THE ASIMOV SCENARIO:
PREDICTING OUTCOMES OF THE STRUGGLE FOR CYBERSPACE

Synchron General Systems,
Väringavägen 20 tr3,
SE 193 35 Sigtuna, Sweden.
E-mail 

A paper for the International Society for the Systems Science (ISSS) Conference 2000
Toronto, Canada    July 16-23, 2000
http://ww.isss.org

 

 

Any one of the three general questions confronting information systems design and information technology can be skillfully answered within the conceptual framework of any one of three general disciplines.

The questions:
1) What are the conceptual foundations that inform the partitioning of the
            tasks between human beings and machine?
2) What means do information systems have for extending the biological
            infrastructure of information processing in organizations?
3) What will be the consequences of the present struggle for control of
            cyberspace?

Three behavioral science disciplines can deal with these complex problems from a perspective that strictly Information Technology approaches can not. General systems, Synergetics, and cultural anthropology, all exploit the perspective of hovering like a satellite over the interfaces between relevant specialties. Each can exploit a "zoom" like mechanism with which to view whole patterns or sub atomic particles. All generate information and, largely, are generated by information. More subtly, any pair can be seen as converging in the remaining discipline. Though one of the disciplines alone, or all in concert can deal with the complexity of information systems, understanding this complexity confronts these disciplines with the behavioral science analogue of uniting the theory of relativity and theories quantum mechanics. Here, "understanding" is analogous to the speed of light. Understanding has to be invariant over cultures, groups and individuals. Most important, the complexities of understanding must be, 'universally', understood. This study takes advantage of striking analogies between conclusions reached in science fiction writer Isaac Asimov’s Foundation’s Edge and those reached by embedding Eigen & Winkler’s Laws of the Game in Nicolas Rashevsky’s Mathematical Biophysics. Add Anatol Rapoport’s game theory contributions. The resulting general system predicts that after an initial catastrophe, politics will probably triumph over industry in the power struggle for cyberspace. Field studies are included. (Information Systems Design and Information Technology)

Keywords :   GO, General systems, Synergetics, Tai-chi, Laws of the Game, behavior.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Isaac Asimov concludes Foundations Edge, his science fiction saga of the struggle for space, with the execution of a choice that binds four competing systems to a plan based on the interrelationships between living species. Each competing aspect of contemporary society is represented by a character.

Politicians backed by advanced technosystems are represented by an ambitious, middle aged woman who welds a tenuous but formidable power over military resources. Information industries, backed by advanced "mental" systems (as opposed to behavioral systems!) are concentrated in the mind of a young man. A second woman is part of a bio-collective consciousness representing bio-systems--Gaia. Gaia presents the critical options and holds the ultimate responsibility for seeing to it that the choice, once made, is executed. Significantly, this bio-systems, woman possesses behavioral modification skills and represents even greater "mental" resources than her information industries antagonist. The fourth character, another young man, represents individuals. He makes the binding choice, a choice in favor of bio-systems. Of vital importance to Asimov’s scenario, instead of extensive knowledge of any or all of the competing systems, the man was chosen as mediator between the competing systems because his choice would be based on intuition and insufficient information.

For Asimov, the saga and its scenario represents the convergence of physical, behavioral and biological sciences. In the present context Asimov’s saga and its scenario represents both the convergence of sciences and a prediction of the outcome of the ongoing struggle for cyberspace. This study strongly supports Asimov’s prediction. Only slight modifications in characters and updating to contemporary theories are necessary to make Asimov’s science fiction conform to general systems fact.

Asimov’s saga began with a prediction based on what Asimov calls "mental science"—the science of human behavior reduced to mathematical equations. Hari Seldon, Asimov’s alter ego, constructed a statistical science—"psychohistory". Equations from psychohistory predicted that, left to itself, The First Galactic Empire would fall, leaving thirty thousand years of human agony and misery in its wake before a Second Empire would arise from the ruins. The fall could not be prevented, but by adjusting a few conditions, the interregnum could be decreased to a single millennium. To insure the minimum time for reconstruction Seldon created two colonies—The First Foundation and the Second Foundation. Physical science was the basis for the First Foundation, mental science the basis for the Second Foundation.

Laws governing the expansion of gases acted as the conceptual basis for the population dynamics employed by biochemist Asimov’s alter ego. Time’s Feminine Arrow (Dockens III, 1996), a contemporary general systems model, that boasts a considerably broader conceptual base supplies the population dynamics here. Nevertheless, the pragmatics, social dynamics and conclusions for cyberspace are analogous (almost to the point of identity) with those of Asimov’s alter ego—Hari Seldon. What would a contemporary Hari Seldon (Seldon 2000) predict for cyberspace?

Seldon 2000 Predicts

The twelve volume Conference of Social and Physical Environmental Variables as Determinants of Mental Health (Dockens, 1957-1962) functions as Seldon 2000’s Encyclopedia Galactica, the source of knowledge upon which Foundation One’s social physics approach to behavioral science is based. After ethologist John Calhoun’s (1962) impressive rat experiment suggested how the manipulation of physical space alone could influence the establishment of vicious, aggressive, social hierarchies, the conferences focused their attention on physical space. That physical space could emerge as the primary variable determining "mental health" was so novel a view in the mid 20^th Century that it earned the conference participants the somewhat derisive, somewhat playful nick name—space cadets. The conferences did not attract much publicity or attention, however.

Like Asimov/Seldon’s Encyclopedia Galactica project, the NIMH project was archived in obscurity, treated as a typical, though ambitious, academic project that had little likelihood for realization, until a series of crisis showed its real world utility. Its utility here is amplified by its contribution to Seldon 2000’s Foundation One approach to "mental science"—first by means of mental health.

Mental "health" was the specialty of the conference chairman, psychiatrist Leonard Duhl. Using the conferences as a base, Duhl (1960) criticized severely the language, the isolation, the very foundations of contemporary psychiatry and psychology. He suggested learning to adapt as the most significant behavioral process. He warned that power to define "mental health" as a consequence of adaptation introduced a potentially dangerous, political variable into what was, and still is, primarily a medical question.

In the context of Calhoun’s experiment, the connections between power, mental health and physical space was obvious. The questions, how do you prove it? And after proving it, how do you apply the results? To answer these questions, the Asimov Scenario requires two foundations and Gaia—actually three foundations.

Seldon 2000 begins at NIMH conferences, from which Foundation One inherits Rashevsky’s biophysical approach. Nicolas Rashevsky’s mathematical models start with neuro organization and progressed through time, through space, and up a hierarchy of social organization. Like Asimov’s model for Hari Seldon, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in physical space acted as the prototype for Rashevsky’s (1951) (1960) equations. Rashevsky’s strategy of simply predicting and not interfering differed somewhat dramatically from Asimov’s alter ego. Nevertheless, the Rashevsky equations were the starting point for the Seldon 2000 analogue for both "psychohistory" and the plan that emerges from the geometrization of biology. Thus began a paradigm shift from conventional behavioral science, first subtly.

The Prime Radiant

In Asimov’s saga, mathematical psychologists developed an equation system called the "prime radiant". It was the basis of Asimov/Seldon’s mental science, mental science’s predictions, its explanations, its modifications and manipulation, all stem from the "prime radiant". In addition, the prime radiant becomes not only the cumulative record of the applications of Seldon’s plan and but the psychohistory of the second foundation.

Its importance is evident in Foundation’s Edge, where a projector in the office of each Second Foundation leader (called "Speaker" by Asimov) could present a holographic copy of the prime radiant. Contributions, conformity and deviations were duly recorded and color-coded. Advancement to the top rank of First Speaker was based primarily on contributions to the all-important plan. Though evolving naturally from 20^th Century behavioral science, Seldon 2000 conforms to Asimov/Seldon in almost every respect. By development and implementation of the prime radiant, mathematical psychologists become the custodians of "mental science", a mental science which is developed as a specialty within mathematical biology. This development will eventually place the new discipline at the interfaces between virtually every known discipline. General systems psychiatry would be the name applied to the new discipline from which Seldon 2000 would emerge. See Gray, Duhl & Rizzo, (1969), Dockens (1975).

The word "power" and "influence" are seldom mentioned in basic behavioral science research. They are, nevertheless, dangerous, not too subtle factors that have an effect on research just as they affect every aspect of advanced technical societies. Within all academic disciplines are very carefully prescribed, and defended boundaries called paradigms. Some of them follow peaceful strategies, others exceedingly aggressive. See Kuhn (1970). Because of its intimate relations to politics, philosophy and religion, history is by far the subject that has the potential to be the most dangerous adversary, sensitive to any activity on any of its paradigmatic boarders. So, in establishing the psychohistories of its two foundations, Seldon 2000 had to approach the historical interfaces between Europe and China with the utmost caution.

A Mathematical Philosophy

Mathematical logician Bertrand Russell’s (1961) History of Western Philosophy supplied mental science’s historical pillar for the First Foundation. Hans Reichenbach’s(1938) time based, logical empiricism furnished philosophical prescriptions and solutions to the difficult problem of induction, and Reichenbach (1965) furnished the important links to quantum mechanics. Since philosophers and psychologists were far from unanimous in their acceptance of Reichenbach’s division of labor between philosophy and psychology, serious problems a at this interface when Seldon 2000 chose to supplement Reichenbach’s position by including Hume. See Dockens (1979) and Hume (1999).

However, more than dependence on mathematical equations separates psychohistory of the prime radiant from both conventional history and the history of psychology. The extremely high priority given to the physical variable space-time separates psychohistory from the humanities and from conventional approaches to behavioral science. Adaptation and survival emerge naturally from the choice of variables. Consequences rather than consensus become the sole determiners of priorities. Boundaries between disciplines are first extended then erased. The result is a system that makes predictions for cyberspace that conform to Asimov’s scenario for galactic space. Catastrophe equations from the resultant mathematical psychology take on forms that are barely familiar to conventional behavioral sciences and humanities.

Mental Science

Whereas space-time is the primary variable for biophysics and architecture. "Time-space" would be a more accurate description of mental science’s primary variable. For biophysicists and architects, space has three dimensions, time only one. Space is immediately perceivable, time is the abstraction. For mental science, time has two dimensions space has three. Time is immediately perceivable, space is the abstraction. Biophysics, and mental science often work in more than four dimensions. In any event, separating space-time is not practical and, as a convention, mental science formulates psychohistory in terms of the four physical dimensions.

Psychohistory is mental science’s approach to evolution. Instead of Darwin’s theory, micro geneticists Eigen & Winkler’s (1983) Life/Death Game is evolution’s conceptual framework. All organisms, including Homo sapiens, take part in a game that resembles wei-ch’i (Japanese GO). In the Life/Death Game, survival is a process rather than a goal, strategies are learned and inherited, both at the same time. Laws of "Chance" and (Necessity) operate simultaneously. The result is an existence that is not strictly determined, but determined more or less. Organisms adapt to the laws of the Life/Death Game by means of rules. According to Eigen & Winkler, it is the ability to adapt by means of rules that constitutes "understanding". In fact, only the rules can be understood.

The psychohistory of a human begins with a one cell egg. After fertilization the cells multiply. The result is three layers of cells that develop into an embryo. The embryo develops into an infant. Adaptation and development are inextricably linked. So that compliance or failure to comply with the laws of the game results in survival or death, sickness or health. In this biophysical, sense, the development of the individual recapitulates the development of the species. After birth, biophysical adaptation is influenced by the environment. Conventional behavioral science focuses on the nervous system, humanities focus on aspects of cognitive development. Following Duhl (1960) mental science treats adaptation as a general process, where organisms adapt physically and psychologically. For psychohistory, changes in adaptive strategies constitutes "learning". Focus on one or another aspect of adaptive processes is treated as a convenience rather than a priority or a fact. Individual and group psychology are formulated within the conceptual framework of genes learning to play games.

Rapoport’s (1969) (1970a) (1970b) approach to conflict and game theory supplied the necessary links to learning theory because "payoffs" and games could be equated. This link was strengthened by substituting a signal detection psycho physics procedure for the method of limits used in Sperling, Sidley, Dockens & Jolliffe, (1968). Thus social physics, game theory, and psychophysics became inextricably linked. Axelrod (1984) supplied the necessary links between Rapoport’s game theory and politics. Game theory and social physics secured, Seldon 2000 lacked only the anthropological perspective to cover the interfaces between cultures.

Mental Science’s tta stone

The analogue to psychohistory’s tta stone was created by combining anthropologist Anita Jacobson-Widding’s (1979) Congo studies with anthropologist-futurist Magoroh Maruyama’s (1980 a), (1980 b) Mindscape theory. Jacobson-Widding’s "dual cognition" approach made two important contributions. It suggested dual cognition for Europeans who applied a dyadic logic in formal situations and triadic logic in private. She also raised the gender question in respect to logic, both in the Congo and in Europe.

In addition to making a direct connection between paradigms and game strategies, the Mindscape acts as an anthropological analogue to psychology’s personality theories. Because Mindscape’s greater depth and generality extend the range and utility of psychohistory in problems of conflict resolution, predicting the outcomes of the struggle for cyberspace becomes an ideal situation for determining the role of mindscapes in general systems theory.

Rates

"Time’s Feminine Arrow" (Dockens 1996a) applied Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s (1968) general systems principle to Rashevsky’s system to produce the basis for the Seldon 2000 prime radian.By showing that mathematical expressions can be simulated by bead game, games with simple rules, Eigen & Winkler (1983) permits mental science to take advantage of two observations, one psychological the other mathematical. The functional unit of understanding is a game, and the fundamental datum for all dynamic systems can be expressed as rates. The consequences are legion.

Chaos and order, Chance and Necessity, harmony and dissonance become opponent processes. Whether one or the other exists depends upon the degree of synchronization of rates. Population pressures which generated both Calhoun (1962) social hierarchies and Colinvaux’s (1983) "fates of nations" are related to Skinner’s rats and Pavlov’s dogs by means of rates. Premack (1971) showed rates to be related to priorities. Priorities supply the dynamics payoffs. Payoffs, in their turn are fundamental too in Rapoport’s (1970a) games. The games are related in fundamental ways to Mindscapes, which are the psychological units of culture.

To accommodate the cyberspace conflict problem, Jacobson-Widding’s and Maruyama’s cultural anthropology contributions were integrated into the general system and the system applied to Information Technology problems. The necessary modifications are reviewed in Dockens (1999a) (1999b). Applied in concert, the general system places mental science at the interfaces of practically everything. Figure 1 shows a general view and Figure 2 displays a more detailed picture of the specialties enlisted. Seldon 2000’s Foundation One, Foundation Two, and Gaia emerge from the Time’s Feminine Arrow (TFM) complex. Primary focus is on genes playing the Life/Death Game.

Taken in concert, the complex interrelationships between dynamic systems mental science’s and Gaia’s methods of control, can be derived from the laws of The Life/Death Game. Seldon 2000’s prime radiant,

The immediate consequence of the complexity is a mathematically driven convergence of bio mathematical systems within the conceptual framework of Life/Death Game theory. The divisions between living systems and dead systems become blurred when the phase physicist Hermann Haken’s (1978) equations are applied to biobehavioral systems. Haken supplies the necessary links between his synergetics, general systems and Eigen & Winkler’s Life/Death Game. The combined system, has the qualities of a comprehensive Foundation One approach to human behavior, an approach that has generated and is now in control of cyberspace.

Mind/Information Circles

Seldon 2000 discovered that the relationships between cyberspace and humans do not deviate from the environment/organism established for life forms and their environments. What deviates is Foundation One’s concept of the relationships between organisms and their environment. The psychohistory of this deviance can be traced back to Plato and extended to the present.

Plato’s concept of virtual reality was expressed in the allegory of the cave. Shadows of objects cast on the wall of a cave was as close as humans could expect to come to reality. General systems psychiatrist Leonard Duhl (1960) expressed what was to become the prevailing biological perspective. All organisms modify their environments and are, in turn, modified by their environments. Translated into contemporary cosmology, matter controls energy, life controls matter and information controls life. Add new advances in the ability to control his own genetics. And the lines between human reality and virtual reality become very blurred indeed. So do the lines of control. Like ants in their hills, human artifacts exert extreme control over human behavior. Be that as it may, the laws of The Game are the same for all terrestrials.

Large deviations from optimal, local, patterns that function as standards rarely lead to success. The most difficult problems involve relationships between the local patterns, regional patterns and global strategies have to be carefully evaluated. In addition to relationships between groups that are in harmony and conflict, wei-chi simulates important relationships between individuals and groups—among them, suicide.

The goal oriented, impersonal, efficiency of Foundation One behavioral science can not suggest optimal strategies for the Life/Death Game because the reasoning as well as the strategies are foreign to Foundation One. In contrast, powerful analogies as well as viable strategies for the Life/Death Game were developed by Foundation Two. Seldon 2000 opted to apply the three thousand years of experience with game patterns, experience amassed by the Second Foundation.

Breakthroughs in Foundation One mathematics has shown promise. See Dockens (1999b). In any event, a bridge between the two foundations is mandatory, along with a computer designed to aid in evaluating strategies from the integration of Foundation One and Foundation Two mental sciences. The bridge is T’ai Chi.

Foundation Two

Though both cultures developed pragmatic mental sciences as opposed to philosophies (in the European sense), Yu-lan (1983) and Russell (1961) show two, equal, but opposite developments in Chinese and United States mental science. Psychology in both the United States and Europe is essentially a psychology of "other people", a public psychology developed from the perspective of an educated observer. The psychological aspects of Chinese philosophy are both personal and extremely secretive. The most striking difference between the two cultures is that the United States culture is specialized in discontinuity and Chinese culture is specialized in continuity.

Their respective specialization is consistent with the fast evolving, physical sciences dominated behavioral science in the United States and the very powerful, sophisticated, games and psychic disciplines that have evolved over millennia in China. As a result, China is more advanced than the United States in mental science, the United States is more advanced that China in physical science. But the gap is fast closing from both directions. The virtual cyberspace world mirrors the development and the influences of the two cultures, with the United States in a dominant position, but far from secure in its control. Like our planet, cyberspace is threatened but would most probably survive the disappearance of either or both cultures. A prime radiant based on psychohistory requires a mathematically based understanding of the potential rivals.

Culture free dual mathematical models supply process. Meaning is derived from the game. See Dockens (1996a)(1999b). Crossing cultural boundaries was the first problem. Combining the work of cultural anthropologists Jacobson-Widding (1979) and Maruyama (1980 a) (1980 b), radical differences in reasoning and epistemologies constitute the major barrier to cultural exchange between the United States and China. Since language and reason were part of the barrier, mathematics was the only remaining option that showed any promise of crossing the Sino-American barrier.

The personal, process oriented, mental science of China is the exact opposite to the goal oriented, impersonal, behavioral science of the United States. China is one of the world’s oldest nations, the United States is one of the world’s youngest. Continuity is the word that best describes the cultural development of China. Discontinuity is the word that best describes the cultural development of the United States. The United States has dominated the cultural development in the Western Hemisphere. China has dominated cultural development in the East. Like Asimov/Seldon’s two foundations that were located at opposite ends of the galaxy, China and the United States are located on opposite sides of the globe. Asimov/Seldon’s Foundation One excelled in physical science while Foundation Two excelled in mental science. The United States has excelled in physical science, China has excelled in mental science. Both countries produced philosophies dominated by pragmatism. Governments in both countries are aggressive and highly secretive.

The Tai-chi concept

The Tai-chi concept is so complex and so central to Chinese culture that mathematics had to be supported by both extensive research and field studies. Philosophical Taoism emerged as the most promising conceptual framework, Tai-chiCh’üan as the most concrete method of demonstration. In an exemplary combination of academic and martial arts politics, Tai-chiCh’üan enthusiast and mathematician Jou, Tsung Hwa (1983) makes the bridge in three sections of his book. In the introductory section, called "Roots", Hwa states that "Tai-chi can offer a comprehensive explanation for all the phenomena in the universe." Translated as "The Grand Terminus" Tai-chi principles describe practical approaches to solving problems in natural as well as human realms. He follows with an introduction to the different styles of martial arts that apply Tai-chi principles that is indicative of the way Chinese mental science dominated culture treats "truth".

After establishing a general definition, along with a subjective feeling ("spirit"), Hwa devotes his philosophy chapter to the a formal definition of the term. Mathematics is essential both for following the definition and noting a crucial switch in strategy. First Tai-chi is represented as the zero point (origin) with Yin as the negative direction and Yang as the positive direction. After showing that the Yin/Yang forms are equivalent to the four quadrants of a rectangular coordinate plane, Hwa uses German mathematician Leibnitz’s binary system to show how Yin and Yang are used to construct the eight triads that serve as the basic functional units of Chinese reasoning. Permutations of the eight triads are combined into hexagrams. The result is equivalent to a continuum with sixty-two steps between what is called "true" and "false" in Western philosophy. The philosophical handbook describing the rules for interpreting the hexagrams is called the I Ching (the Book of Changes). The I Ching is the intellectual basis for Chinese reasoning and culture. There is no equivalent in the West. See Wilhelm (1960)(1951).

Tai-chi is critical element for optimal application of the I Ching. How critical can be readily demonstrated in the art of tai-chi chuan where Yin and Yang represent two complementary opposites that always coexist. In his final, application chapter, Hwa cautions against a common mistake that many Westerners make is assuming a linear cause and effect relationship between Yin and Yang. In reality there is a circular relationship where Yin and Yang are in constant transition, one to the other. Under conditions where tai-chi chuan is directly connected to the Life/Death Game, failure to follow the rules that lead to optimal conformity to the tai-chi principal can have lethal consequences. The same applies to wei-chi analogues used in military strategies. See Boorman (1969), Dockens (1999b).

Because of its circular transitions between opposites, its dependence on random permutation, and its association with Chinese culture, the Tai-chi concept has been taboo in Western religious and academic circles. Nevertheless, examples of similar patterns (called "synchrons" because they synchronize organisms and environments) abound in physical and biological sciences. DeValois & DeValois (1975) furnishes a perfect analogue for experimental psychologists. See Dockens (1996a) (1999b).

As an optimal reasoning pattern for the Life/Death Game, the Tai-chi concept of harmony between opposites is a useful addition to Seldon 2000’s conceptual system, but it introduces a significant change. Laws of mental science conform to the laws of The Game but differ in that no concept in mental science can be proven true or false. Because, from the perspective of mental science, true and false are personal feelings, expressed through Mindscapes. Laws operate through games, in fact our games are our only contact with the laws of The Game. Consequently, the real world is necessarily a virtual world.

Furthermore, any attempt to prove otherwise leads inevitably to an approach to the Tai-chi limit, a psychological end point where the thought patterns either become opponent processes and/or take on the form of unending spirals through time. Though interpretations and rationalizations about the mechanisms governing what happens at the T’ai Chi limit may vary, the mental science explanation is simple. Our thought pattern at this point conforms to our neuro coding—the mammalian brain’s default, pattern of reasoning. There are also practical consequences.

Two Durable Networks

Multiple barriers have so far prevented all but the most superficial unions between 20^th Century Foundation One (The United States) and Foundation Two (China). Barriers encountered by factors discovered in the humanities, such as nationalism, history ,the taboo against Chinese reasoning, and mindscapes are far more formidable than those considered in conventional behavioral sciences. Nevertheless, ability to share space-time is the most significant variable. Like other biophysical laws, politicians can not repeal the laws of reinforcement. Predictions are complex but by no means impossible. Systems, principles and mindscapes will determine, more or less, the scenario to the struggle for control of cyberspace.

Like Earth, cyberspace is sensitive, but very durable—by nature. Consequently, Earth and cyberspace may change forms, but will probably outlive all, would be, candidates for control. Since both Earth and cyberspace are physical spaces that are sensitive to modification by life forms, the space-time characteristics are subject to radical changes, changes that will may or may not support the competing life forms. In other words, space-time is indifferent to form, changes, or existence. It is the life forms, not space-time, that survive in but a few narrow perimeters. These parameters are afforded by space-time.

The history of Earth shows that the narrow perimeters under which Earth life forms can exist change periodically. Adaptation is practically equivalent to survival because only forms that adapt to the changes survive. Adaptation is difficult to describe because Earth and cyberspace are networks where everything is either directly or indirectly connected to everything else. Furthermore, the networks of Earth and cyberspace are inextricably connected.

Cyberspace is an artifact. An artifact’s importance to the survival of both individuals and species is solely because of connections between space-time, life, and death. However, like many other human artifacts, cyberspace has the potential to influence Earth’s biosphere, where changes may have repercussions for all life forms. The relationships between cyberspace and the biosphere make Foundation One, Foundation Two and Gaia, essentially three foundations, necessary for a satisfactory resolution of the problems regarding the struggle for cyberspace. Eigen & Winkler’s Laws of the Game make a mental science approach feasible.

Cyberspace is a real, physical, space-time. Therefore, like any other environmental event, cyberspace can be treated as a potential stimulus. As a potential stimulus, cyberspace is susceptible to both the laws of The Game and the rules of mental science. Like the rules of wei-chi, understanding of the rules of mental science depends upon quality, quantity and level of training. But in contrast to the laws of The Game, and similar to wei-chi, the understanding of mental science far exceeds the understanding of rules. Since creating rules that conform to the laws of The Game is the goal of both foundations, this difference in understanding marks the fundamental difference between Seldon 2000’s First and Second Foundations.

For example, with the aid of a computer Foundation One has created a system that can only be fully "understood" by a computer. Already at the level of an effective, collective intelligence, powerful computers are more capable of making critical decisions than the technicians who build and who service the computers. Given fail safe systems and laws of robotics similar to those proposed by Asimov, the danger of computers taking absolute control is minimal. The paradoxes arise when Foundation One asks the computer to solve the problems concerning the struggle for cyberspace. Who, or what defines optimal? Given dual cognition, should the standard for optimal be defined in terms of the group or the individual? Which groups and which individuals? Who should program the computer?

A computer that produced any answer except "insufficient information!" could cause serious conflicts with potentially lethal consequences. The First Foundation’s mental science strategy leads inevitably to information intensive decision processes that require a computer. A hidden assumption is that the decision will be made from top down perspective of some hierarchy. This assumption would cause no problems for the creators of cyberspace, who were affiliated with hierarchical organizations. This assumption would cause problems for non-hierarchical systems, organizations and individuals And unlike formal or inferred hierarchies, the priorities upon which intuitive decisions are based follow complex catastrophe patterns. This raises the question as to how insufficient should insufficient be? Cyberspace’s network form suggests wei-chi strategy—the specialty of Foundation Two.

The Second Foundation perceives development from the bottom up, and well within the boundaries of the one byte limit of working memories capacity. Consistent with the wei-chi strategy, elegant, five bit, simplicity is preferred over gigabyte complexity. Incomprehensible to First Foundationers, wei-chi players recognize three levels of understanding. Childlike simplicity is learning the simple rules of the game and the fundamental patterns encountered in the corners and sides of the board. Complexity is encountered in the mid game when networks of heterogeneous groups struggle for space on the 19 X 19 grid. Simplicity returns again in the end game when lines of power and influence become clear and each, individual stone may take on extreme values, and the position of a single, small group might be decisive to the outcome of the game.

Second Foundationers are not at all intimidated by the First Foundations awesomely powerful computers. Virtually useless at the beginning of the game, hopelessly confused in the middle, First Foundation algorithms are a threat only during the end game. The Second Foundation prefers the simple mind, obviously not simple like a child, but simple like a Picasso sketch, a Satie Gymnopédie or a Miles Davis trumpet solo. Two cognitive strategies, the mathematical and the intuitive, are equally effective on the wei-chi board. Hierarchies occur as fractals rather than pyramids. See Barnsley (1988).

While analysis is given the highest priority by First Foundationers, Second Foundationers must be equally adept at analysis and synthesis. As a consequence, First Foundation decisions most often end with a forced choice between two, disjoint, adversarial alternatives, Second Foundation decisions usually harmonize opposites within a single, often discontinuous system. Forced to choose a dominant Foundation, Asimov/Seldon selected Foundation Two.

In contrast, the Asimov scenario suggests Gaia and Seldon 2000 agrees. The behavioral patterns driven by laws of The Game act like unseen forces driving events to their conclusion. These laws do not exclude any form or event, they simply place powerful limits on probability and stability. Asimov/Seldon’s knowledge of these laws combined with modification by Foundation Two to produce a phenomenon similar to a hand that steered galactic developments. Some examples of the directing forces for Seldon 2000.

Adaptation that results in long range stability has, in principle, favored open systems over closed, the variable over the rigid, the varied over the limited, generalization over specialization and the small over the large. In all cases, interactions between organisms and space-time have created conditions where control has been ephemeral. Greatest stability is generated from the bottom up. It is apparent from controlled studies and field observations that human intervention, with or without computers, have not modified the laws of The Game. In fact, by increasing in population and not modifying their own behavior humans have only intensified the consequences of the laws. Thus the dangerous instability caused by population pressures on space-time suggest the Asimov scenario as the most probable result.

The reasons why Foundation One behavioral science is incapable of dealing with this intensity can be intuitively calculated by applying mental science mathematics. A theory of non linear equations would be necessary for a formal presentation of how the differences between Foundation Two mental science calculations and the linear equations so frequently applied by Foundation One. See Simmons (1991). The fact that Foundation One’s linear equations and hierarchical strategies crash when confronted by networks like cyberspace, ecology and the wei-chi board is only part of the story. The whole story emerges from converting Eigen & Winkler’s (1983) GO analogy to a Foundation Two wei-chi analogy. At present bead games can simulate mathematical laws but neither contemporary mathematics nor contemporary computer algorithms can deal with the 19 X 19 wei-chi grid, let alone the ecosphere! Regardless of the information available, the decision will have to be made on the grounds of insufficient information. See Berlekamp & Wolfe (1994).

There is a high probability that advances in optical computing will permit Foundation One behavioral science to simulate Foundation Two’s synchronic reasoning. As a direct consequence, Foundation One computers will exceed human abilities in both wei-chi skill and Life/Death Game predictions. There is however an additional barrier to Foundation One achieving a stabile resolution of the irreconcilable differences encountered in the struggle for cyberspace. The H-Mindscape is not only a barrier, but is among the most powerful determinants that generate the struggle for cyberspace. Unfortunately, this "negative H-factor " is shared by Foundation One and Foundation Two. It is the negative H-factor that creates the necessity for Gaia to intervene.

Two Foundations and Games

Einstein once said that "God does not throw dice". It is also probably true that Nature does not play games, but humans do. In fact, games are a primary way by which humans create reality. Large brain organisms (not just children) are born with reflexes that have been, and can be, shaped and modified by environments. Play develops, first as permutations and combinations of these reflexes. Later, spontaneous behavioral factors and environmental factors (that include parents, relatives, and eventually, playmates) begin to influence play. Rules are introduced and play evolves into games.

Interactions between individuals and games are distinguishable as "styles". The first and most primitive style is an I-style, where an individual plays alone, ignoring all about them. The second most primitive style is the H-style, where individuals playing with others attempt to dominate both other individuals and the game. If forced to play in groups, I-styles react to others by attempting to win the game. Failing to win, they often destroy the game. Fights are not uncommon when organisms with primitive styles play together. Fights are less common among S-styles who adopt a strategy of sharing space, games and prizes—usually equally. G-styles also adopt a strategy of sharing space, games and prizes without conflict. But with G-styles the shares need not be equal. As complex rules make games more sophisticated, and methods more subtle, variations on the basic styles (called "epistemologies") emerge. Games serve many functions besides entertainment.

In addition to being methods of creating reality, games become a way of understanding reality, especially for Homo sapiens. Languages are games that are essential to socialization processes. Mathematics is a game that shapes cultures. The combination of language and mathematics has had profound influences on human abilities to modify themselves and the environment. Aided by language and mathematics, human modifications of the environment have, in turn, modified the humans. At some arbitrary point, such games become tools and tools become the basis of civilizations.

Today Chi Gung, T’ai Chi, wei-chi are but a few examples that show that Chinese mental science is as far in advance of Western behavioral science as Western physical sciences.

Until the scientific revolution that accelerated with the contributions of Galileo Galilei, Chinese physical science, mathematics and mental science were far more advanced than those of their Western counterparts. Western civilizations have invented an impressive list of mechanical tools that have first equaled then surpassed those of China. Computer game simulation has the potential of leading revolutionary advances in mental science. Biopsychology, drugs and biofeedback show promise, but are still at a primitive stage of development. Nevertheless, in regard to mental science impressive Western contributions have been mostly confined to the mathematics and the experimental support frameworks. Advances in Western Information technology now threaten leadership in even these areas.

A Matter of Style

Seldon 2000 views the struggle for cyberspace as patterns analogous to strategies on a wei-chi board. The wei-chi prime radian predicts the outcomes of the struggle by comparing the strategies of players with patterns that optimally balance the distribution of power and influence. Though cyberspace is both an extension of the Life/Death Game and an artifact of organisms engaged in the Life/Death Game, cyberspace is a physical space occupied only by potential stimuli. Consequently, cyberspace is a pure psychological environment. This makes cyberspace unique in that the laws of mental science operate with far fewer physical and no direct biological constraints. On the other hand, cyberspace is a network of quasi intelligent patterns, a network completely dependent on humans for existence as well as its real world consequences.

At present the consequences of cyberspace are more potential than real. However, the struggle for cyberspace is real. The outcomes will essentially be determined (more or less!) by style.

The all too common combination of a non partisan view and a superficial approach to conflict almost inevitably supports the conventional wisdom that fights, games and debates are irrational and unnecessary. On the other hand, deeper analysis of the same case usually reveals factors that make conflict almost inevitable. Given material made available by both approaches, a partisan can rationalize and/or justify any conflict. Asimov’s scenario avoids all of the above by focusing primarily on the consequences of behavior leading to the conflict and the potential payoffs of participating in the conflict. Comparing the result with optimal Life/Death Game strategies, Seldon 2000 makes predictions.

Human reactions to accurate predictions are well documented and easily described. They conform to the mathematical dual catastrophe model of human cognition. Depending on how behavior associated with the prediction is ranked as a Premack (1971) priority, a prediction may gain a Shakespeare’s Macbeth type control over behavior, or be ignored totally like Cassandra’s prophecies. A prototype example involves an engineer who shows a politician how construction costing a few millions invested in flood prevention could save a population billions of dollars. The politician agreed but explained to the engineer that people would be willing to part with the billions to repair flood damage. But support for the millions necessary for flood prevention would be difficult to find.

Armed with the research background of TFA theory, expert knowledge of the Life/Death Game and real life prototypes like the above flood prevention example, Seldon 2000 is prepared to construct a prime radian with which to predict the patterns to be encountered in struggle for cyberspace. It may seem obvious that the greater the amount of available information that can be applied, the more accurate the possible predictions. It is not obvious that all of this information must be compressed into less than a single byte in order to be comprehended.

Since First Foundation sciences, including mental science, are based on collecting masses of information that exceed human working memory capacity, computers must make the scientific decisions, humans and machines have become inextricably linked. It follows from the conventional wisdom of Foundation One that all decisions must be made on the basis of insufficient information. The result is a cyberspace variation of Russell’s paradox namely, a super computer should make decisions for everyone, and everything, that does not make decisions for itself. Who, then, should program the computer? Foundation Two is the Asimov/Seldon meta-system answer that Russell’s solution requires.

In contrast to the First Foundation, the Second Foundation has specialized in making accurate decisions based on as little information as possible. Far from mystical, Second Foundation methods employ a process similar to the way primates code color, a psychological analogue to mathematical fractals. Thus analysis that would approach infinity when performed by First Foundation computers, and synthesis that would take First Foundation computers millennia, can be chunked and processed within the one byte limit. Wei-chi is paramount among the Foundation Two’s chunks, and T’ai Chi is the supreme method of organizing fractals. Consequently Foundation Two can make decisions for the computer but, because of irreconcilable, Mindscape, differences, will not be permitted to make decisions for Foundation One.

In direct contrast to games and debates, where irreconcilable differences create unsolvable problems, space-time and ecological spaces have no problems that remain unresolved. Cyberspace is both a system and a physical space that is inextricably linked to humans and human ecological niches. Cyberspace obeys the laws of The Game and the humans are, all, too obedient to the laws of reinforcement. Stated simply, everything must share physical space-time. Behavioral laws, including the laws discovered by behavioral analysis, are rules that describe how Chance and Necessity operate on organisms in physical spaces. Far from exceptions, contemporary business and politics are conforming to the most simplistic examples of the rules that lead to queue problems, and disruption of cyberspace. However, the games that representatives of businesses and governments are playing in cyberspace are sufficiently complex to exceed the capacity of human working memory and the capacity of the computer systems constructed to maintain order in cyberspace.

So, Earth’s hierarchically organized governments (hierarchical systems) are going to be frustrated when they attempt to impose their hierarchical structures on both cyberspace and ecological spaces. More frustration awaits nationalistic systems (closed systems) that attempt to challenge global systems (open systems). As space and resources become limited, subtle, but exceedingly important events happen at the interfaces between ethology, psychology, ecology, mathematics and anthropology.

Though individual and group rationalizations for the aggressive behavior associated with both the ecological net and the Internet can involve very complicated games, ethologists Calhoun (1962), Colinvaux (1983) and microbiologists Eigen & Winkler (1983) offer sufficient explanation to predict the nature and course of the behavior with reasonable accuracy. That the behavior and the priorities of human/computer complexes resemble so closely that of male chimpanzees described by anthropologists Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. 1996 supports very strongly the biological origin hypotheses of all of these authors.

The Negative H-factor

Collectively called the "negative H-factor", these forces act as an "attractor", a biobehavioral black whole, that organizes a formidable array of psycho biological and social forces into adversarial, opponent systems. Synchronized, these opponent systems could transform cyberspace into a powerful and effective super system. Uncoordinated, essential systems will cannibalize other essential systems. Unfortunately for contemporary societies powerful negative H-factor leads to a low probability of synchronization with potentially catastrophic results.

Though the net will probably not be destroyed, limited space and resources and lack of essential systems will gradually transform the net into a powerful H-monolith. Again, under the influence of the negative H-factor, the H-monolith will fragment itself. The net result, cyberspace will go through a period analogous to the dark ages, where diverse corporations and individuals compete, sometimes violently, for very specialized niches.

Attempts at prevention of wars, floods, AIDS, air control disasters, and drug abuse, indicate that no form of reason, debate argument or threat of severe consequences has been successful at preventing major or catastrophes that involve bio behavioral factors. Like Asimov/Seldon, unable to prevent the powerful influences of the negative H-factor, Seldon 2000 is forced to focus on the reconstruction period that follows catastrophes. His immediate strategy will be to monitor and study general properties of cyber systems, with special emphasis on relationships between dynamic systems. The long range strategy will be to use the after disaster sensitization to prophecies to gain the influence necessary to establish a more efficient, more stable replacement.

Rates and Functional Units

Seldon 2000’s prime radian uses TFM take advantage of rates. Everything is translated into terms of functional units and the ability to synchronize rates permits control of anything that can be controlled. Knowledge of the dynamics of payoffs and their influence on rates is combined with an expert knowledge of network systems dynamics. At this point the mathematical language of mental science integrates theories of behavioral science into systems unthinkable in conventional specialties. For example, depending on the point of development on a population growth curve, changes in Premack’s priorities can transform Skinnerian reinforcing stimuli into opponent attractors in a response field far more complex than the stochastic Estes/Gutherie stimulus field. When competition between attractors moves the system away from equilibrium, the laws of behavior mutate to phenomena resembling phase differences. During periods of turmoil, Equations from Hermann Haken’s (1978) synergetics become the predictors of choice.

Together the these bio mathematical and dynamic physics concepts will permit Seldon 2000 to apply Eigen & Winkler’s (1983) hypercycle management in cooperation with carefully selected individuals in industry, the military and political groups. Management of hypercycles is as close to control as is possible in a network, which is by nature non-hierarchical. It is to Eigen & Winkler’s credit that the complexity described by mental science equations can be simulated and even surpassed when the results are formulated in terms of a bead game that can be learned by a seven year old.

Nevertheless, synchronization, is a very sensitive process at best, especially in hyper-Darwinian information environments like university departments, intelligence agencies and cyberspace. Rational approaches not only break down, logic becomes a barrier to agreement. See Dockens (1999b).

A serious obstacle to combating consequences of limited resources and population growth, the very suggestion of control can unleash the very negative H-factor forces that prevented the establishment of a stable system in the first place. Second, clashes of priorities can induce an impressive list of conflicts; personal vs public, groups vs subgroup, government vs industry, nation vs nation, region vs region. Though of an extremely low probability, it is possible for a single individual to experience all of these conflicts, simultaneously. Second Foundationers, First Foundationers and practically everyone in positions of influence are susceptible to negative H-factors. Irreconcilable differences are most often the reason for conflict. The reasons given vary, depending on the strategies and/or the epistemological styles of the players.

Mindscape Mediators

Observations of large brain organisms of all ages reveal that interactions between individuals and games are distinguishable as "styles". Often, the styles become more complicated and/or subtle as a consequence of experience. Kuhn (1970) applied the term "paradigm" to complex styles covering a broad range of interactions. Anthropologist Maruyama (1980b) classified paradigms and modified the concept to include epistemological strategies directly connected to games. The modified concept called "Mindscape" permits an approach to irreconcilable differences. In the present context, Mindscapes are viewed as sophisticated developments of the styles of play. H-style, I-style S-style and G-style develop into Mindscapes with similar names; H-Mindscape, I-Mindscape S-Mindscape and G-Mindscape. Since mindscapes are learned, not inherited, the individual’s style of play need not develop into the Mindscape of the same name.

Though mindscapes are essential to revolutions, for an optimally functioning dynamic open system, all four mindscapes are essential. A primary problem arises because there is a strong tendency for H-Mindscapes and I-Mindscapes to come into conflict. Also, the struggles for dominance between would be dominant H-Mindscapes threaten both cyberspace and the Homo sapiens niches of the ecosphere with shifts to rates of growth that deviate dangerously from the optimal levels of efficiency. The irreconcilable differences between the two mindscapes arise from their respective game strategies and are the basis for the negative H-factor.

The hierarchical H-Mindscape perceives all games, including the Life/Death game, as zero-sum games, games where there can only be a winner and a loser. Establishment of strict, homogeneous, social hierarchies among their own group and dominance and/or annihilation of others is common. Especially under conditions of limited resources and expanding populations, other mindscapes often resist fiercely both the exclusion tendencies and any dominance that will reduce their share of space-time and/or resources. The fiercest opposition is usually posed by I-Mindscapes.

The individualistic I-Mindscape perceives games as either zero-sum game, where there is a winner and a loser, or negative sum games, where there are only losers. In direct contrast to H-Mindscapes, I-Mindscapes oppose both hierarchies and domination. The I-Mindscape seldom annihilates others unless provoked. However, the steep slope of an invisible growth curve of the Life/Death game is more than sufficient provocation. Before the age of cyberspace, martyrdom was the only effective negative sum strategy for I-Mindscapes who had no means of organizing resistance against effective H-Mindscape opposition. Unlike the ecosphere, networks of cyberspace afford ideal niches for the I-Mindscape. At present non-hierarchical organizations dominate the development of the Internet—but not the net itself. Recent events have shown that one provoked individual can not only produce havoc in cyberspace, other dissatisfied individuals will be induced to join the a negative sum conflict.

S-Mindscape positive sum strategy (everybody wins) can insure equitable distribution of space-time and limited resources when growth curves are either mildly accelerated or are in a level phase. However, negative feedback mechanisms that S-Mindscapes use to maintain balance are far from optimal for the exceedingly rapid growth rates of the Internet. Either stagnation because of retarded rates and/or chaos, due to loss of synchronization with phase changes are probable results. Combination H-I-Mindscapes of I-H-Mindscapes can sometimes act as temporary mediators, but their mediation has a low probability of achieving long range stability.

Either G-Mindscapes or combination H-S-G mediators have the highest probability of generating strategies for stability during rapid changes in growth rates. An equally amiable positive sum game strategy can be combined by means of positive feedback corrective mechanisms to simulate bio systems prevalent in the Life/Death Game. I Ching like opponent processes reasoning (optimized by T’ai Chi’s harmony of opposites) is central to Seldon 2000’s strategy.

Harmony among Mindscapes is extremely useful to Seldon 2000. Because permutations and combinations of the four basic epistemological strategies that the mindscapes represent can be used to control (more or less!) the hypercycles (a synchronization of rates that balances the effects of intense competition).

But alas, the H-I-Mindscape strategy also dooms the Seldon 20000 plan to failure, failure for the same reasons as the Asimov/Seldon counterpart. A complex interaction between the acceleration phases of growth curves, the role of game strategies in the evolution of ethics, and the dominant mindscapes of the players, all combine to thwart the two Seldons’ best efforts. Despite the complexity of the underlying mechanism, the reason can be expressed simply as Homo sapiens inability to efficiently share space-time and resources.

The Asimov Scenario In Cyberspace

Unfortunately, for Seldon 2000, the extreme speeds of growth curves on the Internet and in the Information Technology industries simply amplify the dynamics of the Life/Death Game. Also, in the virtual reality of cyberspace, the competitive field is considerably wider and expanding, as a direct consequence of limited space and the consequent limited resources generated by the accelerated growth curves. Done according to Seldon’s H-I-Mindscape strategy, there is a high probability that the negative H-factor will disrupt the hypercycle, sending groups more powerful than those encountered before the fall of the H-monolith into a life/death struggle.

Normally the spread of Rapoport’s TIT FOR TAT strategy, which conforms perfectly with the strategy of The Life/Death Game, would stabilize ethics. But there is a high probability that even this robust strategy will be neutralized in opportunistic cyberspace environment. See Axelrod (1984). Consequently, the only hope. of preventing a destructive Sun Tzu (1998) vs Clauswitz (See Rapoport, 1968) clash, a clash that pits Eastern strategic wisdom against Western technical know how is the Asimov scenario.

Current events involving the case against Microsoft and "love bug" virus combine with pilot studies to indicate that Asimov’s scenario it’s seemingly inevitable approach. Typical of governments, the military and conventionally run industrial complexes, the United States government has adopted an H-Mindscape strategy that assumes that computers and individuals are extensions of the national organization. Consistent with this strategy, group control (from the top down) takes the highest priority. Thus Seldon 2000’s Foundation One includes the both the United States and the Chinese governments. IBM and Sun!

Microsoft opposes the government’s control strategy with an I-Mindscape strategy typical of computer nerds, creative artists and counter culture groups who assume that both governments and computer should be extensions of individuals. Consistent with this strategy, group control takes the lowest priority. This is Seldon 2000’s Foundation Two, which includes most software companies along with most of the power users.

General systems and Asimov oppose both of the above strategies with a G-Mindscape strategy that reflects the opponent processes of an evolving ecosystem. It assumes that in order to survive, computers, organizations and individuals must function as extensions of the ecosystem. Consistent with this strategy, control is an ephemeral phenomenon that occurs irregularly amongst the host of complex interactions of systems comprising a network. This is Gaia, Seldon 2000’s constructive critic.

Scenario

There is no way that Foundation Two can win a protracted struggle against the combined forces of governments in the ecosystem. Between taxes, force of arms, and police powers, governments can prevent a Foundation One victory. Neither can the combined forces of governments prevail in cyberspace against a determined Foundation Two. One determined individual caused an enormous amount of damage to the vulnerable Internet. More dangerous, others joined in to extend the damage. Multiply this damage by the number of angry, IT knowledgeable, Microsoft stock holders, their friends, their acquaintances, all who would be injured by government action. Subtract counter measures by governments and the result still does not add up to a government win.

Reasoning at the level of the individual would suggest that both Foundations will have to yield and make changes if a stabile relationship is to be established. History suggests that group level decisions will produce the opposite. Since neither Foundation will yield before extensive damage to both, any suggestions for change, warnings or predictions on the part of Gaia would be exercises in futility. Gaia’s response is to design a plan that will be appealing to individual users--after the economies of millions of users tire of suffering from the struggle.

Quality of Life

Armed with information, over which governments and corporations no longer hold a monopoly, voting by means of ballots and credit cards, individual users will make the ultimate choice. Their experience with H-Mindscapes, I-Mindscapes and Information Technology will probably influence them to support Gaia. Patterns that generate dissatisfaction have already become clichés. Some examples, for individuals what governments call "nationalism" translates into inferior quality at high prices. What Information Technology nerds call "efficiency" translates into mass unemployment for some, endless stress and inflated, superficial lifestyles for others. Neither the benign dominance and rigid order of H-Mindscape governments nor the selfish in indifference and rapid obsolescence generated by I-Mindscape industries will have much appeal after several breakdowns of the net.

Why government and Gaia will, after the fall, win the trust of users can be seen in the following four field examples, results of studies conducted to see how knowledgeable individuals can influence their own situations.

These examples were taken from field studies in higher education, where information is the sole product and only concern. Because there are no manufactured wares or produce to complicate the economic picture, individual education is totally psychological a potential hotbed for innovation, invention, analogues to ecological mutations. However, like most of the virtual world of the Internet, there are many more potentialities than realities.

Using Gates (1999) as a standard, an organizational and task analysis of a Swedish government institution showed that Information Technology could reduced the staff from fifty-five workers to twelve. Most of the necessary hardware was either in place or readily available. Retraining would require a considerable investment, but the long-term savings and efficiency were such that few, if any, private institutions would hesitate. Predictably, presented with a report, the facts were discretely buried in a non-digital, virtually inaccessible file. Why a government institution would be quite reticent is apparent in the next example.

Using the same industrial criteria as above, a semi-private organization with essentially the same Information Technology situation was given an identical report. A presentation was arranged where the problem and solutions were discussed in detail—to a much-divided reception. One year later eighty teachers lost their jobs and the Information Technology was implemented.

That the difference between the two organizations was not in the leadership, but in the at the middle management level, is revealed by comparing the consequences of having different managers in identical situations. See Table 1.

Table 1. Effects of positive and negative H-Factors on IT applications. Under practically identical conditions, individual administrators make the difference.

The Asimov scenario suggests that the effects of IT strategy on the individual user, in this case the students, will be decisive and most likely in favor of Gaia. Neutralization of two IT critical systems in the next example shows the information and population selection dynamics behind the student decision.

"Corporate culture" is a convenient label for the next example. IT advancements, pressures from overseas standards, developments across disciplinary boundaries and competition from private industry combined to place education technology at the interfaces between Skinnerian learning theory, information processing theory, graphics and communication. Of these, Skinnerian learning theory was essentially neutralized by dividing instruction into four specialties, taught to different student populations, in four university departments. Similarly, information processing theory was divided into three specialties taught to different student populations in three departments.

Question, what would happen if students in a Masters degree course in clinical psychology were taught classical Skinnerian theory by means of teaching technology developed by the Skinnerians themselves—without the benefit of an operant laboratory? Answer, chaos, the students could not make the even elementary connections. And despite having passed elementary courses taught by the same instructor, the students could not recognize either the theory or its consequences.

Population dynamics comes into play when the intense competition for seats in the class (almost a hundred to one). Even at ten to one most private companies would prefer to serve a larger group consisting of the nine rejected students rather than the select group. Rejected students are prototypes for the dangerously dissatisfied majority left in society. Their only recourse will be to use available resources to integrate and influence government and industry. If Gaia is available, Gaia will be the winner.

References

Asimov, I. 1952. Second Foundation. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.

Asimov, I. 1982. Foundation's Edge: The Fourth novel in the Foundation Series. New York: Doubleday & Company.

Axelrod, R. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

Barnsley, M. 1988. Fractals Everywhere. New York: Academic Press.

Berlekamp, E & Wolfe, D. 1994. Mathematical Go Endgames: Nightmares for the Professional Go Player. London: Ishi Press International.

Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General Systems Theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller.

Boorman, S.A. 1969. The Protracted Game. London: Oxford University Press.

Calhoun, J.B. 1962. Population Density and Social Pathology. Scientific America. 206, (2)(Februrary): 139-148.

Colinvaux, P.1983. The Fates of Nations: A Biological Theory of History. New York: Penguin.

DeValois, R.L. & DeValois, K.K. 1975. Neural coding of color. In E.C. Carterette & M.P. Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of perception. (Vol. 5). New York: Academic Press.

DeValois, R.L. & DeValois, K.K. 1993. A multi-stage color model. Vision Research. 33, 1053-1065.

Dockens III, W.S. 1957-1962. Conference of Social and Physical Environmental Variables as Determinants of Mental Health. In twelve volumes. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare.

Dockens III, W.S. 1975. Operant conditioning: A general systems approach. In Thompson, T. & Dockens III, W.S. (Eds.), Applications of Behavioral Modification. pp. 425-441. New York: Academic Press.

Dockens III, W.S. 1979. Induction/Catastrophe Theory: A behavioral ecological approach to cognition in human individuals. Behavioral Science, 24, 94-111.

Dockens III, W.S. 1996 (a). Time's Feminine Arrow: A Behavioral Ecological Assault on Cultural and Epistemological Barriers. Behavioral Science, 41, 30-82.

Dockens III, W.S. 1999 (a). The Demotion of Alpha-Homo sapiens: Consciousness, Punctuated Equilibrium, and The Laws Of The Game. Hofkirchner, W. (Ed.), The Quest for a Unified Theory of Information. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.

Dockens III, W.S. 1999 (b). Four Brand New Colors: Information Nullification in Psychology and the Humanities. ISSS 43^rd Annual Conference of The InternationalSociety for the Systems Sciences. Allen, J.K., Hall, M.L.W, & Wilby. (Ed.), ISBN 09664183-2-8.

Duhl, L.J. 1960. The changing face of mental health: Some ecological contributions. Scientific papers and discussions. American Psychiatrical Association. Ass. Dist. Branch. Publ.

Eigen, M. & Winkler, R. 1983. Laws of the Game: How the Principles of Nature Govern Chance. New York: Alfred A. Knof.

Gates, B. (1999). Business @ the Speed of Thought; Using a Digital Nervous System. London; Penguin Books

Gray, W., Duhl, F.J. & Rizzo, N.D. (Eds.) 1969. General Systems Theory and Psychiatry. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Haken, H. 1978. Synergetics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Hwa, J,T. 1980. The Tao of Tai-Chi Chuan. Piscataway, N.J.: Tai Chi Foundation.

Hume, D. 1999. An Enguiry concerning Human Understanding. Beauchamp T. (Ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jacobson-Widding, A. 1979. Red-White-Black as a Mode of Thought. Uppsala Sweden: Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis, Almqvist & Wiksell International.

Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Maruyama, M. 1980a. Mindscapes and Science Theories, Cur. Anthro., 21, 589-608.

Maruyama, M. 1980b. Epistemological and Cultural Barriers to Mutualistic Thinking. Futurics. 4, 2, 97-116.

Premack, D. 1971. Catching up with Common Sense: Reinforcement and Punishment. In Glaser (Ed.) The Nature of Reinforcement. New York: Academic Press, 121-150.

Rapoport, A.(Ed.) 1968. Clausewitz On War. London: Pelican Classics.

Rapoport, A. 1970a. N-Person Game Theory: Concepts and Applications. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Rapoport, A. 1970b. Fights Games and Debates. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Rashevsky, N. 1951. Mathematical Biology of Social Behavior. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Rashevsky, N. 1960. Mathematical Biophysics: Physico-mathematical Foundations of Biology. Vol. 2. New York: Dover Publications.

Reichenbach, H. 1938. Experience and Prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Reichenbach, H. 1965. Philosophic Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Russell, B. 1961a. History of Western Philosophy. (Second Edition) London: George Allen and Unwin.

Simmons, G.F. 1991. Differential Equations with Applications and Historical Notes. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Skinner, B.F. 1969. Contingencies of Reinforcement: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Sperling, H.G., Sidley, N.A., Dockens III. W.S. & Jolliffe, C.L. 1968. Increment-Threshold Spectral Sensitivity of Rhesus Monkey as a Function of the Spectral Composition of the Background Field. Journal of the Optical Society of America., 58,2, 263-268.

Sun Tzu/Cleary T. 1998. The Illustrated Art of War. Boston: Shambhala.

Wilhelm, H. /Baynes, C. 1960. Eight Lectures on the I Ching. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Wilhelm, R./Baynes, C.F. 1951. The I Ching or Book of Changes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Wilhelm, R. /(Commentary) Jung, C.G. 1962. The Secret of the Golden Flower. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. 1996. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. London: Bloomsbury.

Yu-lan F. 1983. A History of Chinese Philosophy. (Two Volumes). Princeton: Princeton University press.

 

§  §  §  §  §  §  §

CI Website Sections

---