An Anthropological look at the World

On March 27, 2021,  The Wall Street Journal carried an article by Lisa Ward reporting on the discussion between AI researchers and Therapists focused on the question: "Can AI make mental-health treatment more accessible?"

This article points to a real problem facing humankind that requires an anthropological study and debate. AI machines are NOT humans. It may replace Humans, taking advantages of the distinctions and evolving to fill many of the roles considered too dangerous for human animals. Just as in Nature, human evolution has adapted to the context in which events occur and a drive toward efficiency. Efficiency is measured by the numbers. The number is determined by the rate and volume of reproduction over time. 

H. G. Wells was on target in the "Time Machine". He envisioned the evolution of the human animal and the AI machine with his characters of the Eloi and Morlocks. Two species will evolve, each filling a different ecological niche but tied together by a common origin and distinguished by different functions.

As pointed out in the article -- AI is being used as a method for discovering ways to identify and treat human mental health problems. But when machines begin to perform human functions, what is left to being human, or for that matter, distinguish the animal from the machine?

AI researchers and human psychological therapists must wonder what happens when AI is designed to mimic and adapt to more animal-like means of independence -- such self-containment, self replication, and mobility? But most of all, complete "self-awareness"?

Do they change into an alternative to the human animal? Does self-awareness mean the AI device is now part of its environment, rather than just an instrument to measure it? Will they or can they become the trainer of the human animal or the environmental threat to the human animal?

AI may learn to domesticate humans in the same manner that humans have domesticated many lower animal species. Some of these as work animals, some as food animals, and others as "emotional support" animals. Of course, the latter assumes AI will develop "emotions of empathy." That is, can and will AI replace humans at the top of the evolution chain. Interesting article! How and when will we know it happened?

The question is: How does it relate to anthropology?

Specialization is something that has come to the human species slowly. The past two hundred years has seen the rapid radiation (expansion and diversification) in society. This has been created by our increase in knowledge leading to technology and leading to human specialization in activities. It is in this context that we must view the raise of AI as both the benefits and the tensions between the haves and the have nots. What will be the anthropological impact of AI on Society and Culture?

Nature has evolved through a matter of layering from the single cell to the complex integration of cells  that form an individual organism. Anthony F. C. Wallace has identified two key processes which drive the integration of the individual (the bio- psychology evolution) and society (collective cultural evolution) of the human species, (Wallace 1961 ). These are The organization of diversity and uniformity of replication. 

Raised to the macro-level of the universe, these process suggests that evolution takes place through two processes: Individual replication and environmental diversity.

The first operates on an individual life-cycle basis with the replication of uniformity, within the current conditions and constraints of the event environment. The replication of uniformity, which is a time limited variable, is the tension between cloning the original vs. the statistical differential between clones within the population group. This latter affects the rate of individual traits within the environment. The replication of uniformity is like the odds in a game of cards, e.g. getting four of a kind in poker or making a  grand slam in bridge in no trump.

The second level, the organization of diversity is domain sensitive. That is, do the physical and/or cultural elements produce an organizational unity or chaos.  The former works within the critical uniformity of the organization's population (society's statuses) and the latter in the transmission of content (roles) that favors the organization of diverse statuses that society requires to survive in a stable environment. The organization of diversity is a variable limited by the degree of compatibility. It is the difference between dumping the puzzle out of the box (chaos) and the assembled puzzle (organization of uniformity).

Non-life becomes life, but that does not stop non-life from forming. In fact, "life" depends upon it. Life builds on non-life in specific contexts and not in others. Life itself is the story of this layering over time on this planet.

An example I witness in my own backyard is the Oak Tree, every three years it seems to have an abundance of acorns (replication). This is a time of plenty for the replication Oaks in the form of acorns.  But it also creates an abundance of food for squirrels this year. And more acrones being buried by squirrels increases the chance for more young shoots appearing next year.

Meanwhile, more buried acorns also means that more squirrels survive the winter and to reproduce next spring. These added squirrels make available more food to be prayed upon by the fox and coyote in the second year. This, in turn, means more foxes and coyotes will be replicated to survive the winter and be born in the spring. Meanwhile the oak trees are now just beginning their third year of of the cycle, and producing an abundance of new acorns. This mass replication will be seen next year in the number of squirrels, etc, etc.. 

The cycle of oaks, squirrels, and fox/coyote is the layering. This is the layering of  acorns, grazers, and predictors in nature. What will be the layering of humans and AI is the anthropological question?

-------------------------------------

Ward,  Lisa  3/26/2021, "Can Artificial Intelligence Replace Human Therapists?", Wall Street Journal

Wallace, 1961,  Culture and Personality, New York: Random House.

HUMAN EVOLUTION --- The ANTHROPOLOGICAL ADVANTAGE

“Anthropology is the most humanistic of the sciences and the most scientific of the humanities”

If we are to apply our evolutionary advantage as a species, we must recognize that humanity is both the observer and participant in the evolutionary process of life on the planet Earth. This is the power of the Anthropological perspective. Anthropology, as a science, seeks to understand how we have become the dominant biological organism on the planet. Anthropology, as humanity, seeks to understand how we view ourselves as individuals and as individuals living in societies through time.

The most humanistic of the sciences means that as human beings we attempt to understand the workings of the universe that we have inherited, through human eyes. We seek this understanding by describing the elements that we experience through our human senses. From these observations, we construct mental models of the universe we discover; and in the process, we discovered a “STRUCTURE” for the universe. 

As the most scientific of the humanities, we seek to understand the dynamic of these structures through our observations and, in the process, ascribe “FUNCTION” to the elements. In FUNCTION, we discover Purpose and Meaning. However, over time and space, we discover as humans, that these elements can be combined into different patterns. We also observe that our idea of Function is relative to our experience with a given Structure. We embody our experience in the Meanings we assign to structures and their elements. We label this as “CULTURE.”  A hallmark of anthropology is Cultural relativity, i.e. the meanings of structures and events are relative to the observer’s experience.

As organic beings, we have a unique ability to be self-reflective. We share our reflections with others through Language. Language is a meta-phenomenon that encodes our experience into a set of signs and symbols that shares “Meaning”. We express our discoveries, experiences, and feelings through the physical signs and symbols we create and share with others.  Humans experience not only discover the “purpose” of structural elements, but also the part(s) they play in creating and maintaining the larger structures of which they are a part.  We, as humans, discover and seek “MEANING” to the purpose. As a self-reflective species, we seek our meanings from explanation about how these structures apply to us, personally, collectively (a part of society), and as a species (among all species).

 “Meaning” expresses “purpose” in a relativistic way. It explains the links we find in nature in terms of “cause to effect”. It provides the answer to the old philosophical question, “If a tree falls in the woods, does it matter if no one hears it?” From the Human perspective, the answer is “No.” If we cannot, or do not experience, the event, for us the event does not exist. The experience is not existential, only an ideational possibility. Scientifically, an ideational explanation of a experience without physical evidence is a hypothesis, a belief based on a “best guess.” Again, an example of CULTURAL RELATIVITY.

The recognition of Cultural Relativity is one of the greatest discoveries of Anthropology. While often underplayed in public discourse, it gives us an advantage over other disciplines by recognizing the role of ethnocentrism as a part of the human condition. Like all organisms, biologically we recognize our own species. But, as a self-reflective animal, we separate ourselves as a clad or society from others sharing our environment by attributing meanings and purposes to the other in relations to us.

While this feature of human life is so evident today, why is it that the anthropological perspective has emerged in the last three centuries in the human mind only? This is the questions that I will be addressing in future installments of this blog.

Where does GENDER fit in anthropology?

Anthropologically gender is an important variable because of its biological origin, that is as a technical term, gender denotes one's sexual function as a member of the species. From the evolutionary perspective it is significant in terms of the biological mechanism that produces adaptations over time, and today in terms of the medical consequences for the individual person as a biological organism.

Socially, these distinctions are and have been critical to the formation of human reproductive unit (the family) and the process of raising of an immature offspring to a sexually mature member of the group. It also is important in the way society, the group, responds to individuals born physically "different" from the local gender norm, or the behaviors that differ from those norm. How a society adapts to these situations are certainly anthropological questions.

Culturally, as many point out, gender is simply assumed by the members of a culture. They simple conform to the norms symbolism of dress, styles, occupations, etc. The anthropological questions that relate to these gender differences arise from the comparison between cultures and sub-cultures. Also the anthropologist is interested in the definitions and responses to deviance from these expected differences.

While cultures and societies may address the gender issues differently, the biological significance of gender to the species has, until the end of the last century, been a critical element in the definition of the human animal. Today, with fertility and transgender medical technology, the biological imperative for gender is coming under question and the human, social, and cultural responses are definitely a subject for anthropological study.

Finally, the role of technology and gender raises another set of questions where technology cancels out the physical advantages that once were associated with the biological advantages one gender held over the other. Again, these are anthropological questions about the biological nature of gender worthy of study.