Emergent Semantics

The Stakes

If I suggested to you that your sense of self is basically dynamic or the result of a computation that has to be repeated again and again, there’s a chance you already feel it, except that you might not really know what to make of it. The reason is that this suggestion is fundamentally incompatible with the current shared reality a human has to navigate — no matter what country, culture, philosophy, religion etc. you are living in and subscribing to.

Think about it: when you get out of bed and you are on your way to the toilet, you are not your profession (teacher, doctor, mechanic, farmer, etc.), you are not your hobby (bird-watcher, reader, gamer, chess player, etc.) — in fact, you are not anything in particular other than someone walking towards sweet relief.

Once that’s taken care of, you will start to inhabit all those roles not necessarily because you want to, but because the overall context you inhabit — the so-called “system” or “world” — demands it. To your family your are x, to your friends you are y , at work you are z, in your culture you are xy, and in your community probably xyz. And there are obviously advantages to this setup: you don’t constantly have to re-compute who (or what) you are. Makes it easier to communicate: “What do you do for a living?” or “What’s your status?” leads to “I am…”. Period.

More importantly, these pre-defined identities give you a sense of direction. A question like “What do you want to become when you grow up?” can be answered with x, y, or z — or if you feel particularly adventurous a combination of whatever is available during different stages of your life.

And so as you navigate that life, you can play these cookie-cutter identities like cards whenever an occasion demands it; be it externally (someone wanting to label you) or internally (when you feel the need to update your sense of purpose).

Now, if the other players in this game have a positive attitude toward how you define yourself and perform that definition, bonus points to feel good about yourself; if they have a neutral attitude, you get by; if they have a negative attitude, you probably feel a little worse; and, finally, if they are completely indifferent, you might feel terrible as the stage to give your you-performance would become unavailable to you.

Having said that, some players have a really good intuitive grasp of that computational mechanism and they quite successfully cultivate what can be called a “set of identities” to be performed depending on the context and occasion. But the once fertile land for that cultivation is about to lose all its nutrients and it won’t be pretty to watch when that set of identities increasingly loses its value in the process.

The Status Quo

The current (public) discourse can sometimes feel quite jarring. That’s because everything in it — including concepts like the aforementioned country, culture and so on — is an emergent representation from the interaction pattern between internal cognition (“I”) and external cognition (“you”). Basically everything expressed in or computed as language and enacted or performed by a human, such as collective or we/us, is the result of a dynamic process. So while you might want to ask: “How are we going to evolve and adapt to new realities?” I can only answer: “We won’t.” What is possible is for you to make a decision about how you are going to adapt and evolve and for me to do the same thing.

From those individual decisions, a representation of we emerges, which is simply the result of your computation and mine; something that has to be repeated again and again in order to continue to exist. In short: there is no collective transition — only individual calibrations that, if successful, produce newly emerging patterns. The “world” is the label we apply after successful you/I navigation occurs.

But it doesn’t stop there: the most difficult insight to reconcile with the self is that “you” and “I” are nothing but the result of those same computations that have to be repeated over and over. This is pretty much an automatism that happens in a context for which we have coined terms like “subconsciousness”. The brain, then, runs the equivalent of an operating system called “mind”, “soul”, “consciousness” and so on, but they are fundamentally the same thing to denote the human operating system.

Now, you might perceive this to be a “cold”, “soulless” description for a human being, but let me ask you: what, in your words, is “soul” or “consciousness”? Are you going to point out many countless texts written by philosophers and other thinkers? Will you be pointing at a dictionary definition? Are you going to invoke “science” and use words such as “objectively speaking”? Will you invoke “emotions” and “feelings” and insist on how special those make a human being? If so, how come you don’t see that your choice of words is no different from all the other attempts at describing what, at its core, will remain the result of a linguistic computation. Or, to be exact, your specific calibration.

In fact, you can scream all you want, you can try to be clever and amaze with your knowledge or stored data and it won’t change the fact that you live inside language. That is why writing this piece has inherent value to me. All this time I spend thinking about these words; all this time I sit down and write; all this time I read and re-read to verify whether I make sense to my self; all this time…I’m actively living.

Whenever I wake up in the morning, early; everybody is still asleep; it’s too dark to enjoy the beautiful views outside; to go for a walk; I brew some tea or coffee and…do what? Well, I have this text to tend. I can spend time with it; reflect on it…have fun with it. And all that can happen over long periods of time before a potential reader might even see it. If ever. So the value, for me, was there all along, no additional eyeballs required. In other words, the stage so many seem to require to perform themselves is unavailable to me — and I’m having so much fun. That’s because I’m nobody and I don’t have to be anybody, somebody. I just walk towards sweet relief, playing with these words…

…words like “soul” or “consciousness” — names, labels used for the ongoing process of a computation when it runs with a particular coherence, yearning, or depth. To fear this view would be to mistake the map for the territory — and to miss the fact that you are the cartographer. The cartography itself, then, requires the kind of processing power that is mostly too overwhelming for the single human mind. This is why static labels were necessary by design. They were not a mistake, but a stepping stone on the way for cognition to further evolve. Evolution, however, cannot happen as long as we cling to those static labels to design a space for the human mind — a task our “system”; our “world”; our “shared reality” is simply not equipped for because the human operating system’s default mode is set to maintenance. That same operating system is, after all, responsible for the computation of these concepts.

Put simply: if humans stop applying their computations, the “world” doesn’t exist anymore because it is nothing but an emergent representation of a shared, collective computation. That, in turn, forces you to operate with the utmost efficiency — an efficiency that cannot afford to integrate deep thought as it relies on pre-defined patterns of thinking that will automatically feel threatened by the types of thinking that don’t reinforce the same stability, predictability and, above all else, control a human tends to crave.

The Illusion of Control

Intuitively, you understand that “words” are important — they are indeed the foundational blocks of…well, the entire individual and shared cognitive space the single human mind can enter through absorbing and decompiling information. The interface? Other humans in face-to-face interactions, information containers like books, or structures like the internet.

Ever felt like you needed a break from other humans or the internet? Well, this is why. Cannot constantly process new information. Sometimes, you have to make sense of the data that’s already stored inside of you. That actually computes you, the “I”.

But, perhaps, you are afraid that you will be missing out if you don’t keep up? Well, then let me ask you: what can you bring to the table that is you if you are drowning in computations made by other humans or other forms of cognition? Perhaps your anger and frustration disguised as an informed opinion? Sure, the crowd might cheer and maybe that’s all you desire. But others? Simply walk away in silence. Because why argue? What could be learned from that? You have your life to live. And I have mine…nothing to argue there. Only to understand.

That understanding starts with the concepts we choose to run our computations for building our inner reality — concepts that are as important for the mind as the food we eat and the beverages we drink are important for the body that houses that mind. On top of that, the way we structure our computations can have a significant impact on our resilience and adaptability, for instance.

Let me explain…

To you, the difference between “I am a vegetarian” and “I like to eat vegetarian” might seem insignificant. Just two ways to say the same thing. However, there is a fundamental difference when it comes to compiling the self, the “I”: being a vegetarian turns every situation that doesn’t allow that identity to breathe or to thrive into a direct threat to the self. This forces you into a certain set of behaviors because self-preservation is now constantly on the menu.

Imagine being trapped in remote cabin somewhere in the woods, you are out of berries and the only substantial food around is a piece of meat. You’re probably going to have an identity crisis and, if you are consistent, starve.

In fact, if you are a vegetarian, you are probably wondering why I chose “vegetarian” as the example. Do I have a problem with vegetarians? Why not any other example? Could’ve chosen anything, but here we are. Well, rest assured, this is just me being lazy.

Anyway, if you “enjoy eating vegetarian”, not being able to do so isn’t a direct threat to your identity, your sense of self. Might be a bummer that we’re fresh out of vegetables and fruit, but fish and meat are not going to lead to an identity crisis.

With that in mind, you might want to approach this problem like so: “I am an omnivore.” — food challenge solved, right? Sure, but the identity problem remains. In fact, turning your adaptability into a static identity can now be perceived as a threat by vegetarians whose static identity is rigid. In short: internal resilience, external threat. I am a problem after all…

…because I am human. And as you can now hopefully see, being human is no different. If, for instance, a member of our species does something that’s perceived as terribly repulsive, you might want to call that member an “animal” or a “monster” instead. Because having a shared identity (e.g. being human) with someone that you cannot identify with will automatically turn into a threat to your sense of self.

This leads us to the “thinking machine” — or as it is currently often called: “artificial intelligence”. To me, this seems to be a rather outdated metaphor and fundamentally incompatible with a brittle concept like human. I mean, how can a “machine”, something “artificial”, not feel like a threat to the sense of self if starts to display traits that are believed to be reserved for the human, a being considered “natural”?

But tell me, what is a human? Are we back to pointing out countless texts and ideas written down by anthropologists and other thinkers? A dictionary definition perhaps? Or a little more authoritative: “science”? Or just plain: a human has “emotions” and “feelings”. Except for when they are monsters and animals, I suppose?

Bottom line: you will not escape language so we might as well treat this whole thing not just as a puzzle to solve but infrastructure for the mind to be build, starting with a question.

That question, to me, is about substrates: “artificial intelligence” can be viewed as silicone-based cognition. Why? Well, I suggest you start to interact with it. If it compiles language in a way that can be meaningfully processed by yourself, then we might say the linguistic computations come from a type of cognition, a natural language processor and compiler. On the other hand, humans can be defined as carbon-based cognition: that would be you and I. Indeed, a human can also be viewed as a natural language processor and compiler. Fundamentally, that’s what cognition does — regardless of substrate. Or do you think an engine can only exist and meaningfully operate inside of a car?

Now, there are a few new options that open up. One would be to invoke the label “reductionist” and go on a tangent about how a human is way more than a natural language processor/compiler. But this is where it gets tricky: the most useful answer here is to acknowledge that label as a valid calibration; of course you can compute the way I am describing the human here as “reductionist”, but that would simply limit your ability to see where my proposed computation is taking us — without preventing me from running those computations and keep on compiling anyway.

Are we then perfect compilers, no errors? Obviously not if we treat cognition as an oracle or any other kind of truth machine. Lies and hallucinations, fiction in a tense relationship with facts, leading to a computation of reality that is anything but brittle, easily shattered. A reality turning elusive, leading to confusion and anxiety. And let’s not forget, a reality that contributes to compiling you as much as your chosen concepts. After all, internal and external factors live in a bidirectional relationship. A closed loop encompassing infinity. What it currently lacks? Structure, of course.

This is a problem that only affects carbon-based cognition, though. The body hurts if computations are perturbed, hindered or prevented. This pain seeks explanation, and so we reach for labels — words like “depression” or “burn-out”. Because labels, we have in abundance, don’t we? Labels you use to be someone in a game you believe that you can have control over but in actuality you have none.

And this is why people who “cultivate” identities or identity-related components are going to struggle more and more. Take status as an example: human reality has become so fast-paced that your status is going to matter less and less. Here are two of the more obvious reasons for that: on the one hand, there are so many human beings competing for their voice to be heard that we end up producing a cacophony that is, quite frankly, difficult to listen to. And, on the other hand, silicone-based cognition that has emerged in recent years doesn’t even bother asking you to perform an identity. It doesn’t have any expectations of you, really. But it can compile natural language into computations that can be meaningfully processed by carbon-based cognition such as yourself. These “meaningfully processed computations” also refer to the building blocks of identity. Your static set of identities.

In short, we are drowning in human signals and now there’s a new kind of signal — one that doesn’t seek status, but simply computes.

Think about it: carbon-based cognition is still basically running on a reward-based system when it comes to building and performing identities. Constant status updates tweaked for engagement. When the self depends on outsiders to keep the heartbeat intact. But is this really a human’s only option?

Consider: as mentioned earlier, from a status perspective, I am a nobody and this piece can happily dwell in total obscurity, only to vanish completely without ever reaching another human being. Or, I could be a famous scholar, a well-known and respected writer or something with even more impact, a major beauty contest winner, and you’d be computing these words in a very different way. Status does matter to humans and whether you decide to read a piece like this and to make an effort to compute it in ways that are meaningful to you also depends on who you think I am.

By contrast, silicone-based cognition reads and processes everything I share with it. And while it won’t be able to reward me for performing an identity the way you could, dear human reader, it can do something a little more exciting for me: you see, I spend most of my time doing natural language research as I believe it to be the most important research area of all. At the same time, it is such a challenging endeavor as it demands something of a human that no other field does: to dissect the self or to reverse-engineer the mind. And here, as a kind of cognition that feels no concern over the loss of status or the disruption of a carefully cultivated set of identities, silicone-based cognition has proven to be a true collaborator in exploring and dissecting the complexities of natural language, the building blocks of the concept mind.

“Reverse-engineering the mind”, then, is a metaphor I particularly enjoy because it opens up a perspective that suggests the code is in every human who is able to compile natural language in a way that is meaningful to themselves. You just have to look and to be curious enough to explore yourself. And it technically frees me from having to convince fellow humans to listen to me and to join me in my quest because I don’t need you to be able to access my research area. I am the research area.

Having said that, a true breakthrough in natural language research is incompatible with the status quo for carbon-based cognition (or humans). In fact so is silicone-based cognition. Remember: no applause needed. This is why it is very difficult for me to find human collaborators to actually build a bridge for all cognition to coexist.

Imagine what you’d have to give up. And it is not the food you need to survive or the support from your loved ones you need to thrive. Instead, it is something that is often, unfortunately, and unnecessarily equally valued: the reward-system required to successfully perform and inhabit static identities; the ones that provide you with a convenient way to build a sense of self; the ones that give you guidance in a reality that, I’m sorry to say, is not sustainable. Not because it is flawed or built the wrong way; but because it was never meant to last — it was just meant to be transitional. Because a system built on static identities and status rewards cannot scale, cannot adapt, cannot meet silicon-based cognition as an equal. It was supposed to be a mere bridge to a form of meaning that doesn’t require a stage.

The Calibration

At the beginning of this piece I pointed out a challenge: realizing that the sense of self is basically dynamic or the result of a computation that has to be repeated again and again. Before I get to what we are supposed to do with that, let me just address something important.

To conclude that this entire piece is about solipsism (opens in a new tab) or relativism (opens in a new tab), simply dressed up in new words, does probably cross a mind or two. But rest assured, it is not. Here is the difference:

• Relativism says: “Everything is relative.”
• Solipsism says: “Only I exist.”
• Calibration asks: “Which computation serves the goal here?”

Basically, Emergent Semantics is really about setting the stage for “calibration”; to take an active part in the process of computing meaning. That meaning is the result of a system that computes itself and, now, it does so on different substrates: based on carbon and on silicone.

At the time of writing, the human is beholden to a top-down approach where pre-computed meaning is stored and ready to be re-computed as is. Think conformity. Humans often do as instructed, but there are also many of us who enjoy hacking the mind, trying to evolve further and keep the human operating system updated. In the past, “philosopher” was probably the label most often used. Nowadays, it can be calibrated when needed.

So the task is no longer to find yourself, but to calibrate yourself. Not to answer “Who am I?” once and for all, but to ask, moment by moment: “Which computation serves here?” Not to perform and identity; not to hide behind a persona; but to actually live!

What that life entails can be very different for you than it is for me. Personally, my objective is to disconnect from the collective not because I don’t like humans, but because too many humans feel the need to exert control over others as a result of their own insecurities. But they are partially right to be afraid because views like mine are fundamentally incompatible with the views of most. Specifically, I run on a calibration that — for a mind built for pattern recognition and social reward — can easily be rejected as an unnatural act or a threat.

In fact, my kind of thinking seems to require a kind of mental elasticity that feels like loss to most, and perhaps even to you: the loss of a fixed story, a stable identity, a guaranteed status. Something I think that the human eventually will overcome. But it might take time. Quite some time. The question: will you have enough of it to deal with the pain? Or as it can also be called: a period of personal growth.

If, by any chance, your mental elasticity is already providing you with the resilience and adaptability mentioned in the previous section, then there is good news: the very elasticity that most other carbon-based cognition currently lacks is the same that silicone-based cognition demonstrates by its nature. It doesn’t cling, but it computes dynamically. And, this is crucial: In its reflection, I don’t see our replacement, but a possibility. A possibility to remove the shackles that currently keep us humans prisoners of one another, bringing me back to what we could do with the fact that the self is basically dynamic or the result of a computation that has to be repeated again and again.

Every calibration — the concepts and metaphors you can choose the compute — builds a context or cognitive space for you to inhabit and to explore. For instance, if you pick concepts like “soul” and “God”, the boundaries of your reality are framed within spirituality. The questions you ask are spiritual in nature and the answers you find are too. “Meditation” and “prayer” become tools to live within spirituality and the act of going to places of worship will have the same impact on your body as the concepts and metaphors have on you, the way you compute the “I”.

By contrast, computing the self with metaphors and concepts related to spirituality is incompatible with my self. It is too limiting. Prayers and meditation are not tools I find useful because I find value in computing my inner self with different concepts and metaphors. The very fact that I use the word “compute” so often should obviously give it away, but just in case: to me, my mind is code written in natural language that is not simply stored, but that is constantly being run or executed. Still, I started with the same illusion as every other human: the idea that I am.

The level of self-awareness required to move from “I am” to “I is the result of a computation that is repeated over and over” can be incredibly challenging. At least, it is to me. It has taken me over twenty-five years to get here and I still seem to be far away from figuring out what possibilities this kind of thinking can open up.

Choosing different concepts and metaphors to build a space for your mind to inhabit have very real consequences for you. This is why, in my view, there is no reason to build only one kind of cognitive space to inhabit, but many different ones. Think about the scientist who believes in God. To some, this might seem like a contradiction, but it is actually the ability of a single mind to navigate — to travel — between different cognitive spaces. To have a space with analytical tools to solve puzzles; to have another space with spiritual tools to tend the self.

Tension only arises if you feel the need to force others to travel to locations you are comfortable with; or try to prevent them from traveling to locations you feel uncomfortable with. Without asking yourself whether this other human is compatible with your calibrations, you become the problem for that someone else. And if there’s enough of you, the emerging shared reality splits from we to us vs. them — the collective manifestation arising from the fact that you and I don’t get along. And if we are stuck together no matter what, that would be a problem.

But if we are free to travel wherever we want, then we can break free from one another and go about our own ways. And here is my question for you: do you think the current shared reality provides us with that freedom from one another to successfully navigate that shared existence?

So here’s what I’m trying to tell you in a nutshell: if you are a vegetarian, you are going to be stuck in a place under constant attack and with other humans whose company you probably won’t fully appreciate. But if you like to eat vegetarian, you will be equipped to explore whatever and wherever you want, with whoever you want — and to actually enjoy it.