© Tom Lombardo, Ph.D.
Center for Future Consciousness
The Wisdom Page
(First published in Journal of Futures Studies, December, 2012 – used with permission)
In this essay I critically examine two influential evolutionary visions of the cosmos—
those of Eric Chaisson and Ray Kurzweil—focusing on their explanations of
consciousness within their evolutionary theoretical frameworks, and how they
conceptualize the significance of consciousness within their respective views of the
coming “technological singularity” (Vinge, 1993). My central argument is that a
scientifically and philosophically credible understanding of the “technologically
singularity” requires a satisfactory explanation of how consciousness fits into a cosmic
evolutionary scheme. In examining both Chaisson and Kurzweil’s ideas I conclude that
neither Chaisson nor Kurzweil provides a satisfactory account of consciousness, and
consequently neither one provides a scientific and philosophically satisfactory
understanding of the “technological singularity.” (I should note that this year Kurzweil
(2012) is publishing a new book—How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought
Revealed—that, given its title, is obviously relevant to this essay. I though, have not
been able to access or consider the arguments in his new book prior to completing this
essay.)
Beginning with Eric Chaisson, I first encountered his writings back in the 1980s reading
his book Cosmic Dawn (1981). The theory of evolutionary epochs within the universal
saga of cosmic evolution—a central fixture in his scientific thinking up to the present—
was clearly prominent in this early work. Years later, I discovered his excellent Cosmic
Evolution website (organized in terms of his theory of evolutionary epochs) which I have
since regularly included as a primary reading resource for students on presentations I
have given on the theory of cosmic evolution. Further, I have highly recommended to
both colleagues and students alike his book The Life Era (1987), which contains an
excellent intellectual history of thinking on time and change, as well as a thoughtprovoking
formulation of a global ethics within a scientific and evolutionary framework.
Finally, his book Epic of Evolution (2005)—a highly condensed version to be found in
his article “Cosmic Evolution” (2009)—is, in my opinion, one of the most
comprehensive, profound, and integrative statements on the universality of cosmic
evolution. All told, I have been repeatedly enlightened, informed, and inspired by the
breadth and depth of Chaisson’s scientific knowledge and thinking on cosmic evolution.
In his article “A Singular Universe of Many Singularities,” Chaisson (2012) summarizes
his theory of cosmic evolution that, as I see it, attempts to philosophically synthesize the
ontological principles of unity and plurality. On one hand, as a unifying principle, the
evolution of complexity from quarks to technological civilizations can be described and
understood in terms of ever-increasing “energy rate densities.” Complex structures,
conceived as open systems, require a flow of energy through them to maintain
2
themselves and further evolve; the greater the complexity, the greater the energetic flow
through them per unit of matter. In essence, all systems in nature have self-sustaining
metabolisms, and evolution is the ongoing emergence of more energetically dense
metabolisms. This simple idea, illustrated with countless examples throughout many of
Chaisson’s writings, is a powerful and thought provoking scientific synthesis that cuts
across all levels of physical nature.
On the pluralistic side of things, within Chaisson’s cosmology each successive
evolutionary epoch, from the particulate, to the galactic, solar, planetary, chemical,
biological, and cultural-technological, is described as a relatively unique stage and
configuration of constituents in the qualitative make-up of the universe. On this point,
Chaisson is not alone, for many others, such as Gell-Mann (1994), Kauffman (2008),
Kurzweil (2005), and Morowitz (2002), have argued for a series of qualitatively
emergent stages in cosmic evolution. I should note that although Chaisson identifies
these evolutionary epochs and levels of reality as distinctive, but he also at times
describes them as just matters of degree. For example, he argues that the transition
from non-life and the chemical epoch to life and the biological epoch—which appears to
be a qualitatively emergent jump—is mostly a matter of degree. As he puts it, the
transitions between epochal levels are filled with “shades of gray.”
Within this epochal cosmological framework Chaisson argues that the predicted
“technological singularity,” whereby technologies surpass biological brains in
intelligence and complexity, is but one singularity among many within the unfolding and
open-ended history of the cosmos. For Chaisson, the “technological singularity” is
simply the beginning of a new (relatively distinct) epoch—one that still follows the
general evolutionary principle of increasing “energy rate density.” And since Chaisson
sees evolution and the future as open with possibilities (a mixture of determinism and
randomness), the anticipated emergence of transhuman AI should not be seen as an
ultimate climax within the evolutionary saga. Evolution will go on; more singularities will
come.
Though I clearly resonate in many ways with Chaisson’s theory of cosmological
evolution and his “epochal” framework for delineating its stages, I wish to raise a puzzle
with the whole scheme—a puzzle that applies just as much to evolutionary theories of
the singularity that raise it to some unique and momentous event within the history of
the universe, as well as to Chaisson’s view which treats it as but one of “many
singularities.” The puzzle is how to fit “consciousness” into such cosmological
visions?
A few years ago I listened to a very well-known science writer argue that physics,
through the development of string theory, was approaching a “theory of everything.”
Indeed, physicists have been promising this grand theoretical achievement for decades,
if not centuries, at least since the time of Isaac Newton (Lombardo, 2006). I asked him
how consciousness could be explained in terms of string theory. Whatever the
presumed “theory of everything,” if such a theory rested just the physical sciences, it’s
hard to see how one can derive consciousness from such a ontological framework. How
can physical matter generate consciousness? The answer he gave me, which involved
3
considerations of the observational dependency nature of quantum effects (Gell-Mann,
1994), was very disappointing; in fact, it appeared to me to be an out-and-out failure to
even understand the puzzle. His paradigm seemed blind to the perplexity (Kuhn, 1962).
One could argue that at each new epoch in evolution, qualitatively new phenomena
emerge that are unpredictable from the previous stage of evolution (Fraser, 1978;
Kauffman, 2008); the universe—the saga of evolution—is indeed filled with (as
Whitehead said) the “creative advance of novelty.” Chaisson (2005), as noted above,
agrees that the future is, at the cutting edge of evolution, unpredictable, since evolution
brings with it an ongoing synthesis of determinism and randomness. Yet, when we
come to consciousness, it seems that we enter into a different type of issue. It appears
to make intuitive sense within a scientific and evolutionary framework, that as matter
and informational systems have become increasingly more complex, consciousness
emerged somewhere along the way in this process—perhaps with the emergence of
sufficiently complex brains (Damasio, 2010). But consciousness seems to be a different
kind of qualitative jump than life emerging out of chemistry or stars emerging out of
clouds of atoms. The latter are jumps in physical qualities and complexity and
commensurate; matter and life generating consciousness is incommensurable.
Though I am not a dualist, for consciousness does not seem to be a second substance
(besides physical matter) (Lombardo, 2011), or a supernaturalist, believing that
consciousness is some rarefied form of energy or transcendent spirit, I have yet to see
anyone, past or present, explain satisfactorily how consciousness (that is experience or
awareness) emerges out of a complex physical system of matter and energy
(Blackmore, 2004). This ontological—in fact, scientific—puzzle is what David Chalmers
(1996) refers to as the “hard problem” of consciousness. Though science has made
great strides in understanding the phenomenological and psychological make-up and
the physiological underpinnings and correlates of conscious states (Baars, 1997;
Damasio, 1999, 2010; Koch, 2007), we still have no sense of how an electro-chemical
process (for example, in the brain) yields a feeling of sadness, or how a conscious
intention moves a muscle.
One could argue that consciousness is simply the subjective interiority of matter or the
brain; it is what the brain feels like from the inside. This is the dual-aspect theory
(Lombardo, 2011). But why does the brain feel like anything at all? Why is there a “light”
inside? And more to the point, what is this amazing light? Being conscious (at the very
least) is to be aware—to know—to be situated in an experiential field of revelation of
existence. How can matter possess (or yield) such a quality, either from the inside, or in
sufficiently complex interactions with the outside world?
To be fair, Chaisson does discuss the emergence of consciousness, at least in his Epic
of Evolution, and though he details and highlights the evolution of nervous systems and
brains, his specific treatment of consciousness per se is sketchy and vague (2005, pp.
419-421), and he definitely does not address the “hard problem” within his evolutionary
framework.
4
To further complicate the conundrum of consciousness within the physical world, on the
epistemological end of things, though it clearly seems to be the case that
consciousness is always physically anchored and embodied (there are no
disembodied minds), and though the realization of conscious minds probably requires
certain fundamental physical conditions within the cosmos and a certain level of
complexity of in brain-body biological systems (contra panpsychism), it is also true that
the entire panoramic manifestation of the physical world, both is experienced and
understood within the context of conscious minds. We may argue that consciousness
arises from matter and energy, but it is equally true, that matter and energy (the
physical world in all of its entirety) are experienced, conceptualized, and understood
through consciousness (Lombardo, 2011). How can one phenomenon derive out of
another phenomenon, if the latter phenomenon, in some deep sense, derives its
meaning from the former? Mind may seem to depend on matter, but matter equally
seems to depend on conscious minds.
Of course, most of us assume that there is an independently existing physical world that
transcends the experiences and theories of conscious minds, that the cosmos existed
way before the emergence of conscious minds, and that the vast and deep expanse of
the universe goes way beyond the present grasp and limited perspective of the human
mind. Contra Bishop Berkeley, most of us are not idealists, including myself; it does not
seem plausible that consciousness creates (in its entirety) the physical universe.
But, in fact, it is the last point above that further reinforces the dilemma of how to fit
consciousness into the big picture of things. The human mind experiences a highly
selective differentiation and integration of reality. Though Chaisson argues that science
strives for objectivity (a term that, notably, goes undefined), attempting to minimize or
rid scientific knowledge of individual subjective biases, the fact is that the scientific
community as a whole experiences and understands the physical world in the highly
selective framework of human consciousness (that is a collective subjectivity). As
Chaisson (2005), indeed, acknowledges in the conclusion of Epic of Evolution, “cosmic
evolution is a human invention.” It is probably the best theoretical invention we have,
and we may be getting at the truth—at objectivity, whatever exactly that may mean—but
it is still a conscious creation, albeit a thoughtful one supported by a great deal of
observational evidence. In fact, the idea of objectivity, and attempts to maximize it, is a
creation of thoughtful human consciousness.
Hence, we have a theory, created by conscious human minds, that postulates an
independently existing and evolving physical universe that gives rise to the conscious
minds that created the theory. We seem to be in an ontological loop. As I have
suggested, perhaps the physical world and conscious minds, in some deep sense, form
a reciprocity—but this would change our whole way of looking at the evolution of the
physical universe and conscious minds (Lombardo, 2011).
Let us now turn to Kurweil’s (1999, 2005) evolutionary vision. Kurzweil proposes that
cosmic evolution involves increasing informational complexity and processing speed,
instantiated within increasingly complex physical systems. Further, evolving complexity
feeds back on itself, generating an exponentially increasing rate of evolution—
5
Kurzweil’s “Law of Accelerative Returns”. Hence, evolution (or the rate of evolution) is
evolving. Finally, the emergence of the technological singularity will constitute a new
level of exponential growth; things will move forward even faster. Just as with Chaisson,
I have found Kurzweil’s ideas highly thought provoking, and have incorporated his views
into many of my presentations and writings, especially on the future of technology and
the further evolution of the human mind (Lombardo, 2009).
As one central spokesperson of the “singularity” hypothesis, Kurzweil believes that as
information technologies approach and eventually surpass humans in intelligence, they
will increasingly appear to us as possessing consciousness. For Kurzweil, transhuman
AI will indeed be conscious—even at a higher level than humans. Yet Kurzweil does
acknowledge, much more so than Chaisson, the puzzle of consciousness in the grand
scheme of things. For example, Kurzweil is well aware that there are critics that
question how any kind machine could be conscious, regardless of how much memory,
informational content, and processing speed it possesses. Further, he also discusses at
length the intriguing possibility—a technological feat presumably achievable with the
realization of the technological singularity—that human conscious minds and personal
identities could be downloaded into sufficiently complex computers (or robots) whereby
the machine would then “wake-up” possessing the personalized consciousness and
subjectivity of the human.
Again, critics question whether it is possible to “move” a person’s consciousness and
experienced personal identity from his or her biological body into a new body—one that
in fact is made up out of silicon or other inorganic ingredients. Would the conscious “I”
of the old body wake up in the new one? Addressing his critics, Kurzweil does believe
that we will eventually accomplish this feat. (See the science fiction of Charles Stross
(2005) and Robert Sawyer (2005, 2009) for some interesting speculative scenarios on
the technological singularity and the downloading of conscious minds.)
Adopting a formalistic definition of mind, whereby a mind (and indeed a person) is
nothing but the integrated and unique pattern of information stored in a brain, Kurzweil
contends that the downloaded conscious person would, in fact, experience his or her
self as the same self as before. This follows since the conscious mind, for Kurzweil, is
the informational form of the body/brain and that form, in all of its complexity and
uniqueness (if technologically it can be done), has been downloaded and recreated in
the new technological body.
Although there are many critics of the technological or ontological credibility of this
“downloading self, mind, and consciousness” futurist hypothesis, I would counter those
critics on the grounds that they cannot convincingly argue that the computer/robotic
body wouldn’t realize consciousness since no one has presented a scientifically
convincing explanation of how a biological brain and body produces consciousness.
(This is the “hard problem.”) You can’t say something is technologically impossible if
you don’t know how it’s done in nature in the first place.
But contra Kurzweil, consciousness does not seem reducible to form or informational
structure. There is a qualitative dimension—an existential reality—to experience that
6
transcends form and information content. There is the raw fact of subjective awareness.
Consciousness indeed does have informational structure, as also does the world of
matter and energy, but this informational structure or form is manifested or revealed
within consciousness, just as it is manifested within the physical world. Form cannot
hang suspended without a medium.
On the epistemological problem of consciousness and the world, Kurzweil (2005, p.
380) does acknowledge that the physical world (as we understand it) does in some
deep sense depend on consciousness. To quote Kurzweil, “...if we truly imagine a world
in which there is no subjective experience (a world in which there is swirling stuff but no
conscious entity to experience it), that world may as well not exist.” Hence, how can the
evolutionary physical framework that the singularity rests upon (at least as Kurzweil and
Chaisson understand it) hold itself up without consciousness?
Moreover, Kurzweil does puzzle over the issue of personal identity and individualized
consciousness, which presumably our downloaded conscious minds would possess.
Again, to quote him (2005, p.381), “...the mystery of why I am this particular person is
what I really wonder about.” (What is the “I” that asks this question?) The puzzle of the
“I” and the unique conscious panorama within which this “I” lives—the puzzle of the self
that both is conscious and within consciousness (Baars, 1997; Damasio, 2010)—simply
adds to the mystery of how to fit consciousness into our scientific and evolutionary
schemes. Consciousness, as far as I can determine, seems uniquely personalized;
contrary to the mystics, de-personalized and non-subjective consciousness is
impossible.
Finally, there is the causal efficacy problem of consciousness. What does
consciousness do? Whenever and however it arose in evolution, how does it contribute
to the successful functioning of intelligent life forms? When I observe the manifested
intelligence of other human beings, or of myself, it clearly appears, at least in part, to be
realized through consciousness. Clearly, I can see consciousness at work in my mind
and others—impacting behavior and external events—when we think, when we
observe, and when we feel. One could argue that intelligence can be completely
described in terms of brain functioning, and that consciousness, indeed, may be just an
epiphenomenon, but such a view does not make evolutionary or phenomenological
sense. Why would it exist? Is it nothing but a colossal evolutionary “spandrel”?
Hence, since advocates of the technological singularity and transhuman AI all seem to
believe that the superior intellects to come will be conscious, and I believe, correctly so,
since consciousness is essential to the level of intelligence that humans (and probably
other higher life forms) possess, they need a good theory of the unique value and
significance of consciousness—of what it is, how it works, and its place within the
physical cosmos—and on all these counts I do not see satisfactory explanations.
The realization of the “technological singularity”—of conscious technological systems
possessing minds that vastly exceed us in intelligence—is going to present (contra
Chaisson) certain unique, if not unprecedented problems that as of yet are not
understood within our contemporary scientific and philosophical mindset. Though I
7
agree with Chaisson and Kurzweil that the technological singularity is coming, and that
it is a further expression of the general evolutionary directionality of the cosmos, our
most encompassing scientific frameworks of understanding of the universe, such as that
articulated by Chaisson or Kurzweil, fail to satisfactorily incorporate the meaning and
significance of consciousness. Such visions present “existence” as an independent
reality without acknowledgement of the conscious mind that frames and interprets this
vision, and cannot account for the how, what, and why of consciousness as it has arisen
within the physical universe.
As some would argue, as conscious beings we may be incapable of understanding our
very essence—the famous “mysterianism” hypothesis of Colin McGinn (Blackmore,
2004). Maybe it will require a transcendent intelligence—the intelligence envisioned
within the technological singularity—that will be able to stand back from consciousness
and gain the necessary perspective to answer the questions of consciousness (Bear,
1990). But such a machine would have to be conscious in the first place.
Consciousness: Perhaps we do not need to understand the reality of consciousness in
order to transcend (or envelop) the human manifestation of it. Perhaps in the symbiotic
coupling with our present machines (which do not appear conscious at all) we will be
able to create conscious machines that exceed our mental horizons. I think not, though,
since knowledge is power, and without knowledge we are whistling in the dark.
Further, we should also ponder with much greater philosophical depth what it would
mean to further evolve consciousness. It is not as simple as developing faster, more
complex thinking and more memory (Lombardo, 2009). If we are going to transcend, let
us thoughtfully, with wisdom and ethics, transcend. Though Chaisson presents a very
brief treatment of the emergence of consciousness in his cosmological vision, he does
(1987, 2005), highlight the importance of ethical evolution as one key dimension in our
further mental evolution. Given that we can eventually get our heads around the deep,
cosmological significance of consciousness, we must ask what it would mean to
generate a higher level of consciousness, in both ethics and personal character, in the
coupling of the biological and the technological, which is one of the great hopes and
fears connected with the coming technological singularity (Lombardo and Blackwood,
2011).
What would it mean for the human mind to evolve in the future? What would it mean for
an individual human, during their own life, to show improvement or growth in their own
personal consciousness and mental make-up? Both these questions are big and
complex, but it seems to me that there will be some overlap in the answers we provide.
A higher level of consciousness, say in a Transhuman, is not simply greater
memory or faster, more efficient thinking, but the ethical advancement of
character of the person as well. What values and virtues should we aspire toward and
better realize in our thinking and behavior as we move up either the evolutionary ladder
or within our own personal development? And further, how do we achieve this?
Moreover, since we are “natural born cyborgs”—biological and social beings that
functionally integrate with our technologies—and since the trend toward increasing
8
technological augmentation seems bound to continue, we should guide our
technological improvements toward ethical ends through ethical means.
In conclusion as I have suggested, we should work toward the ideal of “wise cyborgs.”
A wise cyborg is a person who utilizes technologies to facilitate the pursuit and exercise
of wisdom. It seems to me that if one were to identify an overall ideal direction for the
evolution of consciousness and the human mind, it would be the pursuit and further
development of wisdom. Wisdom synthesizes head, heart, and hand; i.e. it integrates
the intellect, ethics, and action. What we should hope is that instead of simply passing
through a technological singularity, we should first and foremost move into, both
collectively and individually, an “Age of Wisdom,” and then we will be ready for the
singularity.
When I wrote this article my main goal was to question whether the theory of the
technological singularity could adequately address the issue of consciousness and/or
conscious intelligence. I did not write it with the direct intent to propose practical
implications for living one's life. But in so far as I believe that wisdom as a guiding
principle needs to be integrated into our evolving use and interdependency with
technology, then it follows that we must understand what wisdom is and how it applies
to our lives - if we are going to interface with technology in a wise way.
Please see my various articles on the nature and value of wisdom and its application on
my website and in my books: www.centerforfutureconsciousness.com
References
Baars, Bernard. (1997). In the Theatre of Consciousness: The Workplace of the Mind.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Bear, Greg. (1990). Queen of Angels. New York: Warner Books.
Blackmore, Susan. (2004). Consciousness: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Chaisson, Eric. (1981). Cosmic Dawn. New York: Berkley.
Chaisson, Eric. (1987). The Life Era: Cosmic Selection and Conscious Evolution.
Lincoln, Nebraska: iUniverse.
Chaisson, Eric. (2005). Epic of Evolution: Seven Ages of the Cosmos. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Chaisson, Eric. (2009). “Cosmic evolution: State of the science.” In Dick, Steven J. and
Lupisella, Mark L. (Ed.) Cosmos and Culture: Cultural Evolution in a Cosmic
Context. Washington, D.C.: NASA.
Chaisson, Eric. (2012). “A singular universe of many singularities: Cultural evolution in a
cosmic context.” In Eden, Amnon, Soraker, Johnny, Moor, Jim, and Steinhart,
Eric (Ed.) The Singularity Hypothesis: A Scientific and Philosophical Assessment.
Berlin: The Frontiers Collection, Springer.
Chaisson, Eric. Cosmic Evolution. Retrieved Oct. 1, 2012, from
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html.
9
Chalmers, David. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Damasio, Antonio. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the
Making of Consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Damasio, Antonio. (2010). Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. New
York: Random House.
Fraser, J.T. (1978). Time as Conflict. Basel and Stuttgart: Birkhauser Verlag.
Gell-Mann, Murray. (1994). The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and
the Complex. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Kauffman, Stuart. (2008). Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason,
and Religion. New York: Basic Books.
Koch, Christof. (2007). The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurobiological Approach.
Englewood, CO: Roberts and Company.
Kuhn, Thomas. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Kurzweil, Ray. (1999). The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human
Intelligence. New York: Penguin Books.
Kurzweil, Ray. (2005). The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New
York: Viking Press.
Kurzweil, Ray. (2012). How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed.
New York: Viking Press.
Lombardo, Thomas. (2006). The Evolution of Future Consciousness: The Nature and
Historical Development of the Human Capacity to Think about the Future.
Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse.
Lombardo, Thomas. (2009). “The future evolution of the ecology of mind” World Future
Review, 1 (1), 39-56.
Lombardo, Thomas. (2011). “The Ecological Cosmology of Consciousness.” In Thomas
Lombardo, Wisdom, Consciousness, and the Future. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris.
Lombardo, Thomas (2011) “Wisdom in the 21st Century: A Theory of Psycho-Social
Development” World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues, Vol. 15, No. 1, Spring,
pp. 132-157.
Lombardo, Thomas and Blackwood, Ray Todd. (2011). “Educating the wise cyborg of
the future.” In Thomas Lombardo, Wisdom, Consciousness, and the Future.
Bloomington, IN: Xlibris.
Morowitz, Harold. (2002). The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became
Complex. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sawyer, Robert. (2005). Mindscan. New York: Tom Doherty Associates.
Sawyer, Robert. (2009). WWW: Wake. New York: Ace.
Stross, Charles. (2005). Accelerando. New York: Ace Books.
Vinge, Vernor. (1993). “The coming technological singularity: How to survive in the posthuman
era.” Retrieved Oct. 1, 2012, from http://wwwrohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html.