to be a symbol, for it to act as a representation of anything, it has to have a certain stability to begin with. It's no good if it is ephemeral. And yet at the same time, what it means is not really inherent only in itself as an object. The meaning it stands for is inherent in the field of possibilities from which it has been condensed, or the field of possibilities that it now represents. And that may not necessarily be the same field of possibilities from which it was originally condensed.
So what symbolic intelligence begins with, is a field of possibilities. And then the constant churning of symbolic intelligence is constantly condensing into symbols, or reducing the field into condensations, and turning out new fields of possibilities from that churning. And this is an ongoing evolution. So that now, if you look at what modern symbolic intelligence is doing with its thinking about, say, AI and quantum computing, it is a very, very long way removed from where symbolic intelligence started.
What was the field of possibility that symbolic intelligence started in?
50,000 years ago, the evidence shows, symbolic intelligence was rife in human beings. But it wasn't then, what it is now. Because of that churning. And it probably started to evolve in humans a couple of hundred thousand years before that. So what was its ground, what was the field of possibility that it started in? The ground that it still has, but which, when is his court in the momentum of thinking about, say, AI and quantum computing, it has all that forgotten about.
What was the field of possibility that symbolic intelligence started in? Before it started the churning process of condensation, and a reproduction of more symbols, and more churning, and more condensation?
What was the field of possibility that symbolic intelligence started in?
It was the field of possibility already embodied in all the species. The possibility of conscious phenomenology.
Human symbolic intelligence as it emerged, was the beginning of the condensation of that possibility, in a way that only humans would do. Only in humans would the whole field of possibility built on the principle of competition for survival, become condensed into a condensation of the consciousness of self of the kind that only exists in humans.
And that's why the evolution of symbolic intelligence in humans is synonymous with the evolution of human self-concept. Which, coupled with the evolution of human language, and the capacity for human storytelling, became the human narrative self. With its attendant idea of "who I am".
And this is not a modern invention of symbolic intelligence, coupled to the age of science. It was already in human symbolic intelligence before the rise of science in the 17th century. And it is still there now. Behind every scientific thought.
It is phenomenology itself, that is its ground. And no amount of the churning of symbols and their condensation into new fields of symbols, and the phenomenological experience of that as "understanding", is the same thing as truly understanding the ground of phenomenology. A true understanding of phenomenology requires phenomenology, not symbolic thought. What it requires, is the conscious passing through of phenomenology.
But we humans are already in this condition. We are already in the condition of symbolic intelligence. We already have symbolic language. We are already immersed in symbolic communication. So for us, symbolic communication is necessary. And the understanding of structure through symbolic intelligence in a disciplined way, the discipline that science uses, has benefits.
So we need both. We need symbols, and symbolic intelligence. But we also need to know how to pass through our own organic phenomenology, consciously. And stop trying to understand it only by representing it, and understanding it, symbolically. We can indeed represent our phenomenology symbolically. But we have to connect that representation to phenomenology itself, and still pass through the phenomenology, consciously, in phenomenology itself.
Because symbolic intelligence in humans is a decoherence, a condensation, of phenomenology itself. And when you symbolically reproduce an image of that, a further condensation and reproduction of it, artificially, in AI, even when you turn up the power, it is devoid of the phenomenology. Only humans can consciously pass through evolutionary, organic phenomenology, because only humans have it, to begin with.
Symbolic intelligence in humans is a tremendous instrument for human creativity, but it's not going anywhere except into more and more of itself and the products of its own churning. And in itself, unchecked, into more and more distancing of itself from the possibility field inherent in the ground of its own phenomenology.
And that, essentially, is the characteristic of modern symbolic intelligence. Its own evolution of itself, through itself, distances itself more and more from its original ground of phenomenology. The phenomenology itself becomes scaffolded and conducted through the symbolic structure of the intelligence. Which, itself, has no understanding of itself, or of the ground of phenomenology from which it springs.
Since the rise of scientific method in the 17th century humans have progressively come more and more to trust symbolic intelligence in its scientific mode, precisely because of the success it has progressively demonstrated. This success began with the objective structure and behaviour of nature, and the scientific investigation of that still continues. But then it also moved on into the understanding of what this symbolic intelligence in humans itself, then created. And that, too, continues. The whole structure of the human-made world is built on symbolic intelligence, and has, over time, progressively reflected more and more of what symbolic intelligence does in its scientific/rational mode.
A symbol is a compression. It compresses the whole field of possibility into one thing. A thing that immediately, if you understand the symbol, represents what it stands for. But for that, first, you have to understand the symbol.
What it actually stands for, doesn't necessarily have to be something that has a specific meaning. The letter "A" for example, is a symbol, but it doesn't, in itself, have any specific meaning. It might have done once, perhaps, but not any more. However, when we put it into the context of other symbols, other letters, to make a word, for example, or into the context of other words, the combined relation of the symbols can have specific meaning. Or even meaning that is not very specific. The words themselves are symbols. And the sentences that they may construct, are symbols.
The way symbols are created is not necessarily something that can be extracted from the symbol itself. And just as the meanings of words may change, the meaning embodied in symbols can change.
But symbols do not create themselves. They are created through intelligence. And that's what's symbolic intelligence is. It is intelligence that works with symbols. Where the symbols are condensations of a field of possibility, that may be combined, whose meaning depends on connection and contact with other symbols, and whose meaning may change.
So there is a whole field of possibility that can become condensed into a more limited field of symbols. And for a symbol to be a symbol, for it to act as a representation of anything, it has to have a certain stability to begin with. It's no good if it is ephemeral. And yet at the same time, what it means is not really inherent only in itself as an object. The meaning it stands for is inherent in the field of possibilities from which it has been condensed, or the field of possibilities that it now represents. And that may not necessarily be the same field of possibilities from which it was originally condensed.
So what symbolic intelligence begins with, is a field of possibilities. And then the constant churning of symbolic intelligence is constantly condensing into symbols, or reducing the field into condensations, and turning out new fields of possibilities from that churning. And this is an ongoing evolution. So that now, if you look at what modern symbolic intelligence is doing with its thinking about, say, AI and quantum computing, it is a very, very long way removed from where symbolic intelligence started.
What was the field of possibility that symbolic intelligence started in?
50,000 years ago, the evidence shows, symbolic intelligence was rife in human beings. But it wasn't then, what it is now. Because of that churning. And it probably started to evolve in humans a couple of hundred thousand years before that. So what was its ground, what was the field of possibility that it started in? The ground that it still has, but which, when is his court in the momentum of thinking about, say, AI and quantum computing, it has all that forgotten about.
What was the field of possibility that symbolic intelligence started in? Before it started the churning process of condensation, and a reproduction of more symbols, and more churning, and more condensation?
What was the field of possibility that symbolic intelligence started in?
It was the field of possibility already embodied in all the species. The possibility of conscious phenomenology.
Human symbolic intelligence as it emerged, was the beginning of the condensation of that possibility, in a way that only humans would do. Only in humans would the whole field of possibility built on the principle of competition for survival, become condensed into a condensation of the consciousness of self of the kind that only exists in humans.
And that's why the evolution of symbolic intelligence in humans is synonymous with the evolution of human self-concept. Which, coupled with the evolution of human language, and the capacity for human storytelling, became the human narrative self. With its attendant idea of "who I am".
And this is not a modern invention of symbolic intelligence, coupled to the age of science. It was already in human symbolic intelligence before the rise of science in the 17th century. And it is still there now. Behind every scientific thought.
It is phenomenology itself, that is its ground. And no amount of the churning of symbols and their condensation into new fields of symbols, and the phenomenological experience of that as "understanding", is the same thing as truly understanding the ground of phenomenology. A true understanding of phenomenology requires phenomenology, not symbolic thought. What it requires, is the conscious passing through of phenomenology.
But we humans are already in this condition. We are already in the condition of symbolic intelligence. We already have symbolic language. We are already immersed in symbolic communication. So for us, symbolic communication is necessary. And the understanding of structure through symbolic intelligence in a disciplined way, the discipline that science uses, has benefits.
So we need both. We need symbols, and symbolic intelligence. But we also need to know how to pass through our own organic phenomenology, consciously. And stop trying to understand it only by representing it, and understanding it, symbolically. We can indeed represent our phenomenology symbolically. But we have to connect that representation to phenomenology itself, and still pass through the phenomenology, consciously, in phenomenology itself.
Because symbolic intelligence in humans is a decoherence, a condensation, of phenomenology itself. And when you symbolically reproduce an image of that, a further condensation and reproduction of it, artificially, in AI, even when you turn up the power, it is devoid of the phenomenology. Only humans can consciously pass through evolutionary, organic phenomenology, because only humans have it, to begin with.
Symbolic intelligence in humans is a tremendous instrument for human creativity, but it's not going anywhere except into more and more of itself and the products of its own churning. And in itself, unchecked, into more and more distancing of itself from the possibility field inherent in the ground of its own phenomenology.
And that, essentially, is the characteristic of modern symbolic intelligence. Its own evolution of itself, through itself, distances itself more and more from its original ground of phenomenology. The phenomenology itself becomes scaffolded and conducted through the symbolic structure of the intelligence. Which, itself, has no understanding of itself, or of the ground of phenomenology from which it springs.