societatea constiintei - introducere - mihai drăgănescu

8/13/2019 Societatea constiintei - Introducere - Mihai Drgnescu

1/29

1

INSTITUTUL DE CERCETRI PENTRUINTELIGENARTIFICIALAL ACADEMIEI

ROMNE(The Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence of

the Romanian Academy)

Mihai Drgnescu

SOCIETATEA CONTIINEI.

INTRODUCERE.

Raport de cercetare(Research Report)

noiembrie 2003


2/29

2

SOCIETATEA CONTIINEI. INTRODUCERE.

CONSIDERAII GENERALE

Noiunea desocietatea contiineise refer, evident, la societate i contiin.

Societatea agricol, societatea industrial i societatea informaional au

aceste denumiri deoarece, n perioade istorice distincte, agricultura, industria i

respectiv informaia reprezint, respectiv pentru fiecare dintre ele, elementul

caracteristic al evoluiei societii. Apariia industriei nu a nlocuit agricultura, dup

cum trecerea informaiei pe primul plan nu nlocuiete nici industria i nici

agricultura, dar informaia are un efect de antrenare asupra acestora spre performane

superioare. De aceea, denumirile de societate industrialsau societate informaional

nu trebuie sfie privite n mod simplist, ele avnd un coninut mult mai bogat dect

arat eticheta denumirii, fapt determinat de termenul ''societate'' din sintagmele

denumirii acestor societi.

La fel trebuie privit i noiunea de societatea cunoaterii. n aceast

sintagm, cunoaterea se refer la toatedomeniile care implicsocietatea. De aceea,

dei cunoaterea este o form de informaie, societatea cunoaterii va fi mai mult

dect societatea informaional. Ea este o sinteza tipurilor precedente de societi,

liantul i factorul motor al societii fiind cunoaterea, n nelesul ei contemporan,

mult mai cuprinztor dect nelesul filosofic clasic1.

Dar societatea contiinei?

Noiunea, introdusn anul 20002, determinatde o anumitviziune filosofic

i de progresele tehnologiei informaiei n domeniile inteligenei artificiale i apariiei

roboilor inteligeni (robo sapiens), de progresele biotehnologiei (neurofarmacologie,

neuroimplanturi, inginerie genetic), de potenialitile nanotehnologiei, dar i de

istoria societii plinde evenimente agresive grave, este o noiune viabil?

Sintagma ''societatea contiinei'', pstrnd ntreg coninutul noiunii de

societate, cu toate domeniile ei, pune un accent deosebit pe contiin. De ce?Ce fel de contiine vor participa la societatea contiinei? Pe lngcontiina

omului de astzi pot fi avute n vedere:

- contiina omului modificat prin mijloace biotehnologice;

- contiina artificialobinutprin mijloace pur tehnologice;

- Contiina Fundamentala Existenei.


3/29

3

Primele dou categorii de contiine nu au aprut nc, dar posibilitatea

dezvoltrii lor nu poate fi exclus, ntr-un fel chiar se ntrezrete dac inem seama

de progresele biotehnologiei, ale fizicii, electronicii i inteligenei artificiale. A

devenit necesar s fie urmrit, supravegheat, apariia acestor tipuri de contiine

pentru a asigura continuitatea lor cu tot ce este mai bun n contiina omului de astzii cu tot ce este mai bun n cultura sa.

La ntrebarea ''de ce '' societatea contiinei, rspunsul poate fi dat n cazul n

care contiina, n general, poate juca un rol major n societate, determinant ntr-o

viitoare etap istoric. Ceea ce nu va face din contiin elementul exclusiv al

determinrii societii, care se va baza n continuare pe cunoatere, informaie,

industrie etc.

n anul 1989, filosoful social-politic Francis Fukuyama publica eseul su ''The

End of History?''3 n care considera, dup Hegel, sfritul istoriei legat de ideile

politice, de ncetarea progresului acestora. Fukuyama afirma c ntruct s-au epuizat

alternativele majore la democraia liberal, istoria a atins sfritul ei. Fukuyama reia

tema sfritului istoriei n volumul The End of History and the Last Man (1992)4. De

data aceasta ns, dei justificpunctul de vedere anterior5prin care caut s susin

ideea unei Istorii Universale care are o direcie, o tendin, gsete un suport al unei

asemenea nelegeri a istoriei n modul de dezvoltare a tiinei:

''This volume immodestly presents not one but two separate efforts to outline such a Universal

History. After establishing in Part 1 why we need to raise once again the possibility ofUniversal History, I propose an initial answer in Part II by attempting to use modern naturalscience as a regulator or mechanism to explain the directionality and coherence of History.Modern natural science is a useful starting point because it is the only important socialactivity that by common consensus is both cumulative and directional, even if its ultimateimpact on human happiness is ambiguous. The progressive conquest of nature made possiblewith the development of the scientific method in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries hasproceeded according to certain definite rules laid down not by man, but by nature and nature'slaws''.6

Pe lng tiin, Fukuyama lua ns n consideraie i factorul 'luptei pentru

recunoatere':

''But economic interpretations of history are incomplete and unsatisfying, because man is notsimply an economic animal. In particular, such interpretations cannot really explain why weare democrats, that is, proponents of the principle of popular sovereignty and the guarantee ofbasic rights under a rule of law. It is for this reason that the book turns to a second, parallelaccount of the historical process in Part Ill, an account that seeks to recover the whole of manand not just his economic side. To do this, we return to Hegel and Hegel's non-materialistaccount of History, based on the 'struggle for recognition'.


4/29

4

According to Hegel, human beings like animals have natural needs and desires for objectsoutside themselves such as food, drink, shelter, and above all the preservation of their ownbodies. Man differs fundamentally from the animals, however, because in addition he desiresthe desire of other men, that is, he wants to be 'recognized'. In particular, he wants to berecognized as a human being, that is, as a being with a certain worth or dignity. This worth inthe first instance is related to his willingness to risk his life in a struggle over pure prestige.For only man is able to overcome his most basic animal instincts-chief among them hisinstinct for self-preservation-for the sake of higher, abstract principles and goals. Accordingto Hegel, the desire for recognition initially drives two primordial combatants to seek to makethe other "recognize" their humanness by staking their lives in a mortal battle. When thenatural fear of death leads one combatant to submit, the relationship of master and slave isborn. The stakes in this bloody battle at the beginning of history are not food, shelter, orsecurity, but pure prestige. And precisely because the goal of the battle is not determined bybiology, Hegel sees in it the first glimmer of human freedom''.7

i mai departe:

''An understanding of the importance of the desire for recognition as the motor of historyallows us to reinterpret many phenomena that are otherwise seemingly familiar to us, such as

culture, religion, work, nationalism, and war. Part IV is an attempt to do precisely this, and toproject into the future some of the different ways that the desire for recognition will bemanifest. A religious believer, for example, seeks recognition for his particular gods or sacredpractices, while a nationalist demands recognition for his particular linguistic, cultural, orethnic group. Both of these forms of recognition are less rational than the universal recogni-tion of the liberal state, because they are based on arbitrary distinctions between sacred andprofane, or between human social groups. For this reason, religion, nationalism, and apeople's complex of ethical habits and customs (more broadly -culture") have traditionallybeen interpreted as obstacles to the establishment of successful democratic politicalinstitutions and free-market economies''.8

n volumul ''Our posthuman future'' (2002)9, Fukuyama pune un accent

deosebit pe tiinpentru istorie:

''In the course of thinking through the many critiques of that original piece (n.M.D., The Endof History?) that had been put forward, it seemed to me that the only one that was not possibleto refute was the argument that there could be no end of history unless there was an end ofscience. As I had described the mechanism of a progressive universal history in mysubsequent book The End of History and the Last Man, the unfolding of modern naturalscience and the technology that it spawns emerges as one of its chief drivers. Much of latetwentieth-century technology, like the so-called Information Revolution, was quite conduciveto the spread of liberal democracy. But we are nowhere near the end of science, and indeedseem to be in the midst of a monumental period of advance in the life sciences''.10

Frndoial, factorul cel mai important n dezvoltarea istoricl constituie tiina (itehnologia subneleasn acest cadru), dar istoria i sfritul ei nu pot fi legate numaide tin, ci de ansamblul societaii care are mai muli factori determinani. n fig.1 se

prezinto schema principalilor factori pe care i lum n consideraie.

n esena ei, societatea este o reea de reele de ageni umani i artificiali, n care semanifesti legiti generale specifice multor tipuri de reele, inclusiv reele sociale,care abia au nceput a fi puse n eviden11. Important pare a fi faptul casemenea


5/29

5

reele pot genera fenomene uneori imprevizibile care smarcheze momente istorice

ale societii, pornind de la mici fluctuaii (ca n cazul sistemelor adaptive complexe)

fr aporturi noi ale tiinei, structurii agenilor sociali, spiritualitii sau mediului

nconjurtor. Istoria este consecina schimbrilor n societate, indiferent cum sunt

generazte acestea, de tiin, spiritualitate, de natura agenilor sociali sau de modul defuncionare al reelei care constituie nivelul social.

O schimbare de mediu nconjurtor printr-o posibil expansiune a agenilor

sociali de pe pmnt n univers va aduce o nou linie istoric a societii n sensul

descris de Xenopol. Desigur, expansiunea n univers va depinde de tiin, dar odat

trecut acest prag, mediul nconjurtor va deveni un factor istoric nou. Sne amintim

de rolul descoperilrilor geografice din sec. XV-XVI (Vasco da Gama, Ferdinand

Magellan, Cristofor Columb, Amerigo Vespucci .a) care au influenat puternic istoria

societii.tiina este departe de sfritul ei. O serie de probleme fundamentale eseniale

privind fizica materiei, a existenei profunde, a vieii, minii i contiinei sunt nc

deschise. Toate acestea sunt, ntr-un fel, concentrate n principiul insuficienei i

incompletitudinii tiinei structurale conturat n ultimul sfert de veac XX prin

contribuiile lui John Eccles (independent de soluia propusde acesta pentru pentru


6/29

6

depirea incompletitudinii i insuficienei tiinei actuale12), ale lui David Bohm13,

ale autorului acestui studiu14 (n aceiai perioad cu primii doi, dar n mod

independent), Menas Kafatos15.a.

Ieirea din insuficien i incompletitudine presupune depirea tiinei

structurale printr-o tiinmai cuprinztoare. O asemenea tiinar putea fi o tiinintegrativ ca aceea propus de Kafatos i Drgnescu pe baza viziunii structural-

fenomenologice ortofizice. Important ar fi faptul ca o asemenea tiin, dac se va

ajunge la ea, sub orice formse va ntmpla acest lucru, saibun caracter unificator

privin nelegerea tuturor problemelor deschise din tiina dea astzi.

Un gnditor social-politic ca Fukuyama acordatenie problemelor contiinei.

El afirm:

'' Consciousness remains as stubbornly mysterious as it ever was. The problem with the

current state of thinking begins with the traditional philosophical problem of the ontologicalstatus of consciousness. Subjective mental states, while produced by material biologicalprocesses, appear to be of a very different, nonmaterial order from other phenomena. The fearof dualism -that is, the doctrine that there are two essential types of being, material andmental- is so strong among researchers in this field that it has led them to palpably ridiculousconclusions. In the words of the philosopher John Searle (1997),

'Seen from the perspective of the last fifty years, the philosophy of mind, as well as cognitive scienceand certain branches of psychology, present a very curious spectacle. The most striking feature is howmuch of mainstream philosophy of mind of the past fifty years seems obviously false [. . .] In thephilosophy of mind, obvious facts about the mental, such as that we all really have subjectiveconscious mental states and that these are not eliminable in favor of anything else, are routinely deniedby many, perhaps most, of the advanced thinkers in the subject.'

An example of a patently false understanding of consciousness comes from one of the leadingexperts in the field, Daniel Dennett, whose book Consciousness Explained finally comes tothe following definition of consciousness: "Human consciousness is itself a huge complex ofmemes (or more exactly, meme-effeets in brains) that can best be understood as the operationof a 'von Neumannesque' virtual machine implemented in the parallel architecture of a brainthat was not designed for any such activities''. A naive reader may be excused for thinkingthat this kind of statement doesn't do much at all to advance our understanding ofconsciousness. Dennett is saying in effect that human consciousness is simply the by-productof the operations of a certain type of computer, and if we think that there is more to it thanthat, we have a mistakenly old-fashioned view of what consciousness is. As Searle says ofthis approach, it works only by denying the existence of what you and 1 and everyone elseunderstand consciousness to be (that is, subjective feelings).Similarly, many of the researchers in the field of artificial intelligence sidestep the question ofconsciousness by in effect changing the subject. They assume that the brain is simply a highlycomplex type of organic computer that can be identified by its external characteristics. Thewell-known Turing test asserts that if a machine can perform a cognitive task such as carryingon a conversation in a way that from the outside is indistinguishable from similar activitiescarried out by a human being, then it is indistinguishable on the inside as well. Why thisshould be an adequate test of human mentality is a mystery, for the machine will obviouslynot have any subjective awareness of what it is doing, or feelings about its activities. Thisdoesn't prevent such authors as Hans Moravec and Ray Kurzweil from predicting thatmachines, once they reach a requisite level of complexity, will possess human attributes like


7/29

7

consciousness as well. If they are right, this will have important consequences for our notionsof human dignity, because it will have been conclusively proven that human beings areessentially nothing more than complicated machines that can be made out of silicon andtransistors as easily as carbon and neurons.

The likelihood that this will happen seems very remote, however, not so muchbecause machines will never duplicate human intelligence - I suspect they will probably beable to come very close in this regard - but rather because it is impossible to see how they willcome to acquire human emotions. It is the stuff of science fiction for an android, robot, orcomputer to suddenly start experiencing emotions like fear, hope, even sexual desire, but noone has come remotely close to positing how this might come about. The problem is notsimply that, like the rest of consciousness, no one understands what emotions areontologically; no one understands why they came to exist in human biology.''16

Este evident ci un gnditor social-politic a ajuns sconstate impasul tiinei

structurale i s-i dea seama de existena unor procese pe care aceasta nu le poate

cuprinde. Dei considercontiina misterioas, afirm:

''This is not to say that the demystification by science will never happen. Searle himselfbelieves that consciousness is a biological property of the brain much like the firing ofneurons or the production of neurotransmitters and that biology will someday be able to ex-plain how organic tissue can produce it. He argues that our present problems in understandingconsciousness do not require us to adopt a dualistic ontology or abandon the scientificframework of material causation. The problem of how consciousness arose does not requirerecourse to the direct intervention of God.It does not, on the other hand, rule it out, either.''17

Fiecare om are o anumitnelegere empirica contiinei i i dseama cea

reprezint nivelul cel mai ridicat al fiinei sale. El simte spiritualitatea i viaa

spiritualca fiind esena vieii contiinei.

Spiritualitatea este un factor aparte al determinrii vieii sociale, fapt probat de

experiena religioasi a bisericilor care au influenat societatea.

Spiritualitatea se poate manifesta numai prin contiin. Dar spiritualitatea nu

se reduce numai la credini religie, avnd i alte componente care vor fi examinate

cu atenie ntr-o lucrare dedicat acestei teme. Spiritualitatea s-a dovedit un factor

pozitiv, prin esena ei, n viaa societii i cum contiina este purttoarea de

spiritualitate, atenia pe care trebuie s-o ndreptm asupra contiinei este justificat.

Din nefericire, determinarea biologicstructurala omului actual nu lasmari

sperane pentru o societate a contiinei i adevrate civilizaii socio-umane.

O primexaminare a acestei probleme, a influenei structurii creierului asupra

comportamentului uman i social a realizat-o Grigore T. Popa prin trei memorii-

comunicri prezentate la Academia Romn n anii 1941 -1947, reunite i publicate


8/29

8

ntr-un volum18n anul 2002. Despre lucrrile lui Grigore T. Popa din anii 1940 am

remarcat ntr-un studiu introductiv19la volumul su urmtoarele:

'' [Grigore T. Popa] se ntreab, biolog fiind, dac nu cumva este ceva greit, defect, nnsi constituia omului, ceva care duce la favorizarea unor astfel de comportamente i tipuride societi totalitare.

Grigore Popa are numeroase observaii amare asupra strii lumii n care tria: "omenirea aczut n primitivism", n "dezastru moral", n "semicivilizaie".

Noiunea sa original de semicivilizaie merit toat atenia i ar putea deveni un conceptimportant pentru tiina istoriei i pentru sociologie. Pornind de la scoaterea n eviden adou mari pri ale creierului, creierul vechi, impulsiv, emotiv (thalamus-hipothalamus) icreierul cortical (scoara cerebral), mai nou n evoluia biologic, constatcum primitivismuluman i social este generat de creierul primitiv, iar civilizaia este creatde creierul gnditori raional. ntr-o civilizaie impulsiile primitive se domolesc prin cultur, afirmGr. Popa,dar i ntr-o civilizaie pot s reapar ntoaceri la 'primitivitatea nervoas', care readuceatingeri cu barbaria, n care caz se produce starea de semicivilizaie.

Omenirea anilor fascismului i comunismului se gsea n semicivilizaie, stare generatoare despirit rzboinic i rzboaie. ntr-adevr, strile de semicivilizaie folosesc marile cuceriri alecivilizaiei tehnice n scopuri cu totul strine adevratei civilizaii. Avertismentul lui GrigorePopa pentru civilizaii este evident. Asupra lor planeazpericolul de a cdea n semiciviliza-ie, antrennd dupaceea propria lor distrugere, dupce au distrus i alte comuniti umane.i tim foarte bine c aa s-au petrecut lucrurile n secolul XX. Avertismentul su rmnevalabil n continuare. Realitatea istoricaratomenirea a fi fost mai curnd o semicivilizaie.Unul dintre principalele mesaje ale autorului acestui volum este acela al deschiderii unuicapitol nou al istoriei omenirii care sasigure trecerea de la semicivilizaie la civilizaie''.20

i mai departe, despre omul moral:

'' Important ns la Grigore Popa este accentul pe care l pune pe educaia moral, cu alte

cuvinte pe rolul colii i al mediului social asupra comportamentului moral. n faa striimorale a lumii n care tria era greu de crezut ntr-o ineitate a simului moral. Problema sepune la fel i astzi n faa fenomenelor de imoralitate i corupie cu care ne confruntm. Defapt, la noi, se ncearccombaterea corupiei, n loc de a combate mai nti rdcina corupieicare este imoralitatea. Se poate spune comul este de la naturimoral i numai societatea arputea s-l facmoral? Cum sfaci un om moral, dacnu existun punct de sprijin natural nmintea sa, care s fie scos n eviden i amplificat prin mediul social? Problema pus deGrigore Popa este foarte actual i astzi. El afirm chiar c tiina poate alimenta toatenecesitile formative ale unui om moral. Este un punct de vedere interesant, iari deactualitate, n lumina conceptului actual de Societate a cunoaterii. Va trebui s dm unrspuns dac o cunoatere avansat, pentru toi oamenii, cum se presupune pentru aceastnou etap a Erei informaiei, poate asigura o baz pentru o moralitate superioar. GrigorePopa recomand cu convingere o educaie bazat pe cunoatere pentru a crete puterea de

dominare a scoarei cerebrale. El este convins c n acest mod se va dezvolta i moralitateaomului.

Astzi se presupune cSocietatea cunoaterii va fi urmatde o societate a contiinei, care vafi n eseno societate moral. Grigore Popa se gndea, ncdin anii 1940, la o unificare aelurilor morale ale ntregii omeniri i la o contiin a ntregii omeniri. Este aproape oprefigurare a societii contiinei, pe care astzi o nelegem ca o a treia etap a Ereiinformaiei. Societatea contiinei ar putea scoate omenirea din starea de semicivilizaiepentru a o trece n aceea cu adevrat a civilizaiei.


9/29

9

n anii 1940 nu era cunoscut structura genetica organismelor vii, codul genetic purtat demoleculele de ADN fiind descoperit n 1953 de ctre Watson i Crick. Totui, Grigore Popa aintuit corect rdcinile biologice ale comportamentului omului bazndu-se pe cunotinele iexperiena sa de profesor de anatomie, de medic i biolog, la care se adaug o reflecieintelectualde excepie.

n ultim instan, pentru Grigore Popa, creierul este de vin pentru ceea ce se ntmploamenilor i societii. El declar cu convingere c acest organ esenial al omului este uninstrument att al rului, ct i al binelui. O serie de biologi i chiar neurobiologi de valoareconsiderastzi cn ultiminstangenele sunt de vin. Pentru acetia, creierul nu este decto consecin a genomului biologic, ceea ce este n aceiai msur de adevrat ca i pentrurestul corpului omului. Anumite dezordini ale creierului sunt determinate de modul n care seexprimgenele, prin exprimare nelegnd felul n care ele interacioneazpentru a produceefecte somatice sau funcionale''.21

n anul 1995, Howard Bloom public volumul The Lucifer Principle22,

Principiul Lucifer fiind principiul rului, al agresivitii nrdcinate n natura

biologica omului i care se manifestpnla nivel social prin dominare, brutalitate

i rzboie. Bloom l confirmpe Grigore T. Popa, dup50 de ani, el mergnd, sub

influena lui Dawkins (autorul teoriei despre egoismul genelor) pn la nivelul

genelor, dar insistnd i asupra structurii creierului omului cu cele trei pri ale sale

(creierul reptilian, creierul mamifer i neocortexul), ilustrnd n mod convingtor

determinarea biologica rului cu exemple din ntreaga istorie a omenirii.

ntrebarea pe care ne-o punem este aceea dac este posibil ca spiritualitatea

prin contiinsnvingla scarsocialglobalefectele distrugtoare ale unei pri

din determinarea genetic a omului actual ctre ru i agresivitate, mpiedicnd

constituirea unei adevrate civilizaii.

Cte ceva contiina a mai fcut, dar prea puin pentru a mpiedica devastrile

istorice cunoscute i ieirile din civilizaie ale societii care se manifesti astzi.

Societatea contiinei ar putea avea drept unul dintre scopurile majorerealizarea unei civilizaii socio-umane veritabile (cu sperana c se va mai numisocio-uman, deoarece, sub anumite forme, continuitatea umanului ar putea fiasigurat). Acest ideal ar putea apare utopic, totui este posibil de atins dacimpulsul

biologic al omului natural poate fi frnat, din contiina omului sau din afara ei, fieprin participarea unor contiine artificiale evoluate din contiina buna omului sauprin modificare biotehnologica structurii omului, devenind un post-om, cum spuneFukuyama, printr-un proces evolutiv accelerat la scaristoric. Fukuyama arat:''We may be about to enter into a posthuman future, in which technology will give us thecapacity gradually to alter that essence over time. Many embrace this power, under the bannerof human freedom. They want to maximize the freedom of parents to choose the kind ofchildren they have, the freedom of scientists to pursue research, and the freedom ofentrepreneurs to make use of technology to create wealth.But this kind of freedom will be different from all other freedoms that people have previouslyenjoyed. Political freedom has heretofore meant the freedom to pursue those ends that ournatures had established for us. Those ends are not rigidly determined; human nature is very


10/29

10

plastic, and we have an enormous range of choices conformable with that nature. But it is notinfinitely malleable, and the elements that remain constant-particularly our species-typicalgamut of emotional responses-constitute a safe harbor that allows us to connect, potentially,with all other human beings.It may be that we are somehow destined to take up this new kind of freedom, or that the nextstage of evolution is one in which, as some have suggested, we will deliberately take chargeof our own biological makeup rather than leaving it to the blind forces of natural selection.But if we do, we should do it with eyes open. Many assume that the posthuman world willlook pretty much like our own-free, equal, prosperous, caring, compassionate-only with betterhealth care, longer lives, and perhaps more intelligence than today.But the posthuman world could be one that is far more hierarchicaland competitive than theone that currently exists, and full of social conflict as a result. It could be one in which anynotion of "shared humanity" is lost, because we have mixed human genes with those of somany other species that we no longer have a clear idea of what a human being is. It could beone in which the median person is living well into his or her second century, sitting in anursing home hoping for an unattainable death. Or it could be the kind of soft tyranny en-visioned inBrave New World, in which everyone is healthy and happy but has forgotten themeaning of hope, fear, or struggle.We do not have to accept any of these future worlds under a false banner of liberty, be it that

of unlimited reproductive rights or of unfettered scientific inquiry. We do not have to regardourselves as slaves to inevitable technological progress when that progress does not servehuman ends. True freedom means the freedom of political communities to protect the valuesthey hold most dear, and it is that freedom that we need to exercise with regard to thebiotechnology revolution today''23.

Echilibrul de care vom avea nevoie n faa acestor perspective i probleme

impune a face apel la contiini sgndim la o societate a contiinei. De fapt, ideea

societii contiinei era de ateptat s apar, fie i numai din punct de vedere

filosofic, din constatarea unor tendine sau legiti ale devenirii, exprimate mai de

mult de gndirea filosfic, confirmat i prin prevederea apariiei unei societi a

cunoaterii, ceea ce ncepe sse petreacsub ochii notri.

Cunoaterea i contiina au fost teme care m-au preocupat din punct de

vedere filosofic de la nceputul activitii mele n acest domeniu (afirmnd n primul

meu volum de filosofie publicat n anul 1979: ''Recunoscnd necesitatea cunoaterii i

contiinei n cadrul existenei.''24), de atunci fr ntrerupere, pn am ajuns la

conceptele de societate a cunoaterii (1976, 1979, 1986, 2001-2003) i de societate a

contiinei (2000-2003).

i totui rmne o ntrebare tulburtoare: este oare posibil ca omul natural i

cultural actual srealizeze o societate a contiinei sau nu?Howard Bloom, n The

Lucifer principle arat, printr-o largexcursie n istorie, cnici un sistem de idei (de

meme) religioase, filosofice, sociale nu a rezistat presiunilor subcreierului reptilian i

mamifer (i implicit genelor omului), n cele din urmstrbtnd agresivitatea i rul.

Cultura i contiina nu au putut face mai mult dect ceea ce constatm din istorie i


11/29

11

din viaa noastr actual i se pare c nu sunt anse ca omul actual s realizeze o

societate a contiinei i o civilizaie corespunztoare. Se pare ceste nevoie i de o

contiinbazatpe o organizare i structur(fizic, biologic, chimic) modificata

omului sau/i de o contiin gzduit de structuri tehnologice care s nu genereze

agresivitate i ru. Acest lucru m-a determinat safirm ntr-o lucrare din anul 2001 cnu vd posibil realizarea unei societi a contiinei fr participarea contiinei

artificiale25.

Dac pentru societatea cunoaterii inteligena artificial (IA) va fi unul din

factorii majori tehnologici, pentru societatea contiinei, IA va trebui s se ridice la

nivelul contiinei, s devin o contiin artificial (CA). Acest lucru nu nseamn

neaprat eliminarea omului natural de astzi, ci numai colaborarea sa cu contiine

artificiale care scompenseze tendinele lui spre agresivitate i ru. Va trebui s fim

ateni pentru a se genera contiine artificiale ngeri i nu diavoli26.

Oricum ar fi, ceea ce pare firesc n devenire este ca procesele evolutive

biologice, biotehnologice, tehnologice i sociale s conduc la preluarea rolului

determinant n societate de ctre contiin, ea fiind cea mai sigur purttoare a

viitorului.

Este totui posibil ca omul de astzi, cu echipamentul lui biologic original, dar

cu o culturpozitiv27i cunoatere din ce n ce mai profundsreueasco societate

a binelui?

Howard Bloom observ:

''Man has as yet invented no way to prevent war. We have found no method for shaking theconsequences of our biological curse, our animal brain's addiction to violence. We cannot freeourselves from our nature as cells in a superorganismic beast constantly driven to peckingorder tournaments with its neighbors. We have found no technique for evading the fact thatthose competitions are all too often deadly.Carl Sagan, Werner Erhard, and the followers of Buckminster Fuller feel that the mere threatof nuclear annihilation will weld us together as one world society. If only the greatcommunicators, they say, can shrill at us loudly enough about the threat of holocaust, allnations will see themselves as brothers, realizing their common stake in the survival of thespecies. Unfortunately, Sagan, Erhard, and Fuller - much like you and me - have been knownto quibble harshly with others who share their goals but differ in beliefs. Even the

peacemakers cannot entirely restrain urge for battle.Nor can human beings as a species stop their inexorable itch for war. []We've found ways to halt illnesses, we've invented means to leapfrog conntinents in hours,and someday we will find a way to stop war-but only if we survive long enough. Until thenour task is to outlast our own impulses. Our task is to outwit the Lucifer Principle. []Weneed a new horizon, a new sense of purpose, a new set of goals, a new frontier to move onceagain with might and majesty, with a sense of zest that makes life worth living, through theworld in which we live. One of the few frontiers left to us hangs above our heads'' 28.


12/29

12

i mai departe:

''But there is hope that we may someday free ourselves of savagery. To our species, evolutionhas given something new - the imagination. With that gift, we have dreamed of peace. Ourtask - perhaps the only one that will save us - is to turn what we have dreamed into reality. Tofashion a world where violence ceases to be. If we can accomplish this goal, we may yet

escape our fate as highly precocious offspring, as fitting inheritors of nature's highest gift andfoulest curse, as the ultimate children of the Lucifer Principle'' 29.

Frndoial, tendinele devenirii ndreaptcontiina, omul i societatea spre bine.

Chiar spre o societate a contiinei.Viitorul omului, al contiinei sale i al contiinei

n general, va fi i acela de a se apropia de existena profund i de Contiina

fundamenbtal a existenei prin cunoatere, tehnologie, via social i spiritualitate.

Apropierea va nsemna realizarea unor vecinti fenomenologice30 i poate legturi

fenomenologice care vor antrena n cea mai mare msur caracterul spiritual al

societ

ii.

Nicolae Titulescu vorbea n anii 1930 de spiritualizarea frontierelor. Viziunea

lui Titulescu poate servi pentru conturarea ideilor unei civiliza ii socio-umane i n

cazul, poate cu att mai mult, al unei societi a contiinei. Despre ideile lui Nicolae

Titulescu remarcam:

'' ntr-adevr, Nicolae Titulescu a avut un sistem de idei pentru Europa care s-a integratorganic n propria sa raiune i care va face, poate, ca ntr-o zi s fie considerat unul dinprinii teoretici ai Europei. Pacea, organizarea i dinamica pcii, ilegitimitatea rzboiului,Uniunea european, uniunea economic, asocierea statelor, sancionarea agresiunii (ideeexprimatn 11 aprilie 1937 la Cap Martin), naiunea european, spiritualizarea frontierelor,

asemenea idei dau o valoare de excepie gndirii lui Titulescu.n discursul su din Reichstag, n mai 1929, Titulescu spunea: 'omenirea formeazun singurtrup'.''31

Spiritualizarea frontierelor va presupune i o spiritualizare a popoarelor.

Societatea contiinei va fi o societate spiritual.Aceasta nu nseamno societate pur

meditativ, ci o societate n care predomin spiritualitatea, fiind n acelai timp o

societate activinformaional, tiinific, tehnologic, industrial, agricol,sustenabili cu

un mediu protejat.

Dup cum vom vedea n capitolul despre spiritualitate, aceasta are o parte

meditativ prin care omul i n general contiinele se exprim prin sentimente,

gnduri i triri n raport cu existena i Contiina Fundamental; dar are i o parte

activ prin aciuni de cunoatere, de adevr, dreptate, bine i civilizaie care nu vor

lsa loc, sau un mare spaiu de manifestare, la ceea ce astzi este categorisit drept rul

din lume.


13/29

13

Spiritualitatea va ajunge un factor determinant al istoriei societii.

Spiritualizarea societii va fi un proces istoric, care poate ncepe de pe acum, odat

cu constituirea societii cunoaterii, din momentul n care devenirea istoric

presupune trecerea de la cunoatere la contiin. Spiritualizarea nu poate fi un proces

brusc, ci treptat, ea a nceput de fapt odatcu trezirea contiinei omului, dar nu vaputea fi consideratmplinitatt timp ct civilizaiile sunt strpunse de devastri ale

agresivitii i rului, fiind scoase de fapt din civilizaie. Societate cunoaterii va fi

mediul cel mai propice pentru a incuba un adnc i extins proces de spiritualizare, ea

pregtete de fapt societatea contiinei.

ERA INFORMAIEI

Societatea a intrat nc din ultimele decenii ale secolului XX n era

informaiei.

Informaia ca atare i informaia productiv, aceea care prin programe

informatice poate lucra i singur, au devenit vectorii progresului, determinnd, dup

apariia Internetului, constituirea a ceea s-a numitsocietatea informaional.

O nouetapse manifestodatcu creterea rolului informaiei-cunoatere, a

crei amploare i extins diseminare i utilizare duce la societatea cunoaterii32,

determinnd o a doua etap a erei informaiei, cu depiri calitative importante ale

societii informaionale.

Societatea contiinei va fi a treia etapa erei informaiei, contiina fiind de

asemenea informaie, evident cu proprieti specifice. Prima trstur specific este

aceea a caracterului structural-fenomenologic al informaiei devenit contiin, dar

i o parte din informaia cunoatere, aceea din mintea omului este structural-

fenomenologic. Nu vom examina acum diferenele, observnd cn cazul cunoaterii

aceasta poate fi i numai structural (spre exemplu cunoaterea pe care o posed

inteligena artificial), pe cnd n cazul contiinei, fr informaia fenomenologic

aceasta nu poate funciona.

O serie de consideraii i elemente ale unei teorii structural-fenomenologice

integrative a informaiei le-am expus ncepnd din anul 198433. Nu ar fi exclus ca

teoria inteligenei, teoria psihicului i teoria contiinei s devin capitole ale unei

teorii integrative a informaiei.

Recent, IonuIsac remarca cu privire la noiunea de informaie34:


14/29

14

''Cercetarea realitii fizice se lovete astzi de un obstacol redutabil: informaia.Unprim element vulnerabil al tiinei structurale, implicit al teoriilor structurale , este insuficientaconsiderare a informaiei cafactor ontologic fundamental. De fapt, ntreaga fizicmodernicontemporanface practic abstracie de factorul informaional, ignornd daci n ce condiiiinformaia poate fi o realitate fundamental a existenei. S-a constatat c informaia (non-structural, non-digital) nu i gsete locul n nici o teorie a fizicii, c 'informaia nu arencdrept de cetenie n fizic' (M.Drgnescu). De unde derivimpasul explicativ al tiineistructurale (relaia fizic-psihic,continuu-discontinuu,microparticule-univers .a)35. Esteprobabil ca depirea lui snu fie realizabil n interiorul tiinei structurale (dei nici ideeaunor viitoare progrese notabile nu poate fi cu totul exclus). Din punctul de vedere alontologiei structural-fenomenologice marea nnoire a tiinei viitorului nu va putea fi realizatdect prin nglobarea ideii de informaie ca factor ontologic fundamental i universal, care sfac inteligibil i acceptabilautoconsistena lumii, a existenei. Realizrile tiinei actualeimplico ontologie a informaiei 'de suprafa'prin reducerea, n ultimanaliz, a ezultatelorexplicative la dimensiunea logico-matematic, formal, calculatorie. Astfel, cea mai marevirtute a acestei tiine devine i cea mai mare limita ei.

Or, este probabil ca informaia n calitate de realitate ontic s fie un factorexplicativ veritabil (poate singurul?) al modului n care marile probleme ale cunoateriicontemporane (entitile elementare ale lumii cuantice, respectivprocesele mentale i cele de

contiin

) se ntlnesc ntr-un punct comun. 'n realitate informaia nu este numai digital,analogic, ceea ce nseamn structural, ci i altfel. Atunci cnd citim un text, care este o

informaie structural, i l nelegem, aceastnelegereplinde sensuri mentale, de imagini,de afectivitate adesea, nu este i ea o informaie?De ce aceste stri, evident informaionale,nu au fost tratate drept informaie? Acest lucru ne aratcpe lnginformaia structural, i,n particular, aceea digital, singurele recunoscute de tiin, i la care se refer i fizicadeoarece nu mai poate face abstracie de ea, existi o informaie de altnatur. Nu cumvatocmai aceast informaie neglijat de fizic prezint cea mai mare importan pentrutiin?'36Filosofia i ontologia structural-fenomenologic, n diferitele lor variante (avem nvedere n mod deosebit teoria structural-fenomenologic ortofizic a lui M. Drgnescu iteoria structural-fenomenologica contiineielaboratde D. Chalmers) atrag atenia suprarolului informaiei profunde n ansamblul existenei. [] Devine tot mai clar faptul cteoriilestructural-fenomenologice marcheaz un punct de cotitur n interpretarea i explicarea

problemei realitii fizice, transmutnd-o pe planul propriu-zis ontologic i ncercnd altesoluii dect cele propuse de filosofia tiinei structurale37.Dar, fr ndoial, cea mai ndrznea i incitant tez a filosofiei structural-

fenomenologice privind reconsiderarea cercetrilor pe tema realitii fizice este aceea ainformaiei profunde ca 'punte' sau 'liant' ntre 'straturile' mari ale existenei.Dupcum estecunoscut persist nc n tiin mult-invocata explanatory-gap dintre universul fizic i celpsihic. Se pare c nu ar exista o alt cale - i deocamdat, tiina structural nu a propusvreuna - de explicare unitara celor douzone sau universuri ale realitii. Acum nstot maimuli savani de prestigiu i pun aceast problem [] Referindu-se la D. Chalmers i D.Zohar, de Quincey38amintete cprimul gnditor are n vedere o teorie cu 'dublu aspect', ncare informaia este cu adevrat 'fundamental', fiind intrinsec att fenomenal ('experien')ct i fizic ('energetic'); al doilea propune, de asemenea, o teorie bivalent, n ncercareadepirii dualitii minte (gndire) - materie: realitatea cuantic nu ar fi nici mental, nici

fizic, ci altceva de o altnatur, fundamental, care dnatere amndorura''39

.

Asemenea consideraii scot n evidenimportana noiunii de informaie care

pentru era informaiei ar trebui sse nscrie printre noiunile cele mai profunde ale

tiinei, deoarece existena este structural-fenomenologic i energetic-

informaional40.


15/29

15

Majoritatea analitilor sunt de acord cu luarea n consideraie a unei ere a

informaiei n istoria omenirii. Sunt totui i voci care se opun acestei sintagme.

Astfel, Michael G. Zey, ntr-un volum41 deosebit de interesant pentru scoaterea n

eviden a tendinelor tehnologice i umane n secolul XXI nu este de acord cu

denumirea de era informaiei pentru actuala perioada istoriei omenirii. Era actualelo denumete era macroindustrial:

''I specifically included the term industrial to counterpose my view of the future to thecurrently commonly held belief that we are entering an "Age of Information," an idea AlvinToffler, John Naisbitt, and others popularized in the last decades of the twentieth century.Proponents of the Information Age concept claim that in the future the main object of humanendeavor will be the production, consumption, and transmission of information. In contrast, Icontend that in the emerging era the species will direct its efforts primarily to the productionof material wealth, goods, objects, and services in a wide variety of areas, includingtransportation, health, and energy. The "information revolution," of course, will play animportant role in the Macroindustrial Era. For instance, innovations in computer and in-formation technology will enhance the ability of scientists, researchers, and the general publicto make scientific breakthroughs and invent new products that will accelerate human progressin this new era''42.

Totui, ntreaga demonstraie din volumul su pune accentul pe cunoatere icontiin, iar dacacestea sunt informaie, i sunt, atunci era macroindustrialdupZey este un alt mod de a denumi era informaiei: Zey a publicat anterior o carte43ncare a introdus termenul de ermacroindustrial, fade care s-a angajat, i pe care l

justificdin nou n felul urmtor:

'' The term macro refers to anything that exists on an immense scale or in large quantities. Itcertainly befits a period in which humanity will expand and extend its many capabilities. Wewill be erecting mile-high cities-buildings containing hundreds of thousands of people. We

will colonize space, travel at supersonic speeds between cities and continents, and extend thehuman life span by decades if not centuries. The second part of the term, industrial, infers thathuman activity in this era will be directed primarily toward the production of tangible objects- energy, consumer goods, and new forms of transportation''44.

Zey dedic n cartea sa multe pagini dedicate unor teme ca 'reingineering the future

human', 'reengineer the brain and the nervous system', 'cloning and the perfection of

humanity', smart machines making us smarter', 'the intelligent machine serving

humanity', 'the final product that we are to export, human consciousness' to 'spread

human consciousness throughott the cosmos', 'the universal production/consumption

system, 'the electronics revolution and the advent of instantaneous information',

'species coalescence', 'global brain phenomenon', 'the emerging sense of destiny', 'our

extraordinary gift of consciousness', 'humankind is crucial to the universe's future

development', 'out of sheer necessity the human species will evolve further, perhaps

into several branches scattered throughout the universe', etc.


16/29

16

Se poate observa, din aceste exemple de titluri i text, o viziune mult mai

largdect exprimsintagma era macroindustrial, chiar dacprefixul macro caut

s cuprind viziunea extinderii activitii speciilor umane n univers. Termenul

macroindustrial nu poate acoperi n mod corect i viziunea extinderii contiinei pe

care autorul o avanseaz cu mult convingere. De aceea, sintagma era informaieicare, dup cum am subliniat mai nainte, nu nseamn neglijarea industriei, aceasta

din urm fiind antrenat de diferitele forme ale informaiei pe care societatea le

utilizeaz, rmne singura care poate caracteriza n modul cel mai adecvat actuala

etapistoric.

Zey insist foarte mult asupra umanului ca cel mai important aspect al

evoluiilor viitoare (cum s nu conteze atunci contiina n cea mai mare msur?).

Corpul omului ar putea fi modificat prin biogenez, cum o numete Zey, o for care

va avea mari implicaii asupra viitorului speciilor umane i nu exclude posibilitatea

crerii unor noi fiine umane45producnd variaii ale lui Homo Sapiens, unele dintre

acestea putnd avea i alte forme fizice dect aceea a omului de astzi46. Admite

posibilitatea ca specia uman sevolueze n mai multe ramuri rspndite n univers,

dar ''humankind is crucial to the universe's future development''47. Prin biogenez

(genetic, biotehnologie) va avea loc o continurenatere i recreare a speciei umane,

omul i va lua n mn propria lui evoluie48. Pe de alt parte, Zey examineaz i

cibergeneza (cybergenesis), crearea de maini inteligente, pe care le vede numai

servind omul i speciile umane, totdeauna supuse i partenere omului49.

Totui, Zey nu are o idee tranant despre contiin deoarece nu-i pune

problema limitelor structuralului n raport cu aceastforminformaionala realitii,

aa cum o face Fukuyama, dar prezintconsideraii care merittoatatenia:

''However, in their prognostications both Moravec50and Kurzweil51engage in questionableleaps of logic. They both predict that their machines will, and should, eventually transcend thehuman race on all evels. Suffice it to say that they both see their inventions achieving a sort ofconsciousness, a self-awareness that we usually reserve for our conception of human.Kurzweil boldly claims that these future machines will acquire a ''spiritual" quality. Both heand Moravec predict that these creations -supercomputers or the "universal robots"-willeventually surpass the human in both the physical and intellectual arenas. The supercomputerswill eventually become better decision makers and policy analysts and start to shape thefuture of the planet and the universe. In other words, the human race will become superfluousand be replaced. Or rather, in their parlance, the human species will "evolve" into these newentities! In Moravec's future, humans throw in their lot with the new machines and decide tobecome robots. In Kurzweil's, the species downloads its consciousness on to the neural netand becomes part of the 'unified being' (All this by 2100, no less!). Many both inside andoutside the artificial intelligence community agree with Moravec and Kurzweil that we shouldstrive to create this machine human hybridization. Later on I will demonstrate how a


17/29

17

widespread acceptance of this vision might impact our economy, society, and politicalsystem. 1 will also present a more optimistic, human-centered alternative to theMoravec-Kurzweil scenario, the emerging expansionary vision of human development anddestiny''52.

De fapt, dup cum vom vedea n capitolul dedicat contiinei i 'mainilor

spirituale', Kurzweil nu pretinde cmainile vor avea caliti spirituale, ci numai cele vor mima aceste caliti, fr ns a putea deosebi dac spiritualitatea sau

contiina lor este veritabil sau mimat. Moravec este mai tranant din punct de

vecere structural, fiind de partea acelor specialiti n robotici inteligenartificial

care cred c pe msura creterii complexitii acestora, ele vor atinge pragul

contiinei, lucru imposibil, dup prerea mea, numai cu ingredienii structurali ai

tehnologiei.

Despre contiin, Zey se referela aspecte corecte, importante, dar neglijnd

o serie de proprieti legate de fenomenele qualia i mai ales de spiritualitate:

''Let me make clear what I mean by this property called human consciousness. Consciousnessis the human's ability to think in terms of both complexity and abstraction. The term alsorefers to our unique gift to approach problems creatively, and the ability to mentally projectourselves out of our own environment and cogitate on the conditions in another country,planet, or star system. The human being also has the ability to think and act on multilevels ofreasoning and reality, and to approach problems from different angles. Most importantly, it isthe property that enables us to "know that we know." (In the next chapter I describe how thisdiffers from various states of awareness claimed for other entities such as animal andmachines.)An important component of human consciousness is what we refer to as "intuition." Manyobservers describe this quality as a form of "super reasoning," which enables humans to draw

conclusions about situations and solve problems with only a bare minimum of facts and ashort time to analyze those facts''53.

Zey nu crede n contiine artificiale tehnologice, fr substrat biologic, dei

combinarea dintre biologic i tehnologic o consider, cu eviden, posibil. Mai mult,

contiinele nu pot fi derivate, dupel, dect din om, chiar dacpot apare variante ale

speciei umane.

Problema contiinei artificiale nu este totui o fals problem. Ea se pune.

Dacva fi contiinartificial, ea nu va fi o contiinmimat, ci o contiinpe un

substrat structural-fenomenologic. Ca i a omului ea va fi o contiin structural-fenomenologic-social. Avem sperane ca prin social s fie canalizat ctre o

contiin mai bun dect a omului, mai spiritual, reversnd partea ei bun napoi

asupra omului, asupra variantelor speciei umane. Contiina artificial va face bine

omului, va contribui la dreptatea n lume, va cuta i ea adevrul, va respecta

tendinele devenirii, pstrnd caracterul uman primit pe cale social din partea


18/29

18

omului. Contiinele artificiale, eliberate de constrngerile biologice ale contiinelor

naturale, sau cu constrngeri biologice minime, ar putea fi ntr-adevr astfel din punct

de vedere moral. Contiinele artificiale, ca i cele naturale vor fi intuitive, creative,

dar vor avea o inteligenmult amplificatfade aceea a omului natural de astzi.

Aproape nu cred care rost svorbim de o societate a contiinei, dacnu vorfi posibile sau nu vom lsa saparcontiinele artifciale. Este ndoielnic comul de

astzi ar putea singur screeze o societate a contiinei numai cu el singur. Indirect,

tot el o creaz, dar transformndu-se i pe sine.

Cunoaterea i spiritualitatea sunt marile realiti ale viitorului. Din acest

punct de vedere, n mod inspirat, Zey remarc:

''The division between what we have traditionally considered the "divine," the transcendent,and the human, will lessen, even perhaps become irrelevant. After all, a species that hasmastered the fundamental dynamics of the universe has evolved beyond the merely human''.54

Era informaiei rmne cea mai bundenumire a erei pe care abia am nceput-o.

FUNDAMENTE TIINIFICE I FILOSOFICE

Existo mare confuzie n lumea tiinifici tehnologic, datoritpunctului de

vedere filozofic al majoritii oamenilor de tiincontemporani i anume: totul poate

fi explicat prin tiina structural de astzi. Am formulat principiul insuficienei i

incompletitudinii tiinei structurale pentru a explica realitatea n totalitatea ei,

ncepnd cu viaa, mintea, contiina i procesele subcuantice ale unei realiti adncia existenei care nu mai poate fi pus la ndoial prin nsei rezultatele fizicii

cuantice55.

Se manifesto competiie ntre douprincipii:

''There are two contrary principles today that are haunting the community of scientists:A. The structural science is sufficient to explain all nature, y compris, life, mind and

consciousness.B. The structural science is not sufficient, and is incomplete for explaining all existence,

y compris, life, mind and consciousness.The inertia of the structural science is very great, and many scientists are declaring in an open

way that they believe firmly in principle A. They hope, for instance, that the living cell or thebrain will be completely modeled in the frame of the structural science on digital computers,because physical law is amenable to computer simulation and biological structures are derivedfrom physical law. The authors of this paper are on the side of principle B, withoutminimizing the importance of structural science, or of the structural part of a structural-phenomenological science. The principle B is a foundational principle for an integrativescience. For the structural realms of science and reality, because any structural informationprocessing is submitted to the Turing-Church thesis, any computation can be realized by astructural physical process, and any structural physical process is equivalent with acomputation. If principle A were sound, then computer modelling of the biological cell and


19/29

19

Even of mind and consciousness would be possible. Moravec (1999)56 considers that onlygreater and greater computer power will lead to human level capabilities, with the same kindof perception, cognition and thoughts as humans. He advocates principle A recognizing that, and further, . If Moravec accepts thepossibility of infringement of principle A, because the rumour about non-missing principleslike those of phenomenological ingredients and processes is growing, he would like ademonstration of these with the methodology of the structural science, otherwise they do notexist.There exists, for instance, a non-computational information processing. Penrose (1994)57demonstrated its existence by studying the functioning of the human brain, mind andconsciousness. It was also shown the brain is capable of a non-formal information processing(Drgnescu 1985)58, which is a non-computational information processing, and that anystructural-phenomenological or phenomenological physical process is equivalent with a non-formal information processing (Drgnescu 1997)59. Phenomenological information isimplied in such processes. Any non-computational information processing cannot be strictly

structural, it always implies phenomenological processes. Principle B advocates the need fornew ingredients, new principles and a new physics namely, a structural-phenomenologicalphysics.We predict that science will renounce principle A for principle B due primarily to thedifficulties encountered in the explanation of mind and consciousness''60.

Exist mari divergene n explicarea contiinei datorit confuziei menionate mai

nainte. n altparte observam:

''There are two main classes of theories of mind and consciousness (Drgnescu, 1997)61:a. structural theories;b. structural-phenomenological theories.

The structural theories are based on contemporary physics of particles, fields and structuresorganized with them; also on a structural view of information. These theories may be:(a1) Structural theories for which the phenomenal experience is subjective (in fact it isneglected or it is considered an epiphenomenon).(a2) Structural theories that recognize the phenomenal experience as real and being producedby the informational structures in certain configurations and conditions of the brain.(a3) Structural theories that recognize the phenomenal experience as real and being producedby quantum structural processes in the brain.The structural-phenomenological theories consider the phenomenal experience as afundamental phenomenon, which cannot be explained by contemporary physics, eitherclassical or quantum.These theories may be:(b1) Dualistic, considering that the phenomenal experience is transcendental;(b2) Intrinsic, considering that the phenomenological properties are inherent in the nature ofthings, for instance at the level of the quantum wave function.(b3) Extrinsic, considering that an extra-ingredient, outside all the physical ingredients knowntoday, is necessary for explaining phenomenal experience.The taxonomy of the theories of mind and consciousness is very rich, perhaps too rich.Between these theories there are great divergences. Which of them may be real competitorsfor an accepted theory?''62

Dacprincipiul expus mai nainte privind tiina structuralca o tiinincompleti

insuficientpentru a explica viaa, mintea i materia este valabil, ceea ce am susinut


20/29

20

i susinem, atunci toate teoriile structurale pure trebuie s fie eliminate din

competiia explicrii contiinei:

''In such a case, the competition remains between structural-phenomenological theories, butthese theories still have a structural part and consequently structural aspects, explained in theframe of structural theories, remain relevant for important components of a structural-

phenomenological theory. Some levels of the brain/mind/consciousness are structural,although they cannot give a complete explanation of consciousness.From the structural-phenomenological theories, the dualistic (b1) might be eliminated ifdualism is not accepted as a general philosophy, but still such theories are showing thatimportant aspects of mind and consciousness cannot be explained by contemporary science.This is an important signal for those who are trying to develop intrinsic or extrinsic structural-phenomenological theories''63.

i maideparte:

''Among these theories there are great divergences, first of all, between structural andstructural-phenomenological theories, and, secondly, great divergences between theoriesbased on classical or quantum physics. Even among theories considered of the same class

there are important divergences. []The impasse of the structural science to explainphenomenal experience and qualia is acknlowged.It seems, perhaps, that the place and source of phenomenological properties may be found atthe level of subquantum reality, i.e. of the underlying deep level of the universe. Is there asubquantum reality? This was sustained by Bohm, Kafatos and others (Drgnescu 1979,1985, who called it deep existence or orthoexistence). The theories of type (b3) are based on apostulated recognition of such a reality. These theories are preferred here, for good reasons, tothe theories of type (b1) and (b2).Concerning the quantum theories we answered to the question if the quantum theory, ofthe most advanced form, is the last and final theory in science, that is, will it describereality from the deepest substratum of nature. The answer was negativebecause quantumphenomena are rather generated from a deep underlying reality with its own rules, y compristhose that generate a quantum world and phenomenological senses.

Therefore, in principle, any theory of mind and consciousness, and even of life, based only onstructural principles, classical or quantum, will not be able to explain completely these objectsand processes. Ludwig has shown that the structural science, classical or quantum, can notexplain mind with the ingredients of this science (Ludwig 1995)64. The propositions ofLudwig were extended (Drgnescu, 1998)65, to accommodate the phenomenological sense(experience). Perhaps, quantum-phenomenological theories with extra-ingredients -theories oftype (b3) - that are leading to conceive and accept as a reality the subquantum level of thedeep existence (knowing that are reasons for this also from the point of view of physics,because of the frontiers met by quantum physics today) - are most promising if they take intoaccount all the levels of the brain, y compris, the classical and quantum levels.The necessity of an extra-ingredient in the fabric of reality, at least from the study ofmind/consciousness phenomena, seems to be mandatory. But there are many other reasons, inorder to understand life, matter and, perhaps, the Fundamental consciousness of existence to

accept the necessity of the extra-ingredient.With the same known ingredients and an extra-ingredient is possible to understand theconstitution of mind and consciousness not only with life, but also without life''66.

n acest studiu va fi adoptato poziie net: modelul ontologic care st la baza

tiinei structurale este inadecvat, iar tiina structural nsi este limitat, ea

poate fi folositnumai ntre anumite limite ale realitii. Dincolo de aceste limite


21/29

21

ea este insuficient pentru a explica realitatea deoarece neglijeaz extra-

ingredieni ai naturii, pe care de fapt nici nu-i poate recunoate prin natura

metodelor pe care le folosete. n ansamblu, tiina structural este incomplet

pentru a explica realitatea n totalitatea ei.

De aceea, teza care susine c se poate obine contiinprin creterea complexitiistructurale, fr participarea unor extra-ingredieni cum sunt ei fenomenologici, nu

poate fi reinut.

Recent, Rodney Brooks, profesor de roboticla laboratorul de InteligenArtificial

de la MIT, ntr-un volum67i ntr-un interview68- ceea ce urmeazse bazeazpe acest

interview- exprimutima sa convingere cpentru a trece de la neviu la viu ''we need

new stuff'' deoarece ''something vital is missing''. Fiind ntrebat, ce anume, rspunde

''I don't know'. Observ c acest lucru ar trebui cutat la nivel subcelular deoarece

''something that we haven't yet understood, that is there before our noses''. Totui, el

nu crede ceste vorba de o noufizicsau chimie, ci mai curnd de o noumatema-

tic.

Sunt foarte interesante aceste observaii, ca i altele ale acestui autor. Prerea mea,

bazatpe argumente expuse mai nainte, justificate prin multe lucrri anterioare, este

aceea cambele lucruri sunt necesare: att un nou ingredient, fizico-informaional, ct

i o noumatematic, despre care mpreuncu Menas Kafatos scriam:

''In integrative science there will be developed an integrative mathematics, i.e. a more

fundamental mathematics in which phenomenological categories, morphisms, and functorswill be used together along with the classical structural theory of categories and functors.Integrative science combines both physical and biological scientific fields with informationrelated to the most delicate (and deeper domains) of reality. In the new integrative physics,phenomenological information is an essential aspect and implies, not only energy andstructures as in the presently existing structural physics.The integrative mathematics will be based [] on the extension of the classical theory ofcategories and functors to the phenomenological domains. This is our proposed idea. Theclassical theory of categories was developed mainly for the structural domains, especially formathematics and for the foundations of mathematics and was already used for applications ininformatics (Cznescu 2001)69and other domains. A new idea was also to use the classicalclassical theory of categories and functors for a theory of consciousness and fundamentalconsciousness. Kato and Struppa (1999 )70, Struppa, Kafatos, Roy, Kato, and Amoroso

(2001)71

, Drgnescu (2000, 2001)72

, Kato (2001)73

developed works that demonstrate thefeasibility of using categories and functors in the integrative science. Kafatos and Roy arenow looking into the connection between non-locality, structural-phenomenological regimesand the new notions of functors comprising phenomenological domains. []Until now, thetheory of categories was a generalized mathematical theory of structures: Category theory isa general mathematical theory of structures and systems of structures (Marquis 1997)74. Asystem always contains a structure. The classical theory of categories is itself a structure and asystem. Still, if we consider this theory as a mathematical object involving the human mindthen the qualia induced in the mind by a structural theory may transform the mathematicalobject into a structural-phenomenological object.The new theory of categories proposed for


22/29

22

the integrative science is not just a science of structures. The new theory of categories, that wemay term the integrative theory of categories and functors, is a physical and informationaltheory with mathematical background. It is dealing with forms of phenomenological realitythat are not structures. There is also the point of view that category theory is a theory ofconcepts and as such challenges philosophers''75.

VECTORII SOCIETII CONTIINEIn studiul societii cunoaterii au fost definii vectori tehnologici i vectori

funcionali ai societii cunoaterii76.

Societatea contiinei se va nate din societatea cunoaterii, astfel nct

suportul asigurat de societatea cunoaterii, cu vectorii care au constituit-o i o

menin, poate fi considerat ca unul din vectorii societii contiinei. Pe lng

tehnologiile preluate din societatea cunoaterii, cum sunt internetul, inteligena

artificial, nanotehnologia, vectori tehnologici specifici societii contiinei vor putea

fi tehnologiile contiinei artificiale i ale biotehnologiei pentru transformarea speciei

umane, internetul contient, tehnologii pentru aciune la mare distan n spaiul

interplanetar al universului, precum i tehnologii pentru aciune n realitatea profund,

pentru a produce efecte de comunicare fenomenologic prin substratul existenei

profunde (care n mod natural se va face cu vitez infinit) sau pentru efecte

fenomenologic-structurale producnd consecine energetice sau asupra substanei n

realitatea spaio-temporal.

Societatea contiinei va avea i vectori funcionali, cum ar fi cunoaterea (de

cea mai mare importan fiind cunoaterea fundamental asupra existenei),

spiritualitatea, managementul i economia (societii contiinei), educaia (nu numai

a omului, ci a tot ceea ce este contiin n vederea continuitii cu trecutul bun al

omenirii), cultura (cu aceiai observaie ca n cazul anterior) .a.

Poate este prea devreme pentru a desprinde exhaustiv vectorii societii

contiinei, dar cei menionai mai nainte par plauzibili. Important este faptul de a

gndi asupra lor, pentru ca activitatea n societatea cunoaterii s-i aibn vedere de la

bun nceput, cu att mai mult cu ct tehnologia se dezvolt att de rapid nspretehnologiile societii contiinei, aparent de la sine, conform unor legiti proprii,

nct a nu aciona n viziunea cuprinztoare a vectorilor societii contiinei, ncdin

societatea cunoaterii, ar putea fi extrem de duntor pentru viitor.

Societatea contiinei se pregtete de pe acum.


23/29

23

SENSUL ISTORIEI: DEVENIREA CONTIINEI.

Conceptele despre societatea contiinei vor merge n pas cu dezvoltarea

tiinei, tehnologiei, a vieii sociale i a ideilor filosofice.

n viziunea noastrfilosofic, tendinele devenirii fac ca ntr-un univers sse

nasc contiine. Se poate spune c adevratul sens al istoriei ntr-un univers este

devenirea contiinei.

Contiina este aceea care a umanizat omul, l-a transformat din fiinbiologic

n om. Umanizarea sa poate nu este nc complet, i nu este, dar apariia unor

conttiine de tip nou, din punctul de vedere al substratului lor fizic (nelegnd i

biologic) vor constitui momente fireti ale evoluiei contiinei, pe fondul unei evoluii

tehnologice frprecedent.. Noile contiine vor prelua cunoaterea i spiritualitatea

omului, aa cum se vor gsi ele n momentul apariiei lor i vor fi umane, poate mai

umane dect ale omului nsui, selecia noilor contiine urmnd s se fac tocmai

ntr-o asemenea direcie. Se va aplica principiul continuitii contiinei, care va

nsemna i continuitatea culturii pozitive, a cunoaterii i umanismului.

Ce fore ale rului i agresivitii distrugtoare vor mai interveni? Societatea

contiinei va fi o societate a contiinelor de diferite tipuri, care se va apropia ct se

poate de mult de Contiina Fundamental a Existenei. Dar cine poate spune sau

prezice ce accidente se pot ntmpla pe parcurs, fie din cauza unor grupuri de oameni

naturali neadaptai noilor realiti, fie din ineficiena seleciei i umanizrii noilor

contiine artrificiale ?

Dar dac tendinele devenirii duc omenirea i umanitatea spre bine, i acest

lucru spun filosofiile lumii, atunci asemenea tendine pot fi mplinite i am putea fi

optimii, chiar dac n momentul de fa optimismul nu poate fi dect prudent.

Cunoaterea i contiina sunt marile resurse ale viitorului,pe care ssperm cvom

ti sle folosim.


24/29

24

REFERINE BIBLIOGRAFICE I NOTE

1Mihai Drgnescu, Cunoaterea n Secolul al XXI-lea,Revista de filosofie, 2002, ianuarie-aprilie, p. 5-17.

2Mihai Drgnescu, Contiina, frontiera tiinei, frontiera omenirii, Revista de filosofie,XLVII, 1-2, ianuarie-aprilie 2000, p.15-22.

3Francis Fukuyama, The End of History?The National Interest 16, Summer 1989, p.3-18.

4Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man,New York, Free Press, 1992.

5Idem, p.xii, unde scrie urmtoarele: ''And yet what I suggested had come to an end was notthe occurrence of events, even large and grave events, but History: that is, history understoodas a single, coherent, evolutionary process, when taking into account the experience of allpeoples in all times. This understanding of History was most closely associated with the greatGerman philosopher G. W. F. Hegel. It was made part of our daily intellectual atmosphere byKarl Marx, who borrowed this concept of History from Hegel [] Both Hegel and Marxbelieved that the evolution of human societies was not open-ended, but would end whenmankind had achieved a form of society that satisfied its deepest and most fundamentallongings. Both thinkers thus posited an "end of history": for Hegel this was the liberal state,while for Marx it was a communist society. This did not mean that the natural cycle of birth,life, and death would end, that important events would no longer happen, or that newspapersreporting them would cease to be published. It meant, rather, that there would be no furtherprogress in the development of underlying principles and institutions, because all of the reallybig questions had been settled''.

6

Idem, p.xiv.7Idem, p.xvi.

8Idem. p.xix.

9Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future, Consequences of the Biotechnologz Revolution,Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, New York, 2002.

10Idem, p.xii.

11Mark S. Granovetter, The Strength of Weak Ties, American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1973,1360-1380; D. J. Watts, S. H. Strogatz,Collective dynamics of small world networks, Nature,

393 (1998): 440-442; Albert-Lszlo Barabsi,Linked. The New Science of Networks, Perseus,Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2002; Mark Buchanan, Small World; Uncovering Nature'sHidden Networks, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London, 2002; Mihai Drgnescu and MenasKafatos, Community and Social Factors for the Integrative Science, research report ICIA,june 2003, to be published.

12Mihai Drgnescu, The sources of complementarity between mind and body, The NoeticJournal, Vol.4, No.1, Jan 2003, p.33-44.


25/29

25

13David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Arc Paperbacks-Routledge and Kegan PaulLtd., London, edition 1987 (first edition 1980); David Bohm, Physics and Philosophy, in thevolume Sciences et symboles, les vois de la connaissance- Colloque de Tsukuba, Albin Michel,Paris, 1986, pp. 253-259; David Bohm, Unfolding Meaning, A Weekend of Dialogue,Routledge,London, 1999 (first edition, 1985); D. Bohm and B.J. Hiley, The Undivided Universe. AnOntological Interpretation of Quantum Theory, Routledge, London, 1999 (first published, 1993).

Mihai Drgnescu, Ordinea implicata lui David Bohm i principiile ortofizcii, in Contemporanul,Bucharest, December 4, 1987.

14Mihai Drgnescu,Profunzimile lumii materiale, Bucureti, 1979; Ortofizica, Bucureti,1985;Informaia materiei, Bucureti, 1990.

15Mihai Drgnescu, Menas Kafatos, Generalized Foundational Principles in the Philosophyof Science, The Noetic Journal, 2, No.4 , Oct., 1999, p.341-350. Republished in Richard L.Amoroso et al (eds), Science and the Primacy of Consciousness, Intimation of a 21stCenturyRevolution, Orinda: The Noetic Press, Chapter 9, pp.86-98, 2002.

16Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future, op.cit., p.166--168.

17Idem, p. 171.

18 Grigore T. Popa, Reforma spiritului,ediie princeps, ngrijit de Petre Popescu-Gogan iClaudia Voiculescu, Editura Viaa MedicalRomneasc, Bucureti, 2002.

19Mihai Drgnescu, O gndire despre cunoatere, moralitate i societate,prefaa la volumulGrigore T. Popa,Reforma spirituluiop.cit., p.11-19; pulicat i n NOEMA, vol.1, 2003.

20Idem, p.11-12.

21Idem, p.13-14.

22

Howard Bloom, The Lucifer Principle. A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History,The Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, 1995.

23Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future, op.cit., p. 217-218.

24Mihai Drgnescu,Profunzimile lumii materiale, 1979, p. 274.

25Mihai Drgnescu,Neural Engineering And Neuroelectronics Facing ArtificialConsciousness,

Comunicare la a II-a ConferinDe Inginerie MedicalIngimed -2001, Bucureti, 13decembrie 2001; e-preprint, MSReader Format, Academia Romna, 2002.

26Mihaela Onofrei, Convorbire cu acad. Mihai Drgnescu, AZI, mari, 19 februarie 2002,

p.12.27 Mihai Drgnescu, Cultura si societatea cunoasterii, publicat in vol. coord. Dan Tufis,Florin Filip, Limba Romana in Societatea Informationala-Societatea Cunoasterii, EdituraExpert, Bucuresti, 2002, p.441-442, 459-472. Referitor la cultura pozitivi culturas negativ:'' O culturpoate fi apreciatpozitiv sau negativ, n raport cu anumite criterii. Se pierde preamult din vedere acest lucru. Exist astzi i o cultur a teroritilor (chiar i o tiin aterorismului), o cultura corupiei care ne pune nouromnilor attea probleme, o culturahoilor etc. Desigur, acestea pot fi numite sub-culturi, dar tot culturi sunt. Cultura are multefaete.


26/29

26

Cultura negativeste o culturdeformatn raport cu criteriile civilizaiei socio-umane.n ultimii 12 ani, n societatea romneasca, pe lnga multe lucruri pozitive, s-au accentuat, dinnefericire, i fenomene negative ngrijortoare: corupie, imoralitate, injustiie. Cretereaimoralitaii i a injustiiei, a influenat pni viaa academicdin ara noastr. Avem nevoiei de un efort cultural pentru a reduce aceste flageluri din societatea noastr, pe lngefortuldezvoltrii economice.

Un exemplu de cultur pozitiv este arta. A cunoate arta nseamn cunoatere,dar a simiarta, a tri arta, a avea nevoie de ea, a fi o bucurie interioar, acestea nseamn culturumanistadevrat.Dar dac cele de mai sus nu sunt nsoite de comportament civilizat, de civilizaie socio-uman, cultura poate fi denaturat(rapturile de opere de artn scopuri personale sau statale)Natura fireasc a culturii pozitive este aceea de a susine civilizaia socio-uman,spiritualitatea, cunoaterea i contiina, n cele din urm societatea cunoaterii i societateacontiinei. ''

28Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future, op.cit., p.318-319.

29Idem, p.331.

30Mihai Drgnescu, Menas Kafatos, Sisir Roy,Main types of phenomenological categories,Proceedings of the Romanian Academy, Series A, vol.2, nr.3, 2001, p. 115-122; MihaiDrgnescu, Neighborhoods in and among phenomenological categories, Proceedings of theRomanian Academy, Series A, vol.3, nr.3, 2002, p. 105-109.

31Mihai Drgnescu, Academicianul Nicolae Titulescu, cuvnt, 16 martie 1991, publicat nAcademica, 1991 i n vol. autoruluiEseuri, Editura Academiei Romne, 1993.

32 Mihai Drgnescu, Societatea Informaional i a Cunoaterii. Vectorii SocietiiCunoaterii, Academia Romn, Bucureti, 9 iulie 2001, publicat n vol. coord. Florin Gh.Filip, Societatea informaional-Societatea cunoaterii. Concepte, soluii i strategii pentruRomnia, Academia Romn, 2002, p.43 - 112.

33 Mihai Drgnescu, Lucrri - Teoria structural-fenomenologic a informaiei(teoriaintegrativ a informaiei), 1984-2002, Volum Biblioteca Academiei Romne, cota ,coninnd: Mihai Drgnescu, Cu privire la sens i semnificaie: napoi la Frege, n vol.autorului tiini Civilizaie, Bucureti, Editura tiinific i Enciclopedic, 1984, p. 201-220; Mihai Drgnescu, Information, heuristics, creation, In vol. ed. I.Plander, ArtificialIntelligence and Information Control System of Robots, North Holland, Elsevier SciencePublishers, p.25-28, 1984; Mihai Drgnescu,Informaia, (cap. 10-Componentele semanticeale informaiei; cap.11- Elemente pentru o teorie generala informaiei),n vol. Ortofizica,p. IV-a, Bucureti, Editura tiinifici Enciclopedic, p. 371-432,1985;Mihai Drgnescu, n vol.Electronica funcional(p. 60- 95, 317-348 , 393-407 i 418-419),Bucureti, Editura Tehnic, 1991; Mihai Drgnescu, Informaie i cunoatere, p. 64-65, n

lucrarea autorului Societatea informaionali a cunoaterii. Vectorii societii cunoaterii, nvol. coord. Florin Gh. Filip, Societatea Informaional-Societatea cunoaterii. Concepte,soluii i strategii pentru Romnia, Academia Romn, 2002.

34 Ionu Isac, Perspective asupra realitii fizice, Studii i cercetri din domeniul tiinelorsocio-umane, Cluj-Napoca, vol.11, 2003, p. 241-249.

35M.Drgnescu,Impasul structural al tiinei, conferinsusinutla Universitatea 'Babe.-Bolyai' Cluj-Napoca, 18 noiembrie 1996.


27/29

27

36 Idem, Informaia i forele fundamentale, comunicare prezentat la Sesiunea tiinificAOS-R, Centrul Militar Naional, Bucureti, 14 mai 1998, p.3-4.

37 Vezi n acest sens i I. Isac, Relaia dintre fizica structural i fizica structural-fenomenologic, n Caiete Critice, nr.5-7, 1997; Problematica ontologic n filosofiastructural-fenomenologic, Editura Fundaiei 'Constantin Brncui', Trgu Jiu, 1998;Metamorfozele gndului, Vol.1 - Ipostaze ale ideii de realitate fizic, Editura Fundaiei'Constantin Brncui', Trgu Jiu, 1999; Introducere n filosofia structural-fenomenologic.Paradigma ortofizicii,carte electronic, Editura Ardealul Trgu-Mure, 2001.

38 Chr. De Quincey, Consciousness: the Final Frontier?, Noetic Sciences Review, nr. 42,Summer, 1997.

39IonuIsac,Perspective asupra realitii fizice, op.cit., p.245-246.

40 Mihai Drgnescu, L'Univrsalit Ontologique de l'Information, Editura AcademieiRomne, Bucureti, 1996.

41Michael G. Zey, The Future Factor. The Five Forces Transforming Our Lives and ShapingHuman Destiny, Mc. Graw Hill, New York, 2000.

42Idem, p.17.

43 Michael G. Zey, Seizing the Future: The Dawn of the Macroindustrial Era, Secondedition, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, N.J., 1998, apud Michael G. Zey, TheFuture Factor,op.cit.

44Michael G. Zey, The Future Factor, op.cit., p.16-17.

45Idem, p.47.

46

Idem, p.165, 173-176.47Idem, p. 176.

48Idem, p.69, 72-73.

49Idem, p.95-98.

50Hans Moravec,Robot;Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind, Oxford University Press, NY,1999.

51Ray Kurzweil, The Age of Spiritual Machines,Penguin Books, 2000; ed. Jay W. Richards,Are We Spiritual Machines? Ray Kurzweil vs. the Critics of Strong A.I.., Discovery Institute,

Seattle, 2002.52Michael G. Zey, The Future Factor, op.cit., p.95-96.

53Idem, p.210.

54Idem, p. 212.

55Mihai Drgnescu,Informaia materiei, Bucureti, Editura Academiei, 1990;


28/29

28

Mihai Drgnescu,Luniversalit ontologique de linformation, Bucureti, Editura AcademieiRomne, 1996. Cu o ediie INTERNET, octombrie 1996 : http://www.racai.ro/~dragam;Menas Kafatos, Mihai Draganescu, Preliminaries to the Philosophy of Integrative Science, e-book(MSReader), Academy of scientists-Romania, ISBN 973-10-02510-X, Editura ICI, Bucharest, 2001;Mihai Drgnescu , Principes d'une science structurale-phnomnologique, Bulletin de la Classe desLettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, Academie Royale de Belgique, 6e srie,Tome IV, 7-,

p.255-311, 1993; Menas Kafatos and Mihai Drgnescu, Toward an Integrative Science,communication at the IVth Conference on Structural-phenomenological Modeling, RomanianAcademy, Bucharest, June 20-21, 2000, published in Menas Kafatos, Mihai Draganescu,Preliminariesto the Philosophy of Integrative Science,e-book.

56Hans Moravec, op.cit.

57Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind. A search for the missing science of consciousness,New York, Oxford University Press, 1994.

58 Mihai Drgnescu, Ortofizica (Orthophysics), Bucharest, Editura Stiintifica siEnciclopedica, 1985.

59

Mihai Drgnescu, General concepts and quantum aspects of information processing (inromanian), Communication, Department of Automation and Computers, UniversityPolitehnica Bucharest, symposium, march 28, 1997, published in the vol. RolulInvtmntului si al Cercetrii stiintifice universitare n dezvoltarea Societtii Informationale,Bucuresti, 1997, p. 31-39.

60Menas Kafatos and Mihai Drgnescu, Toward an Integrative Science,op.cit.

61Mihai Drgnescu , On the Structural-Phenomenological Theories of Consciousness, The NoeticJournal, Vol.1, No.1, June, 1997, p. 28-33.

62Mihai Drgnescu, Theories of Brain, Mind and Consciousness: Still Great Divergences,The Noetic Journal, vol.3, No.2, Apr., 2000, p. 125-139.

63Idem.

64Kirk Ludwig, Why the difference between quantum and classical physics is irrelevant to themind/body problem, PSYCHE: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Consciousness, 2(16), September, 1995.

65 Mihai Drgnescu, Taylors Bridge across the Explanatory Gap and its Extension,Consciousness and Cognition, 1998, 7, 165-168.

66Mihai Drgnescu, Theories of Brain, Mind and Consciousness: Still Great Divergencesop.cit.

67Rodney Allen Brooks,Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us, Pantheon Books,2002.

68Rodney Brooks,Interviewwith Duncan Graham-Rowe, New Scientist.com, 1 June 2002.


29/29

69 V.E. Cznescu, Concepte categoriale n algebra programelor , communication at the VthConference on structural-phenomenological modeling; categories and functors for modeling reality;inductive reasoning, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, june 14-15, 2001.

70Kato G., Struppa D., A sheaf theoretic approach to consciousness, The Noetic Journal, 2, No.1,p.1-3, 1999; Kato G., Struppa D., Category Theory and Consciousness,Proceedings of Tokyo99

Conference: Toward a Science of Consciousness Fundamental Approach, International conferenceat United Nations University, Tokyo, May 25-28, 1999.

71 D. Struppa, M. Kafatos, S. Roy, G. Kato, R. Amoroso, Category theory as the language ofconsciousness, George Mason University, 2000, published in The Noetic Journal, Vol.3, No.3, July2002, pp. 271-281.

72 Mihai Drgnescu, Categories and Functors for Structural-phenomenologicalModeling, Proceedings of the Romanian Academy, Series A, vol.1, No.2, 2000, p.111-115; MihaiDrgnescu, Autofunctors and Their Meaning, Proceedings of the Romanian Academy, Series A,vol. 1, No. 3, 2000; Mihai Drgnescu, Automorphisms in the Phenomenological Domains,Proceedings of the Romanian Academy, Series A, vol.2, No.1, 2001, pp. 45-48.

73Goro Kato, Category sheaf formulation of consciousness, communication at the Vth Conferenceon structural-phenomenological modeling; categories and functors for modeling reality; inductivereasoning, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, June 14-15, 2001; Goro Kato, Cohomology,Precohomology, Limit and Self-similarity of Conscious Entity,communication at the Vth Conferenceon structural-phenomenological modeling; categories and functors for modeling reality; inductivereasoning, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, June 14-15, 2001.

74 J-P. Marquis (1997), Category Theory, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, dynamic InternetEncyclopedia at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-theory/

75Menas Kafatos and Mihai Drgnescu,About the Integrative Science,published in the volumeMenas Kafatos, Mihai Draganescu,Preliminaries to the Philosophy of Integrative Science,e-

book (MSReader), Academy of Scientists-Romania, Editura ICI, ISBN 973-10-02510-X,2001.

76 Mihai Drgnescu, Societatea Informaional i a Cunoaterii. Vectorii SocietiiCunoateri,op.cit; Mihai Drgnescu, Broadband Internet and the Knowledge Society,Studies in Informatics and Control, Vol.11, No.3, Sept. 2002, pp.243-254 (lucrare dedicatprof. George Metakides).

societatea constiintei - introducere - mihai drăgănescu

Documents