From: douzzer@media.mit.edu (daniel)
Subject: fusion
Organization: mit media lab, learning and common sense group
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:11:29 GMT


here's a paper i wrote for marvin minsky's class here at the 'tute. (i
work for him now.)

enjoy.


( Copyright (C) 1992 Daniel Pouzzner. Feel free to use in whole or in
  part, with proper attribution. )

\documentstyle{report}
\title{Group Consciousness}
\author{Dan Pouzzner}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{tabbing}
aaagfdfgaa\= aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa\= aaaaaaaaaa\=  \kill
\>Group Consciousness\\
\>By Dan Pouzzner\> for 6.868J\> Society of Mind\\
\end{tabbing}

Humans have lived in a social environment for far longer than history
has been recorded. The primary instrument of this way of life has been
language, an ability apparently unique to humans in its flexibility
and necessity. Language, at its finest, serves to bring the listener's
state of mind into consonance with that of the speaker. At its worst,
language is used as a weapon to harm the listener, or force him to
harm others. Usually, though, language is a fact of life that assures
that humans know what those around them are going to do.  As an
internal tool, language lets humans organize their thoughts into
structures far too complicated to be perceived as a whole without some
sort of symbolic scaffolding. Thus, language lets us make plans.\\

The aspect of language most relevant to the following discussion,
however, is its use as a tool for communication. In this capacity,
language has widely varying levels of performance. Usually language
will be used as a tool for manipulation, for consultation, or for
bringing people closer together ({\it closer} meaning, I suppose, more
similar). But language has its limits in these respects. This essay
will explore the possibilities arising from the ability to directly
communicate one's state of mind to others.\\

There are various candidates for implementing a direct mental
``fusion.'' It is possible that the brain has an innate primitive
ability to communicate without words. This mechanism would surely have
lost its predominance once language was invented, since language has
the ability to be quite specific, whereas it seems reasonable to
assume that any innate non-sensory communication would offer only a
vague idea of the emotional state of others.\footnote {This is in the
tradition of Isaac Asimov's Second Foundationers or Gaians.} Thus,
though this would often be a useful ability, it is somewhat
unsatisfying. To truly develop a {\it human} consciousness greater
than the individual, whole thoughts must be somehow relayed.\\

One method of achieving this ability would be a device that would
somehow scan the electrical state of the axons in the Corpus
Callosum.\footnote {This would hopefully not include any surgery.}
Since this body of nerve fibers is ``standard hardware'' in all human
brains, it is possible that the signals it carries might have meaning
in the context of another human's brain, with the assistance of a
translation mechanism. Moreover, since it is a demonstrated fact that
the illusion of fused consciousness is profoundly disrupted by the
severing of the Corpus, it seems that it does indeed carry significant
information probably sufficient to give a detailed description of the
mental state.\\

A computer interface would be used to map the axonic arrangement of
one individual's Corpus to that of the other. This mapping could most
efficiently be determined by extensively conditioning a neural net on
each individual to be fused.\footnote{ The conditioning might consist
of a carefully composed hyperfilm viewed in some sort of ``virtual
reality-ish'' system. Preferably, all the normal sensory cues would be
available, including smell. When the hyperfilm showed a picture of
Hitler, it would be expected to evoke certain feelings in the
individual. The assumption would be that whatever configuration is
witnessed in the Corpus Callosum, it corresponds to the context-free
representation one could consciously enumerate for an image of Hitler.
This conditioning is a non-trivial task, obviously.} Thus, a mental
interlinguum would be developed. A properly conditioned net could
translate the context-dependent configuration of a real human brain's
Corpus Callosum to a context-independent representation whose
vocabulary would expand as more individuals conditioned more nets for
translation. In actual use, an input configuration not obviously
available (within pre-determined error margins) in the context-free
vocabulary would give rise to a combinatorial inter-representation
that would last only as long as that time frame.\\

Thus, two primary devices are necessary: the first would produce an
ultra-high-resolution scan of the electromagnetic state of the axons
in the Corpus. It would sample these at a minimum frequency of 2Khz,
sufficient to satisfy the Nyquist constraint for neurons that never
fire faster than 1Khz. A second type of device, or perhaps the same
one that scans the state, would be used to assert the state to one
level or another on the other individual's Corpus.  The one obvious
detail is how one interleaves the scanning cycle with the assertion
cycle. This will require experimentation, but I would guess the right
approach is to use an assertional amplitude small enough to leave some
of the pre-assertion state intact. Thus, the scanning cycle would be
able to subtract the effect of the assertion cycle (using a model of
the axon's behavior) and extract the configuration of that specific
individual for processing. This makes the system conceptually like a
Moore-type FSM: the extracted state of the Corpus will rely only on
the state of that individual's brain, and not on his state and on the
state asserted in the most recent assertion cycle. Only assertion
cycles preceding the most recent one can have any effect on the
extracted state.\\

Each fused individual would have a scanner and an asserter positioned
wherever physics says they need to be. These devices would all be
connected through the host translating computer. This done, the two
individuals would very nearly fuse their consciousness. Whether this
would allow a higher level of thought to be achieved or simply allow
one person to truly understand another one is an important question,
but it does seem obvious that this is a powerful idea.\\

The scenario thus far described somewhat implies that there are only
two individuals. The consequences seem fairly clear. But the effect of
linking more than two might be more complicated. The required
computing power would increase geometrically. I assume there would be
little more real danger of damage to the brains of the participants
than there is with a one-on-one fusing.\\

So what does this fusing ability offer us? Would it let people only
share the ideas that they already have in common, or would it be
possible to relay new ideas? How complex could these ideas be? How
long a training period would be necessary for the computer to derive a
mapping for the Corpus of each individual? Would it be possible to
``remember'' things in another person's past as though they were your
own memories? Would it be possible to have conflicting memories? How
could the computer interface be used to resolve such deadlocks?\\

Well, those are a lot of questions. Surely there are many more. Since
the brain is so poorly understood at present, most of the answers to
those questions must wait for experimental data or a theory that
specifically accounts for mental phenomena. \underline {Society of
Mind} touches on many topics relevant to mind-fusing, but is not,
perhaps, specific enough about the physical nature of the knowledge
representations it posits. A theory complete enough to predict the
results of connecting the mental states of more than one individual
would be complete indeed.\\

In the larger society of, for example, a group of ten fused
individuals (who thus truly lose their individuality), should each
brain be though of as an agent and the whole of all ten brains be
though of as a mind? Or do the brains still maintain separate minds
that simply interact with a sort of hyper-language? It is my hope that
reality will turn out to be a combination of the two. In the ideal
situation, each individual would have transparent access to the
memories of all the other individuals.\\

If one individual had a visceral repulsion (demonstrated by emotional
state, which might direct the others to the memories of this
individual at the root of the repulsion) to a given idea, this
repulsion would spread in muted fashion to the others. If one of them
had a strong conviction about something, this too would spread, as
would his reasons for the conviction. Viewed in this way, it really
does seem that the effect of the fusion is to produce a greater mind,
with greater resources, than any individual could ever fit into one
brain.\\

What happens if one of them falls asleep? He immediately becomes
susceptible to a dangerous sympathetic reaction to the thoughts of the
others. It can be assumed that the combined force of thought of the
nine others would override the free-wheeling mental exploration of
normal dreaming. Thus the dreaming would be directed by the conscious
thoughts of the others. This is worrisome. It is, perhaps, more
interesting to consider what would happen if the nine others were
careful to quell their own thought and listen to the thoughts of the
dreamer. That would be quite an experience.\\

What if they were all asleep? Would they dream one amazing dream,
mixing the egos and ids of each individual? That seems the obvious
solution. But, since the purpose of dreams is (by some
interpretations) the resolution of internal conflicts, this massively
intricate dream would surely not suit any of the individuals with any
precision. Thus, it might cause them damage. My suggestion is that the
host computer disconnect any individual who is not completely
conscious.\\

What, indeed, would be the effect of cerebral stimulation on a person
who has been rendered unconscious artificially (by drugs, a blow to
the head, or whatever)? He would clearly contribute nothing to the
thoughts of others, but could the thoughts of others affect his brain?
I am afraid I really have no idea, since my knowledge of the mind does
not extend to this unconscious state. It is a curious proposition,
though. A world in which anyone thus rendered unconscious could be
indoctrinated in any way desired would be dangerous indeed. Such a
method of brainwashing would be of intense interest to any
``security'' organization. Indeed, most of the ideas I have presented
in this essay probably intrigue the NSA and the CIA to a virtually
unparalleled degree. If these ideas are ever realized, the world will
be a more dangerous place.\\

One of the subsidiary possibilities of cerebral scanning is the
ability to record part of the mental state on permanent media. This
recording could be replayed at any time to anyone to recreate an
event. This method of virtual reality would be without equal. Indeed,
it was explored in the movie \underline {Brainstorm} with reasonable
success (in my opinion...). The best method of recreating the original
event in another's mind might involve a combination of cerebral
stimulation and actual visual/aural playback, but this area surely
requires extensive experimentation.\\

I have presented many ideas in this essay, and probably raised more
questions than I have addressed (note that I did not say {\it
answered.}). I sincerely hope the technology to implement this concept
is developed as soon as possible, in spite of the dangers. It is a
less dangerous panacea-nemesis technology than either nanotechnology
or genetic engineering. I think it could have a truly profound impact
on human existence.  \end{document}



postscript: minsky and harrison have recently published a book, "the
turing option," that explores the possiblity of cybernetic synergy
between a computer and a mind interfacing at the axon level. if you
found this paper interesting, the book is worth a look. (it is a work
of fiction, set somewhat pessimistically in the year 2018 or so.)

feel compelled to comment on the ideas in this paper!

-daniel pouzzner, neural cowboy
From: Donald.Pattee@iphase.infoserv.com (Donald Pattee)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.infoserv.com