By Sam Vaknin
Author of "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited"
"The juvenile sea squirt wanders through the sea searching for a
suitable rock or hunk of coral to cling to and make it its home for
life. For this task, it has a rudimentary nervous system. When it
finds its spot and takes root, it doesn't need its brain anymore, so
it eats it. (its rather like getting tenure)."
Daniel Dennet - Quoted in Paul Thagard's Mind - An Introduction to
Cognitive Science
"Everything in nature, in the inanimate as well as the animate
world, happens according to rules, although we do not always know
these rules."
Immanuel Kant, Logic
"The fuzzy principle states that everything is a matter of degree." Bart Kosko, Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic
"When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also add
that some things are more nearly certain than others."
Bertrand Russell, "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?"
"Most of us can learn to live in perfect comfort on higher levels of
power. Everyone knows that on any given day there are energies
slumbering in him which the incitements of that day do not call
forth. Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. It
is evident that our organism has stored-up reserves of energy that
are ordinarily not called upon - deeper and deeper strata of
explosible material, ready for use by anyone who probes so deep. The
human individual usually lives far within his limits."
William James
One can discern the following relationships between the Law and
Technology:
1. Sometimes technology becomes an inseparable part of the law. In
extreme cases, technology itself becomes the law. The use of
polygraphs, faxes, telephones, video, audio and computers is an
integral part of many laws - etched into them. It is not an
artificial co-habitation: the technology is precisely defined in the
law and forms a CONDITION within it. In other words: the very spirit
and letter of the law is violated (the law is broken) if a certain
technology is not employed or not put to correct use. Think about
police laboratories, about the O.J. Simpson case, the importance of
DNA prints in everything from determining fatherhood to exposing
murderers. Think about the admissibility of polygraph tests in a few
countries. Think about the polling of members of boards of directors
by phone or fax (explicitly required by law in many countries).
Think about assisted suicide by administering painkillers (medicines
are by far the most sizeable technology in terms of money). Think
about security screening by using advances technology (retina
imprints, voice recognition). In all these cases, the use of a
specific, well defined, technology is not arbitrarily left to the
judgement of law enforcement agents and courts. It is not a set of
options, a menu to choose from. It is an INTEGRAL, crucial part of
the law and, in many instances, it IS the law itself.
2. Technology itself contains embedded laws of all kinds. Consider
internet protocols. These are laws which form part and parcel of the
process of decentralized data exchange so central to the internet.
Even the language used by the technicians implies the legal origin
of these
protocols: "handshake", "negotiating", "protocol", "agreement" are
all legal terms. Standards, protocols, behavioural codes - whether
voluntarily adopted or not - are all form of Law. Thus, internet
addresses are allocated by a central authority. Netiquette is
enforced universally. Special chips and software prevent render
certain content inaccessible. The scientific method (a codex) is
part of every technological advance. Microchips incorporate in
silicone agreements regarding standards. The law becomes a part of
the technology and can be deduced simply by studying it in a process
known as "reverse engineering". In stating this, I am making a
distinction between lex naturalis and lex populi. All technologies
obey the laws of nature - but we, in this discussion, I believe,
wish to discuss only the laws of Man.
3. Technology spurs on the law, spawns it, as it were, gives it
birth. The reverse process (technology invented to accommodate a law
or to facilitate its implementation) is more rare. There are
numerous examples. The invention of modern cryptography led to the
formation of a host of governmental institutions and to the passing
of numerous relevant laws. More recently, microchips which censor
certain web content led to proposed legislation (to forcibly embed
them in all computing appliances). Sophisticated eavesdropping,
wiring and tapping technologies led to laws regulating these
activities. Distance learning is transforming the laws of
accreditation of academic institutions. Air transport forced health
authorities all over the world to revamp their quarantine and
epidemiological policies (not to mention the laws related to air
travel and aviation). The list is interminable.
Once a law is enacted - which reflects the state of the art
technology - the roles are reversed and the law gives a boost to
technology. Seat belts and airbags were invented first. The law
making seat belts (and, in some countries, airbags) mandatory came
(much) later. But once the law was enacted, it fostered the
formation of whole industries and technological improvements. The
Law, it would seem, legitimizes technologies, transforms them
into "mainstream" and, thus, into legitimate and immediate concerns
of capitalism and capitalists (big business). Again, the list is
dizzying: antibiotics, rocket technology, the internet itself (first
developed by the Pentagon), telecommunications, medical computerized
scanning - and numerous other technologies - came into real,
widespread being following an interaction with the law. I am using
the term "interaction" judiciously because there are four types of
such encounters between technology and the law:
1.. A positive law which follows a technological advance (a law
regarding seat belts after seat belts were invented). Such positive
laws are intended either to disseminate the technology or to stifle
it.
2.. An intentional legal lacuna intended to encourage a certain
technology (for instance, very little legislation pertains to the
internet with the express aim of "letting it be"). Deregulation of
the airlines industries is another example.
3.. Structural interventions of the law (or law enforcement
authorities) in a technology or its implementation. The best
examples are the breaking up of AT&T in 1984 and the current anti- trust case against Microsoft. Such structural transformations of
monopolists release hitherto monopolized information (for instance,
the source codes of software) to the public and increases
competition - the mother of invention.
4.. The conscious encouragement, by law, of technological research
(research and development). This can be done directly through
government grants and consortia, Japan's MITI being the finest
example of this approach. It can also be done indirectly - for
instance, by freeing up the capital and labour markets which often
leads to the formation of risk or venture capital invested in new
technologies. The USA is the most prominent (and, now, emulated)
example of this path.
4. A Law that cannot be made known to the citizenry or that cannot
be effectively enforced is a "dead letter" - not a law in the
vitalist, dynamic sense of the word. For instance, the Laws of
Hammurabi (his codex) are still available (through the internet) to
all. Yet, do we consider them to be THE or even A Law? We do not and
this is because Hammurabi's codex is both unknown to the citizenry
and inapplicable. Hammurabi's Laws are inapplicable not because they
are anachronistic. Islamic law is as anachronistic as Hammurabi's
code - yet it IS applicable and applied in many countries.
Applicability is the result of ENFORCEMENT. Laws are manifestations
of asymmetries of power between the state and its subjects. Laws are
the enshrining of violence applied for the "common good" (whatever
that is - it is a shifting, relative concept).
Technology plays an indispensable role in both the dissemination of
information and in enforcement efforts. In other words, technology
helps teach the citizens what are the laws and how are they likely
to be applied (for instance, through the courts, their decisions and
precedents). More importantly, technology enhances the efficacy of
law enforcement and, thus, renders the law applicable. Police cars,
court tape recorders, DNA imprints, fingerprinting, phone tapping,
electronic surveillance, satellites - are all instruments of more
effective law enforcement. In a broader sense, ALL technology is at
the disposal of this or that law. Take defibrillators. They are used
to resuscitate patients suffering from severe cardiac arrhythmia's.
But such resuscitation is MANDATORY by LAW. So, the defibrillator -
a technological medical instrument - is, in a way, a law enforcement
device.
But, all the above are superficial - phenomenological - observation
(though empirical and pertinent). There is a much more profound
affinity between technology and the Law. Technology is the material
embodiment of the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Man (mainly the
former). The very structure and dynamics of technology are identical
to the structure and dynamics of the law - because they are one and
the same. The Law is abstract - technology is corporeal. This, to my
mind, is absolutely the only difference. Otherwise, Law and
Technology are manifestation of the same underlying principles. To
qualify as a "Law" (embedded in external hardware - technology - or
in internal hardware - the brain), it must be:
1.. All-inclusive (anamnetic) - It must encompass, integrate and
incorporate all the facts known about the subject.
2.. Coherent - It must be chronological, structured and causal.
3.. Consistent - Self-consistent (its parts cannot contradict one
another or go against the grain of the main raison d'être) and
consistent with the observed phenomena (both those related to the
subject and those pertaining to the rest of the universe).
4.. Logically compatible - It must not violate the laws of logic
both internally (the structure and process must abide by some
internally imposed logic) and externally (the Aristotelian logic
which is applicable to the observable world).
5.. Insightful - It must inspire a sense of awe and astonishment
which is the result of seeing something familiar in a new light or
the result of seeing a pattern emerging out of a big body of data.
The insights must be the logical conclusion of the logic, the
language and of the development of the subject. I know that we will
have heated debate about this one. But, please, stop to think for a
minute about the reactions of people to new technology or to new
laws (and to the temples of these twin religions - the scientist's
laboratory and the courts). They are awed, amazed, fascinated,
stunned or incredulous.
6.. Aesthetic - The structure of the law and the processes
embedded in it must be both plausible and "right", beautiful, not
cumbersome, not awkward, not discontinuous, smooth and so on.
7.. Parsimonious - The structure and process must employ the
minimum number of assumptions and entities in order to satisfy all
the above conditions.
8.. Explanatory - The Law or technology must explain or
incorporate the behaviour of other entities, knowledge, processes in
the subject, the user's or citizen's decisions and behaviour and an
history (why events developed the way that they did). Many
technologies incorporate their own history. For instance: the
distance between two rails in a modern railroad is identical to the
width of Roman roads (equal to the backside of two horses).
9.. Predictive (prognostic) - The law or technology must possess
the ability to predict future events, the future behaviour of
entities and other inner or even emotional and cognitive dynamics.
10.. Transforming - With the power to induce change (whether it is
for the better, is a matter of contemporary value judgements and
fashions).
11.. Imposing - The law or technology must be regarded by the
citizen or user as the preferable organizing principle some of his
life's events and as a guiding principle.
12.. Elastic - The law or the technology must possess the
intrinsic abilities to self organize, reorganize, give room to
emerging order, accommodate new data comfortably, avoid rigidity in
its modes of reaction to attacks from within and from without.
Scientific theories should satisfy most of the same conditions
because their subject matter is Laws (the laws of nature). The
important elements of testability, verifiability, refutability,
falsifiability, and repeatability - should all be upheld by
technology.
But here is the first important difference between Law and
technology. The former cannot be falsified, in the Popperian sense.
There are four reasons to account for this shortcoming:
1.. Ethical - Experiments would have to be conducted, involving
humans. To achieve the necessary result, the subjects will have to
be ignorant of the reasons for the experiments and their aims.
Sometimes even the very performance of an experiment will have to
remain a secret (double blind experiments). Some experiments may
involve unpleasant experiences. This is ethically unacceptable.
2.. The Psychological Uncertainty Principle - The current position
of a human subject can be fully known. But both treatment and
experimentation influence the subject and void this knowledge. The
very processes of measurement and observation influence the subject
and change him.
3.. Uniqueness - Psychological experiments are, therefore, bound
to be unique, unrepeatable, cannot be replicated elsewhere and at
other times even if they deal with the SAME subjects. The subjects
are never the same due to the psychological uncertainty principle.
Repeating the experiments with other subjects adversely affects the
scientific value of the results.
4.. The undergeneration of testable hypotheses - Laws deal with
humans and with their psyches. Psychology does not generate a
sufficient number of hypotheses, which can be subjected to
scientific testing. This has to do with the fabulous (=storytelling)
nature of psychology. In a way, psychology has affinity with some
private languages. It is a form of art and, as such, is self- sufficient. If structural, internal constraints and requirements are
met - a statement is deemed true even if it does not satisfy
external scientific requirements.
Thus, I am forced to conclude that technology is the embodiment of
the laws of nature is a rigorous manner subjected to the scientific
method - while the law is the abstract construct of the laws of
human and social psychology which cannot be tested scientifically.
While the Law and technology are structurally and functionally
similar and have many things in common (see the list above) - they
diverge when it comes to the formation of hypotheses and their
falsifiability.
Mankind is coming back a full circle - from ideograms through
alphabet to ideograms. Consider computers. They started as pure
alphabet beasts. I recall my programming days with ASSEMBLY, COBOL
and PL/1 on a clunky IBM 360 and later, IBM 370. We used Hollerith
punch cards. It was all very abstract and symbol-laden. The user
interface was highly formal and the formalism was highly
mathematical. Computers were a three-dimensional extension of formal
logic which is the set of RULES that govern mathematics.
Then came the Macintosh and its emulation, the windows GUI (Graphics
User Interface). I remember geeks and hackers sneering at the
infantilism and amateurism of it all. Taming your computer by
lashing DOS commands at it was still the thing to do. But,
gradually, we were all converted. Today, the elite controls both the
alphabet (machine and high level programming languages) and the
ideograms (GUIs) - the masses have access only to the ideograms. But
it seems that the more widespread the use of the ideograms (graphic
interface operating systems and applications), the "wiser" (self- learning, self-diagnosing, self-correcting) they become - the less
needed, indeed, the more obsolete the elite is. Finally, it will all
be ideograms, the "alphabet" buried under hundreds of layers of
graphics and imagery and accessible only to the machine itself.
It is then that we should begin to lose sleep. It is when ONLY the
machine has access to its alphabet that we, humans, will find
ourselves at the mercy of technology. Having access to one's
alphabet is possessing self-consciousness and intelligence (in the
Turing sense). Don't misunderstand me: self-awareness and
intelligence can be perfectly mediated through images. But access to
an alphabet and to the RULES of its meaningful manipulation is
indispensable to survival, at least to the survival of intelligence.
By "meaningful" I mean: generating a useful and immediately
applicable representation of the world, of ourselves and of our
knowledge about the world, ourselves and our interactions with the
world. When no longer capable of generating such meaningful
representations (because technology has hidden our alphabet - the
RULES - from our sight) - that day, technology, philosophy and law- making will be one and the same and humans will have no place in
such a world - at least, they will have no MEANINGFUL place in it.
It is false that science generates technology - the reverse has
always been true. All the big and important technological advances,
the Promethean breakthroughs - were achieved by ENGINEERS and
technicians, not by scientists. Engineers manipulate the world -
scientists manipulate rules, the laws of nature. What computers did
is MERGE this two activities and make them indistinguishable.
Writing a new software application is both composing rules and
engaging in technology. This is because the substance upon which
technological innovation is exercised is no longer MATERIAL. Both
technology and laws deal with INFORMATION now. This is the
convergence of the real and the abstract, the Platonic ideal and its
inferior shadow, matter and energy. It is no less revolutionary than
E=MC2.
So, technology leads science. Both technology and science start with
images. Kekula dreamt the structure of the Benzen molecule, Einstein
envisioned the geometry of space and so on. But, in the past,
technology ended up generating objects - while science ended up
generating rules and embedding them or expressing them in
formalisms. The big revolution of the second half of this passing
century is that now both science and cutting age technology produce
the same: rules, formalisms, abstract entities. In other words:
information and its manipulation - RULES - have become the main
product of modern society. Some of the output is hard to classify as
rules. Is a television show a rule or a set of rules? The
deconstructivists will say: definitely so and I will second that. a
television show, a software application, a court procedure, a text -
are all repositories and depositories of rules, thousands of them:
social rules, cultural rules, physical laws of nature, narratives
and codes and myriad other guidelines.
This leads us to cybernetics.
At first - during the 50s and 60s - an artificial distinction was
drawn between cybernetic systems (such as biological ones) and
programmable computers (or universal Turing machines). The former
were considered limited by the rigidity of the repertoire of their
responses to their feedback loops. Computers, on the other hand,
were considered infinitely flexible by virtue of their
programmability. This view was shattered by the unexpected enormous
complexity of biological organisms and even automata. Gradually,
cybernetics was subsumed under computing (rather, vice versa) and
computers were considered to be a class of cybernetic systems. I
recommend to you to read "Cybernetics and the Philosophy of Mind" by
Sayre published in London in 1976).
They all contain information stored, a set of rules to regulate
behaviour and feedback loops. Yet, few people - if any - noticed how
politically subversive this model was. If the "center's" behaviour
is potentially profoundly alterable by feedback from
the "periphery" - then centre and periphery become equipotent. More
accurately, the very notions of centre and periphery disintegrate
and are replaced by a decentralized, loosely interacting system of
information processing and information storage "nodes". The
Internet, to regurgitate the obvious, is an example of such a
decentralized system. The simultaneous emergence of mathematical
theories (fractals, recursiveness) that de-emphasized centrality
helped to give birth to the inevitably necessary formalism - the
language of networks (neural, computers, social and other).
Decentralization removes the power of law-making from any particular
node in the system. Each node is a law unto itself. The system, as a
whole, as long as it wishes to remain a system and continue to
function as such, reaches a "legislative equilibrium". It is a
Prigogine type thermodynamic trajectory: it is dynamic, unstable,
ever-changing, fluctuating but, by and large, it is identity- preserving and it is functional. The new systems are systems of
INFORMAL law as opposed to the older systems which are mainly and
mostly systems of FORMAL law.
The clash between these two models was and is unavoidable. The
internet, for instance, regulates itself imposing a set of unwritten
rules vaguely called the "Netiquette". Part mores and part habits,
it is amorphic and always debatable. Yet it functions much better
than drug-related laws in formal law systems (like modern states).
With no effective enforcement mechanisms, no netiquette-enforcement
agencies to speak of - the netiquette maintains an iron grip over
netizens. There are other examples outside the internet: the self
regulating financial industry in Britain has a better record of
compliance that the heavily regulated, SEC-threatened financial
community in the USA. Efforts top tax the Internet and to regulate
the City are examples of turf wars between formal law systems and
informal law systems.
Informal law system will win, there is no question in mind. Not only
because they constitute a better organizational model but because
they are more adept at processing the raw material of the next
millennium, information. Thus, they are better positioned to
guarantee the survival of our race.
But there is a price to pay and it is the ever growing fuzziness of
our laws. The more complex the world, the more demanding the raw
material, the more probabilistic the output - the fuzzier the logic,
the less determinate the answers.
==============================================================
AUTHOR BIO (must be included with the article)
Sam Vaknin ( http://samvak.tripod.com ) is the author of Malignant
Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West
Lost the East. He served as a columnist for Central Europe Review,
PopMatters, Bellaonline, and eBookWeb, a United Press International
(UPI) Senior Business Correspondent, and the editor of mental health
and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory and
Suite101.
Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor to the Government
of Macedonia.
Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com