Our Social Operating System is about to Crash Part 1

Our Social Operating System is about to Crash Part 1

0 1402



We call whatever follows the Late Modern Era “Post Modern”.

All we can be sure of, however, is that it’ll be based on a Post Mortem.


Arman Matthews


Part I of this article is a necessary introduction to Part 2 and a must read.  Otherwise, Part 2 will not stand alone.  The purpose of these two articles is not to provide a prophesy but rather to lay out the dynamics that drive social arrangements in human society to a breakdown of civil order.  Such an event is the natural way a healthy society self-corrects its social arrangements to regain a more user friendly civil order.  In so doing,  it’s hoped that the reader will gain some fresh analytical tools to aid in deconstructing propaganda from the Defense Department suggesting that the  eventual civil disorder on the horizon, in the U.S., will be caused by “self-radicalized” individuals intent on undermining our so-called Constitutional protections.  This claim serves only to give the Military a moral warrant,  in such a scenario, to assassinate U.S. citizens at will.  The absurdity of such a claim is made obvious by the simple fact that most of the population of the United States are already living in what has been declared a “Constitution Free Zone” by the Department of Homeland Security, and therefore the DHS itself, has become an enemy of the Constitutional protections guaranteed to all citizens of this country.   Presumably, we’re supposed to be too stupid to catch such lapses of logic.

                   *                  *                  *

Over millions of years, our central nervous system evolved an extremely sophisticated control system that, in effect, is a biocomputer. While the central nervous system used information to process energy, the biocomputer uses energy to process information, and instead of processing low entropy matter into energy for its organism; the biocomputer processes sensible data into information for its memory. In effect, nature flipped homeostasis from operating on the entropy equation in physics, to operating in reverse,  the information equation. Nature went high tech.

 computer-brainHomeostasis is the predisposition of an organism  or a cell to regulate its internal conditions, usually by a system of feedback controls so as to stabilize  health and functioning, regardless of the outside changing conditions . The process of homeostasis in the organism animates the system and so we say it is “alive”. By flipping the equation in the biocomputer, “Homeostasis” became the predisposition of a biocomputer to regulate its internal conditions, usually by a system of feedback controls, so as to stabilize cognition, regardless of changing conditions on the outside Analogously, the process by which homeostasis animates the biocomputer, we call “Consciousness”. Consciousness is the function of the biocomputer, as life is the function of the organism. While a properly running organic system is said to be “Healthy”, a properly running biocomputer is said to be “Cognitive”.   If the organism’s health receives an “insult” or is damaged in some way, it feels feedback in the form of pain or discomfort, by which it initiates a process of mending, or healing, itself back to a whole. If the animated biocomputer’s cognition receivers an insult or is torn in some way, it feels feedback in the form of uncertainty or uneasiness, by which it initiates a process of mending, or thinking itself back to a whole. Although “pain” and “uncertainty” are forms of negative feedback, they’re positive sensations, in the sense that we feel them. In other words, as long as we aren’t feeling pain or uncertainty, we assume we’re healthy and cognitive.

 How does the biocomputer compare to the solid-state artificial computer? Just as the body is animated when it’s alive, so the brain is animated when it’s conscious.  Biocomputer intelligence is only operative in an animated biocomputer. It is therefore an attribute of consciousness. An inanimate biocomputer has no intelligence. “Artificial Intelligence” is a myth. What’s called “Intelligence” in inanimate computers is imbedded programming in an operating system. So called “A.I.” only obeys commands, it can’t question the legitimacy of its commands or be given a problem and then question why it’s a problem in the first place and then decide its not a problem and not obey its commands. Biological Intelligence in the consciousness of the animated biocomputer is a general problem solver and can, by intention, direct its own information processing.  Biological Intelligence is autonomous and is capable of reprogramming itself and even installing a new operating system. A.I is an operating system is tethered to following commands. In order to get a biocomputer to operate like an inanimate computer with artificial intelligence, the biocomputer’s body must be enslaved and or its biocomputer must be “brain washed”.  The fact that artificial intelligence in an inanimate computer can usually beat a biological intelligence in an animate biocomputer at chess has nothing to do with intelligence per se or “intuition” (which is another mythical property of Artificial Intelligence). Chess consists of a finite universe of moves. The biological computer is not equipped to hold such a large number of possible moves in short term memory and so must move at some point by intuition. The inanimate computer doesn’t have such a problem because it is not operating consciously. Therefore, storage of such a large finite universe of moves is not a problem, and because of its speed of processing, it appears to be making decisions. In other words, chess for an inanimate computer with Artificial Intelligence is nothing more than an extremely complicated game of tic tac toe. Should both computers be matched in a game involving an infinity of possible moves and variables, the inanimate computers “intuition” would fail. Ultimately, the superiority of an animated biocomputer’s intelligence over an inanimate computer’s intelligence lies in the formers ability to be disobedient.


brain waves


 300px-Ai_integrationWhile an artificial intelligence can be the operating system for several other operating systems, they can be only modules of the central intelligence.  Artificial intelligence is good for the network of a robot.  However, Biological Intelligence requires an operating system that is shared by all biocomputers who occupy a certain space in addition to their own autonomous operating system (which is homeostasis).  That way all autonomous biocomputers can share a social operating system that facilitates interaction, exchange, commerce, and all other common activities unique to animated biocomputers sharing the same physical space. This is a natural necessity since the organisms that support them tend to survive by sharing the same physical space with other organisms of the same species.



In insects such as ants, bees, termites and so on, the social operating system is dominant and the individual operating system is basically programed by the social operating system. In more complex animals, herding animals, such as sheep, cows, horses, etc. still have a dominant social operating system, where as other animals such as lions, elephants, and apes the relation between the individual and the social is more balanced. Lions tend to have prides, with a few males and multiple females, yet male lions without prides will go off on their own. With humans, neither is dominate by nature. Humans can exhibit herd like behavior, or live in relative seclusion. Tribal behavior usual has social operating systems called “Mores”, but built into these systems is punishment for organisms whose biocomputers lead them to break the mores.

Primitive biocomputers had multiple “I”s. This made it easier for the social operating system to dominate the individual biocomputers. Primitive peoples would often hear voices talking to them and identify those voices with gods. As they consolidated their gods into one, so their self-development as biocomputers correspondingly centralized control of the animated biocomputer into one single super consistent self-programmer. Thus conscious directed, or volitional, programming became “I” actions, and social directed programming became “Me” actions. By this time in human development, a common biocomputer dysfunction is to display multiple “I”s and is considered a “sickness” and is called “schizophrenia”, or “multiple personality disorder.”

Once self-control was achieved through consolidation of “I”s and the biocomputer became relatively autonomous, mores weakened. However, the need for social operating systems still existed more than ever. Human behavior had become a mix between “I” driven actions deriving from conscious volition of animated biocomputers, and “Me” driven actions derived from social programming.  No human can escape this dual nature and so human behavior becomes a dialectic between the two. Multiple biocomputers that share a common space must have a common operating system to solve common problems. The common operating system not only facilitates mutual interactions, transactions, commerce, and norms but also limits the inferences that can be drawn, the problems that can be solved and even the statements that can be made about such problems that make sense.   Insofar as humans share a common operating system, they must play by the rules or the system won’t work.

Since biocomputers achieved autonomy, their common history has consisted of changes in social operating systems over the ages. We tend to map our history like geological eras, or archeological eras, where in find certain commonalities between shared operating systems over centuries, with certain variations downloaded progressively over the years, until there is a major shift, which we sometimes called a “Paradigm Shift”, in which a completely fresh social operating system takes hold and a new era begins.  For instance, our own era can be broken down into early Modern times, or “Modernity 1.0”, Middle Modern Times or “Modernity 2.0”, and late Modern times, or “Modernity 3.0. This has era of the Modern social operating system has about run its course after a period of around 600 years.

In Part 2 we will attempt to understand the dynamic that drives the continual change of social operating systems over the millennia and why it is happening now.




To be continued











Leave a Reply