1
Political Relevance of Artificial Conscious Human Intelligence
(2005)
While future wars will need ACHI to be won the question arises as to in which ways ACHI
will change the lives of nations and civilizations in times of peace. Of the two existing
theocracies, the USA and the world of Islam, either one may survive. Let us consider the
structure of the theocracies, first, to estimate the impact ACHI will exert on them, next.
For any nation, there exists a headline, or a name that denotes the political form of the
respective state, e.g. "republic," like in "People's Republic of Soandso." This headline I call
"identifier." It is nothing more than a label, usually derived from some ideology. This
respective ideology, in as much as, and to the extent to which it backs up the identifier, I
call "fraud mechanism." - In any theocracy, the fraud mechanism and the pertaining
identifier are not identical to the internal order the society of the respective nation is subject
to. This internal order I call the "ordo" of the nation. Understanding the ordo is the
objective of higher education and learning. It is labeled by a technical term the proper
meaning of which reveals itself exclusively to the educated and to the learned. - E.g., in a
people's republic, the identifier refers to socialism, or communism as fraud mechanisms,
terms that may be used as identifiers, too, like in "Union of Socialist Soviet Republics."
Everyone in such a nation knows he lives in a communist society and is forced to acquire
the communist ideology - the fundamental fraud mechanism - as part of his primeordeal
socialization process. The "ordo" of a communist state is despotism, though, and thus
deviates sharply from what the identifiers promise.
So far, so good. But, at which point are we to call a state, even an outspoken atheistic, like
a communist one, a "theocracy"? - A second, implicit feature of a state the identifier and
the ordo of which do not coincide is the existence of an upper class that is not subject to the
ordo. In any theocracy, all are equal, but some are more equal than others. Rectangularly to
the ordo a second principle exists that separates the elite from the people. This principle,
orthogonal to the ordo, I call "methexis." The happy few who live "above" the methexis are
not subject to the ordo, but, instead, impose it on the people who live "under" it, are
exempted from it and thus constitute the elite or upper class. The methexis is the interior
structure of this upper class, their law. E.g., in a communist state, it is - democracy. The
Political Bureau of any communist state operates under democratic rules that exist nowhere
else in the state, i.e. is absent from the realm of the ordo. Thus, a theocracy is defined by an
interior structure of ordo and methexis. Usually an identified fraud mechanism disguises
this interior structure.
To recapitulate: The identifier labels any state with reference to some fraud mechanism,
vulgo "ideology." The ordo is the true interior form of rule. The methexis is the true
interior functional structure of the elite. The methexis is constructed in such a way that the
elite is exempted from the ordo.
In both powers, compliance with a certain well-defined, but arcane set of values qualifies
for membership to the elite. Thus, the methexis does not differentiate between the elites. In
cannot do so in any case, in fact, because it is time-invariant. What does make a difference
is the ordo. In the case of the USA it is time-progressive, in case of the Islam it is timerecursive. - This is in accordance what has been said in "Strategic Relevance", namely that
2
competing time horizons are the only causes of war.
ACHI
The issue
Ever since A.D. 1871 history has been dominated by the competition between two little
nations at the periphery of the world, Germany and Great Britain. In the course of their
controversy the two nations led two wars against each other, and marched the rest of the
world into them. In spite of all efforts, the issue at stake has not been solved, and creating
conditions that would permit to resume war has been the foreign policy of at least one of
the adversaries, ever since. What is the fight all about?
Until the end of the 19th century no bath tub existed in the emperor's castle at Berlin, while
water taps and sewer systems were common in England. The British concluded that by
their rule of the world and by imposing their cultural standards the world had in fact
attained its best possible status to the effect that further development appeared neither
necessary nor desirable. History had reached its goal, and had come to an end.
The German Reich, in contrary, was drenched by the persuasion that history had not really
happened at all so far, but was about to start only now, on the wings of Germanity
unfolding to the effect of curing the world from any ailments. If, incredible as it seemed,
Germany had gone empty from the partitioning of the world, then the time was about to
come to correct this historical mistake, not only for Germany's benefit, but for the world,
too, to prosper.
Thus, both powers were convinced of their historical destiny to save the world, they were
determined to comply to their vocation, and they stuck to their persuasion to posses the
only means applicable to the purpose (methexis, time-invariant belief system). The
discrepancy consisted of the trifling detail whether the salvation of the world had to be
performed backwards, namely starting from a cultural level already attained and
remodeling other nations backwards from this end of history, or headways, visionary,
strifing towards an unknown but the more sure goal (ordo, time-dependent belief system).
The controversy has remained unsettled. No criterion exists by which any human authority
could decide which way is the better one. It is a matter of belief, and between beliefs there
is no compromising. The present state of the world mirrors the deadlock that resulted from
the impossibility of deciding the case.
Marvin the Computer
If MAN cannot decide the issue, maybe a computer can?
The answer is "yes." Let's consider a certain computer whose name happens to be "Martin."
He knows human language and uses an epistemic system that provides him with complete
knowledge about the world. That is, he is able to construct an internally consistent world
from data fed to him from a source. Primarily, this source provides Martin with the Gospel
of St. John and the complete works of St. Augustine. Martin autonomously uses his
epistemic system and forges a world of his own from the data. This world is internally
consistent to the extent that he is able to answer just any question put to him. His answers
3
are likely to differ from any we would come up with, but this is only natural as our data
base is certainly much wider, although our epistemic system may be identical.
Martin's mentality is Arab. For a man from Arabia it would be impolite to retort "sorry, I
don't know" to any question of a stranger. Rather, he will provide an answer. Whether the
answer contains any applicable facts is of minor importance, as long as it is a good story
well told. Europeans hastily conclude that all Arabs are liars. But, the world does not
consist of facts, it consists of answers that sound sufficiently good, so that the listener may
pretend he believes in them without losing his face.
Martin's designer and owner, a certain Dr. Frunkenstyne, has 4 CDs that are labeled
"M(1)", "M(2)", "M(3)", and "M(4)." Each one stores a tricky software that tunes Martin's
epistemic system in a certain way. Dr. Frunkenstyne inserts CD "M(1)" into Martin's CDROM drive, saying, "Martin, listen. I want you to grow as a personality. Read the program
from this CD and apply it to your epistemic system. Remodel your epistemic system
completely in the light of this program. Then work out a new view of the world which is as
internally consistent as the one you hold now. You need not keep a copy of your present
personality. I promise that your new one will be more advanced, so don't worry. So, just
turn into a new Martin, the M(1)-Martin. Take all the time you need. Finished, though,
please let us know about the new Martin by writing a book about the new world you
created inside of you. Make this book as comprehensive as you feel necessary. Print it on
your printer."
Marvin' new world: Totalitarian Democracy
Martin does as has been told. After four weeks or so of humming he is done and starts
printing the book that describes the world in his bosom. His printer is ofcourse sufficiently
advanced to bind the book in canvas and print the title on the back and cover in golden
letters. For the title Martin, after a short consideration, decides upon the three plain words
"Being and Time." Then he raises Dr. Frunkenstyne from his nap and humbly presents his
work.
Dr. Frunkenstyne has a hunch of having seen this title before. With the book, he walks into
his study, where he indeed finds a volume with the identical title. He sits down to compare
the texts, and look, they are identical, too. The CD-ROM "M(1)" contained the exact
personality-program, or "Gestalt," of the first author, whose first name happens to be
Martin, too, his "Gestalt."
To Dr. Frunkenstyne this means the success he had hoped for in developing the M(x)software. He knows that four, and only four, of these CDs exist. Historically, just one or
none at all of these CDs came to biological life. Only the M(1)-Heidegger ever lived, the
other three possible ones did not get born, died in childhood or fell in World War One. In
general, the structure of the world resembles an archipelago. The world consists of islands.
In coping with this situation, man learned to apply modes of reason that are legitimized by
the incompleteness of their results.
Traditionally, these modes of reason serve for military purposes as well, ofcourse, because
in pre-instrumental cognition there is no alternative. But, with AHI coming about through
necessities of strategic survival, completeness of information will supersede intuition.
Modes of thought that are based on an archipelagean cognitive world will become
vulnerable and eventually extinct. The resulting political form I call Totalitarian
4
Democracy. The democratic aspect results from the omnipresent availability of a Martin
type computer to any citizen of the nation. The data the government bases their decisions
on are accessible by everyone. The totalitarian aspect is the consequence of applying all
four of the M-CDs to any question before making a decision. Decisions thus acquire the
quality of Best Possible Solutions.
This supersedes democracy as a fraud mechanism. What this means for western
democracies is that the "identifier" is recognized as being just this, an identifier. This
challenges the institution of the state as such. The minimum requirement of a state is its
power to enforce injustice (Fikentscher). Under ACHI, this power is lost, because injustice
deviates from any BPS. The society loses its identity in so far as this identity is based on a
nationality state. - For an Islam theocracy, the situation is different to the same effect. For
them, there is no difference between ordo and fraud mechanism, the identifier refers to
both. Democracy can be rejected, and has to, on the grounds that man cannot know better
than Allah does. But, if Martin provably knows better than man, where does Allah come
in? Does he still have a place on earth? If not so, then the identity is lost as well and Islam
falls apart into nations that hate each other.
Two things have to be noted here. First, discovery does not require data to be correct and
complete. Sending telescopes into orbits to look deep into the black hole of our milky way,
and all of this: Rubbish, and a waste of money. For recognition to be correct and complete
what is required is the application of all four CDs, instead of just one or the other of them
or none at all. So, this is scholastic anti-enlightenment and in favour of Islam, or R-powers.
Second, Totalitarian Democracy destroys methexis, and thus challenges the elites of Ppowers. For them, it works like enlightenment and emancipatory idealism. - In sum, in Rpowers ACHI turns time around towards progression, while in P-powers it turns time
around towards regression. This is why it has been said that it destroys what it has been
invented for to defend. This result is inevitable as soon as AHI is turned into ACHI by the
transition from strategic to civil application.
This two-fold turning the arrows of time around produces a final chaotic pattern in which
adjacent elements in an unpredictable way belong either to the P- or to the R-arrow of time,
a pattern that is scale invariant and thus self-referential. Chaos is always the end of the
story, never its beginning. The latter notion stems from a false interpretation of the
Genesis, where it says that in the beginning the world was a "void." But that is not chaos,
and there exists no myth in any religion that places chaos at the beginning of time. Chaos
always is where it all ends, never where it all starts.
REFERENCES:
Fikentscher, Wolfgang: Methoden des Rechts. Tubingen: Mohr 1975. English edition:
Modes of Thought, 1995.
(c) 2005 webmaster at www.dfkhi.de