“Every innovation is an act of subversion.”
-Max Borders (2018)
“We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.”
-John Culkin (1967)
Singularity, in all its lucidity, represents that point in space-time/history wherein human knowledge systems fail to capture and comprehend a part/whole of reality or actual worlds. The ontology of singularity that we are interested in has more to deal with its immanence on socio-technological levels, calling forth a future wherein artificial intelligence systems surpass the levels of human intelligence and sense-making. It shall bring forth an epistemic rupture wherein as Murray Shanahan notes, “the very understanding of what it means to be human—to be an individual, to be alive, to be conscious, to be part of the social order—all this would be thrown into question, not by detached philosophical reflection, but through force of circumstances, real and present.” Alongside dealing with the facet of social singularity in the near-future; our paper shall explore the classical Vedantic concept of Brahman in tandem, as especially represented and argued for in the Advaita Vedanta tradition. The reason for such a trans-epistemic study is simply in tracing the analogical similarities and ontological differences of Singularity and Brahman that are both produced with (-in) humanly contexts and yet somehow transcends them.
Technological singularity in its essence imbibes two conflicting hypothetical scenarios. It might posit a trans-humanist utopia for whole human civilization or, as some have suggested, it might be humanity’s last invention- a point of no return- which poses an array of existential questions for humankind. Technology holds the Promethean fire of socio-temporal change. Technological singularity posits both the possibilities of marking a beginning or an end. It marks the point when artificial intelligence will supersede human intelligence by exponential rates bringing forth Human-level AI or Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). AGI might then evolve to become Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI).
AGI or ASI Singularity symbolizes a spatio-temporal dimension wherein humanity will have no control over their own invention i.e. artificial intelligence. For many futurists like Ray Kurzweill, singularity bears optimism depicting a transhumanist utopia; it can cure diseases or all human sufferings in general, offer cognitive enhancement, life extension or even immortality and so on Such intelligence will have mind-boggling unique capacity for problem solving, millions of times surpassing that of average human intelligence. Human intelligence, the inventor of artificial intelligence, is an extension of animal intelligence but Artificial General Intelligence or Artificial Super Intelligence will be both an extension and transcendence of human intelligence or all intelligences in general. Singularity, in all its essence, will characterize the evolution from Turing’s “thinking machines” during WW2 to the emergence of a sentient/conscious Artificial Intelligence which will not only think like a human but also can assess its own autonomous existence. Super-intelligent machines will be nothing like we have ever built of- it will be an “alien intelligence” (Kasparov, Gary. 1997). It would appear something like we have never built or engineered but which have self-engineered itself out of scratch or extended itself out of pre-existent intelligence. AGI or ASI singularity, in essence, might symbolize a god in machine or a machine as god. But, what concerns futurists, technophiles, luddites or average humans is the nature of the super-intelligence. Will it be a benevolent god or a malevolent dictator? All these scenarios with their manifold ramifications will be discussed in detail.
Does the idea of technological singularity or ‘singularity hypothesis’ have any validity in praxis other than being the stuff of speculative or imaginative fiction? One of the reasons to base our assumptions is to look at the time-frame in which technological progress has skyrocketed (ex. exponential advancements in the age of information). The primary argument for taking the phenomenon so seriously has been provided by Ray Kurzweill in what he calls the “law of accelerating returns” (Kurzweill, Ray. 1999). He simply says that the better the technology becomes, the faster it improves itself, thereby generating exponential growth in a quick span of time. It also follows what we call Moore’s Law which says “the number of transistors that can be fabricated on a single chip doubles every eighteen months or so.” Following the precedents, Kurzweill predicts that technological singularity might come around the year 2045. The exponential growth of technological progress does not mean that only new bits of information are being added to the system, but every bit is creating inter-connections of their own; the equation being more information=more interconnections. Through “recursive self- improvement” Artificial Intelligence, at certain point of time, might cross the event horizon and there will be a singularity. The moment when AI will suddenly “wake up” (Vinge, Vernor. 1993) and become self-aware.
But, why do we need to build an AI that we will not be able to control? The primary reason would be massive economic growth which can be achieved through automation, thereby getting rid of many biological constraints. Human-level AI can open up portal to an alternate-dimension-like possibilities of redefined lifestyles for humanity. Science fiction worlds of Blade Runner (1982) and HBO’s Westworld (2016- ) will become reality. AGI in a human-like robot body might act like a normal human being. It will be able to cure potent disease and make humans smarter than ever. Most importantly, it might fulfill the trans-humanistic dream of the radical life extension or even immortality through mind-uploading or human-machine merger. Alongside market dynamics, military and defense sector would like to invest in research on AGI. Autonomous machines will reduce human errors plus mass casualties in a war scenario. Besides, in near futures, humanity might face many existential challenges that can wipe out humanity like climate change, energy crisis, more potent pandemics, and asteroid impacts and so on. Our last chance might be building an AGI. Thus, it’s probably all part of an evolutionary process. Daniel C. Dennett, for the same reason, has characterized evolution as “Darwin’s dangerous idea” (Dennett, 1995).
Anthropomorphizing the AI, for better reasons, carries potential risks. Humans are a conglomerate of different emotions- anger, compassion, empathy, violence etc. To a Super-intelligent AI, imbibing the destructive side of humanity, we will be merely pets. Though AI singularity holds immense outlets for humankind’s ultimate survival and persistence, many futurists like Nick Bostrom believes AI might post an existential threat to humanity. He argues:
“A computer with near human-level general intellectual ability could initiate an intelligence explosion on a digital time-scale with the resultant rapid creation of something so powerful that it might deliberately or accidentally destroy humanity… existential risk to humanity from super-intelligence would be immediate once brought into being, thus creating an exceedingly difficult problem of finding out how to control such an entity before it actually exists (Bostrom, 2016).
The following instance is also a major concern amongst privacy and ethics advocates for benevolent A.I. systems and not a Big Brother where the counter is that “they don’t want an Orwellian surveillance state, and that even if they did, there’s a risk of it turning into a totalitarian dictatorship of epic proportions” (Tegmark, 2017)
Alike to Singularity as noted in trans-humanistic studies; Brahman then can be roughly located on an analogical pedestal on the basis of harbouring elements and/in models that posit, “- a breakdown of our ability to predict beyond that point” (Stuart Armstrong, 2018). Brahman as commonly referred to in the Rgveda alludes to the divine/ holy utterance that is sought to hold within itself the key to an enlightened realization/understanding of the universe, the self and the universe both with and without the self. It encompasses within itself both the logos and telos (if there is any) of all existence and essence, the knowable and the unknowable in a cumulative and synthetical whole. It is true that the psycho-somatic engagements with Brahman are beyond the mere principles of knowledge or experience alone and thereby transcends the attachments of any a priori. The ‘singularity’ we seek in ‘Brahman’ then, refers to this exact coherent, tripartite state of ‘satya’ (truth), ‘chitta’ (psyche) and ‘ananda’ (bliss) that somehow goes beyond the perceptibility and comprehensibility of human cognitive and conative frameworks whilst employing them at the same time. Perhaps, this ‘holy utterance’ moves us beyond the dialectics of semiotics and pragmatics. In espousing a state of essential existence that can only be performatively felt and hence realized, it stands in stark contrast to the eternal non-realizations that might be brought about by technological singularity. One has a synthetical closure in its infinitude, while the other haunts like an eternal abyss with all its un-certitude at play.
Brahman is “the unchanging reality amidst and beyond the world” (Pulingandla. 1997). According to the Advaita Vedantic school, it is one that holds a stronger dictum over that of reason and rational inquiry and subordinates the following to the teachings of the scriptures (Vedas) and in-turn Brahman-vidya (the immediate Brahman experience). It is the true, unchanging, infinite, both immanent and transcendental reality, that doesn’t suffer from Cartesian fallacy but is rather backed up through a monist-materialist paradigm. In Advaita metaphysics, the world has no separate existence apart from Brahman. It appears in the garb of the world due to its creative energy (maya), for the jiva and the atman are both identical and parts of the Brahman. The plurality of self and reality is experienced because of ignorance (avidya) and error in judgement (mithya). However the pluralistic and multifarious interpretations of Brahman as it comes down to us, is in itself an indication of the paradoxical nature of theoretically pinning it down without practically realizing it. As Hervey Dewitt Griswold notes, “Brahman is often meant to stand for the whole, the hymn, charm, force, inspiration, devotion, prayer, spiritual power, absolute reality”. It is the semantic plasticity of Brahman that conceptually delivers different content with respect to relative contexts, whilst all the time implying towards a Gestalt-based worldview. However, the concept of Brahman as espoused in various other schools of Indian Philosophy is always performative in nature and thus attests to a 4e view of cognition, especially on the embodied and embedded (i.e. ritualistic practices) levels.
For Shankara, Brahman-knowledge or Brahman-vidya is the supreme good (the parama-purusartha) which is held to be a part of the state of consciousness available to the person as a living (jivan-mukti). According to Stephen H. Philips, “an enlightenment or nirvana experience, self-realization, Samadhi, Brahman-knowledge and the like are supposed to be states of consciousness both accessible to us and worth considerable sacrifice”. Brahman then, can be roughly conceptualized as both pre-existent and realized. It is not a ‘state’ or a ‘path’, neither means nor ends; but perhaps, the means to all ends and the ends to all means. It is astonishing to note however that such a spiritual and holistic concept as Brahman can posit grounds for the rise of social stratification when (mis-)appropriated within contexts, that begun as early as the late Rigvedic period. The ruling priestly class (the Brahmans/Brahmins) with their direct access to the scriptures procured therefore the terms and conditions of the information and in turn as it followed; the manipulation of its contents as well, as in often evident in the early politics of inter/intra-cultural memorialization and identity affirmation. The later interpolations of the Purusha Sukta as noted by B.R. Ambedkar (1946) and Arvind Sharma (1978) are often quite undeniably cited as such acts of vandalization that brought about “the valediction of the varna/caste system as a charter myth” (Moriz Winternitz).
The following instance is a key insight into the ‘gatekeeper’ problem, whereby a certain class that has access to valuable information automatically rises up the hierarchy line or creates social stratification if it isn’t already pre-existent. The safe-keeping and moulding of epistemic frameworks for the sake of sectarian well-being is problematic to the very core. It is interesting to note the following development in direct allusion to social singularity or its precursory phases. In a society, that still reeks heavily of the ‘anthropocentric bias’, it is worth pondering upon the question: “Will the individuals/organizations in charge of creating and maintaining such AGIs or ASIs exercise a right that somehow benefits a certain class than others?” For even if the technological singularity boom happens in the near future, wherein AGIs/ASIs become overtly independent, the data-sets upon which they shall be trained (as in accordance to the current machine learning techniques) are already biased and manipulated in nature or can be subjected to the same for a select cause. It is the very notion of a biased source-code construction that suffers the risk of its being construed on terms of benefitting the few over the many as noted by Max Tegmark in Life 3.0.
A way out of such an appropriation conundrum can perhaps be found on the hermeneutical grounds of philosophical post-humanism. In precisely creating and sustaining frameworks that can do away with the anthropocentric bias of construing the concept of Brahman and the construction of social singularity itself. Such a view calls forth a more organic and all-encompassing view of the Brahman that needn’t be stuck on the tenets of the one who utters it, but rather is omnipresent on a cosmological scale with a non-human attribute. Although it is realized by the acting consciousness of the human mind, yet it is the precise realization of the same without an anthropocentric bias that exposes the undercurrents of a holistic and synthetical view of the universe and reality. Perhaps the praxis of the Brahman-vidya itself is an attempt to dissolute the anthropocentric principle, in locating its presence beyond that of human embodiment alone on a larger cosmological scale. Similarly, a post-humanist treatment of Singularity on grounds of post-anthropocentrism and post-dualism as noted by Francesco Ferrando and Rosi Braidotti (2020) can help in construing more ethical AGI/ASI systems that do not harbour nodes for the anthropic principle by dehumanizing the ‘other’. The post-centralizing approach of philosophical post-humanism is necessary in order to deconstruct hegemonic and usually lackadaisical systems that cater to binary politics. By setting aside logo-centric and in turn anthropocentric biases, the tenets of philosophical post-humanism can offer us a much benign and holistic perspective on the trans-humanistic problem of Social Singularity and the paths forged towards the same.
WORKS CITED
Deutsch, Eliot. Advaita Vedanta : A Philosophical Reconstruction. University of Hawaii Press, 1980.
Callaghan, Victor, et al. The Technological Singularity: Managing the Journey (The Frontiers Collection). Softcover reprint of the original 1st ed. 2017, Springer, 2018.
Puligandla. Fundamentals of Indian Philosophy. 1997th ed., South Asia Books, 1997.
Levi, Sylvain, et al. Literary History of Sanskrit Buddhism; From Winternitz, Sylvain Levi, Huber. Sagwan Press, 2015.
Ambedkar, Bhim Rao. Who were the shudras? Bbombay:Thackers. 1949.
Wood, Irving F. “Brahman: A Study in the History of Indian Philosophy. Hervey DeWitt Griswold.” The American Journal of Theology, vol. 6, no. 1, 1902, pp. 182–83. Crossref, doi:10.1086/477983.
Prabhavananda, Swami, and Christopher Isherwood. Shankara’s Crest Jewel of Discrimination. Unknown, Vedanta Press & Bookshop, 1970.
Sharma, Arvind. The Puruṣasūkta: Its Relation to the Caste System. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient , Brill. Vol. 21, No. 3 pp. 294-303. 1978.
Phillips, Stephen H. Could There Be Mystical Evidence for a Nondual Brahman? A Causal Objection Philosophy East and West. Vol. 51, No. 4, Nondualism, Liberation, and Language: The Infinity Foundation Lectures at Hawai’i, 1997-2000 pp. 492-506. 2001.
Ferrando, Francesca, and Rosi Braidotti. Philosophical Posthumanism (Theory in the New Humanities). Bloomsbury Academic, 2020.
Borders, Max. The Social Singularity: How Decentralization Will Allow Us to Transcend Politics, Create Global Prosperity, and Avoid the Robot Apocalypse. Social Evolution, 2018.
Culkin, J.M. A schoolman’s guide to Marshall McLuhan. Saturday Review, pp. 51-53, 71-72, 1967, March 18.
Shanahan, Murray. The Technological Singularity (MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series). 1st ed., The MIT Press, 2015.
Kurzweil, Ray. The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence. First Thus, Penguin Books, 2000.
Vinge, Vernor. “The Coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era” Archived 2018-04-10 at the Wayback Machine, in Vision-21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace, G. A. Landis, ed., NASA Publication CP-10129, pp. 11–22, 1993.
Dennett, Daniel, et al. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Audible Studios, 2013.
Bostrom, Nick. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Reprint, Oxford University Press, 2016.
Tegmark, Max. Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Illustrated, Vintage, 2018.
hi amit mandal and debarshi arathdar, while i see the transhumanist link between extropianism and vedic society based on access to a totalizing transcendental ideal, i was confused to see your use of the term brahman in this context. the vedic hymn and corpus that became the foundation of a symbolic society does not use the term brahman. there seems to be a historical distortion to your narrative. there is no brahman in the veda. yes there is a brahmanspati, who later becomes brahma, the creator god who creates with the divine word. in this sense you may be somewhat justified in equating brahman to vedic sacred verbal authority, shabda brahman, but even the latter is a later term. the term brahman appears in the upanishads with a very different sense from that of the divine word. brahman in the upanishads is one and infinite, it is “the only thing there is,” using deleuzian terminology it could be called the plane of immanence. this kind of concept is not present in the veda, at least not overtly. similarly the veda does not have the concept of the atman. just as veda is an eponymous term meaning knowledge, upanishad names itself eponymously to mean “to sit near,” in other words, a separation and intimate relationship with the truth. not merely the guru-shishya relationship, this relationality extends from the relationship between brahman and atman, a relationality at whose foundation is the paradoxical co-existence of monism and pluralism. this is what makes the upanishads, when they are written, a form of “minor literature,” existing in a critical relationship with the appropration of the veda by a hierarchical symbolic society. you read the upanishadic brahman through advaita vedanta, which is also a historical distortion. why should one look at an interpretation that came almost 1500 years after the upanishads to explain it? yes, if we look at hinduism today, the upanishads, advaita vedanta, the caste system and the nation-state have all become flattended into the discourse of hindutva, but even to argue the appropriation of terms, more historical rigor is required. what do you say?