Where do I see the Internet in 10 years?

I feel honored to be born to a generation that has an enormous power by existing. Never before has there existed a technology that puts in perspective the human condition and nature.

Actually, that is wrong. Nuclear Fission—the idea that engendered Enola Gay and Hiroshima’s disaster—did that. A piece of knowledge, engineered as a weapon that put humanity’s gore in perspective.

The internet is at a striking contrast with the mentioned technology. Through mathematic proofs, complex algorithms, and the prowess of men like Claude Shannon (who came up with the foundations of what we today enjoy in 1949) we have an applied math window to humanity’s soul. The internet, for the first time, gave us an opportunity to be united not by suffering, the dying, but by our own humanity.

And, fortunately for us, this is just the beginning.

In this era of human leaps, where we change the way information is treated—deal with the real world, question the validity of conceived truths—the internet opens the possibility to widespread awareness. The Arab spring, the Occupy movement, the fight for reproductive rights and many other causes use the internet—as the first true medium of free expression—to broadcast their views.

And yet, it is more than a media hub. It’s more than just googling subjects and information that one needs in a research paper, or watch Salman Khan teach you organic chemistry, or hear President Obama’s State of the Union Address, or something as banal as the high school junior looking on facebook for that special someone.

The internet represents the collective without invisible lines. However, this is not where I think the internet is headed. Its beginnings were of collaboration between academia. It was conceived as a platform to share software, peer-review articles, and make research accessible by academy.

(Fun history fact: The first message in the internet was “LO” as in LOG IN. And it was between a UCLA laboratory in Boelter Hall and its equivalent at Stanford University, on a Wednesday night on October 29^th of 1969.)

This technology will shift conclusively the focus from nations to individuals.

How this would be made, you may ask? Well, because science is interdisciplinary, and we dare to imagine, I shall call nanotechnology, and quantum computation.

Imagine if there is a way to connect everyone’s beyond physical limitations. Through neural implants connected with our existent wireless networks worldwide, it is, in theory, achievable. Nanotechnology is advancing rapidly every decade; from creating nano-elements which change the applications of technologies that can be implemented form such materials, to gene sequencing, and the possibility of curing cancer through nano-bots. This technology can be applied to our brains, by inserting nano-implants in the cortex, and attach to our neural paths. After all, our brain is an electrochemical computer. It is bounded to function on charge gradients, and electrical impulses; those are the same principles nanotechnology will be based to intermingle with our brain. Quantum computation will allow the implants to interact efficiently with the neurons, increasing processing power not only in the structures, but, in theory, in the neurons as well.

If nano-implants can successfully link with our cortex, and able to be linked with our neural paths, they can, in theory, understand the information. But also, they could be able to send information to our brains.

This is where the internet comes in. If we are, in theory, able to be connected with another, through this network, we can share not only information and knowledge in real time, but also directly to our cortex. Essentially, every human being in the planet will be able to download any piece of knowledge from the internet databanks into their own brains.

The possibilities are as magnanimous as they are scary.

If one could download knowledge—to build bridges, to teach mathematics, to write programs, to create anything—then it will change the role of education, and unite humanity as a whole.

In theory, it will make all human all-aware, all-knowing (as far as human knowledge goes) and changes one’s perspective. We will be truly equal. No one will any more, in theory, than another.

I believe that if this indeed happens, in the next decade, it will put an end to wars, unite nations, and start a quantum leap in human discovery and achievement. It would enable nations that were unskilled, unable, to discover their talents, and join their voice with the world.

This is what I see the internet becoming: an instrument to join billions in one voice, and with one objective: to reach out and change what the meaning impossible is. Internet, by unifying humanity under the idea of equal access to knowledge, levels the field to a point where it the concept of the individual, that prevails and sets forth a different path.

This is what computer scientists have been working on its early stages saw in the internet. That is what I see the internet unfolding in 10 years.

The morality of it, the “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”, the ethics of privacy, and the if-analysis, are of course, for another post.

A flash or a Memory?

I started this blog to put forth some of my thoughts. It’s more a brainstorm than articulate reading really. But it might just be enough to be worth while. Enjoy.

A memory is a picture of the past that somehow is worth revisiting. It’s a moment framed on the cortex for life. It is a piece of a soul. By itself, a lifetime in an instant.

A memory survives as a result of human stubbornness. That is the driving force behind the picture. We remember dearly the moments of a memory. At the end, we remember the emotion. That is the footprint on the soul of the moment itself. Years pass and the emotion— by stubbornness, melancholy, or pure joy—remains.

However, is it really necessary to carry such mark of past time ?

A memory is a portal to the past—one with multiple repercussions on the future. Nevertheless, the issue remains that one who mourns the past never fulfills it present—and fails to project a future.

One could say a memory is just chemistry. That is just a conglomerate of chemicals activated by electrical impulses on the neurons. If that is accurate, how is it that memories activate and release their message?

Primarily, image perception of a body, individual, or sound can trigger the electrical impulses that ensue in the chemical bonding that generates a memory. But does that mean memories are stores information not only at a chemical level, but also at electrical level?

Thus, the real question becomes: how the brains treats information? Moreover, does information share a dual nature?

If we treat a memory as information, then one has to ask how is the information by itself (say, a packet of it) is comprised at the basic level? We know in computer science information is comprised at the basic level in for of bits. Those are indivisible. Truly the cognate of the atom on chemistry.  However, how the brain treats it? How it, as the electrochemical computer humans are endowed to, processes information that is in constant chaos?

The impact of an image is powerful. In it lies simplicity, complexity, brevity, and a plethora of information. Say you are in love, and you see that person—just seeking, with your eyes only confirming that she is there—the instant the sight is confirmed is already, almost instantaneously processed, analyzed, and subconsciously trigger chemical levels of adrenaline, higher blood pressure, and stomach queasiness. It is quite fascinating that all of it is triggered in quite an instant. The brain recollects itself and acts on it in such notice. It is truly empowering.

The brain uses information from the outside and the inside memory stored to compute a result. So, is love true chemical in nature, or just information ?

I started this cacophony of thoughts attempting to understand how about 40 seconds result in four hours of pensive behavior. I tried to rationalize it. I can’t. And probably won’t. Is the answer of logic, science, and pure detachment? Or is it just on the insight of pure randomness, and “following the gut”?

Sometimes one has to love the question themselves more than the pursuit or the answer at the end.

Or, to finalize, the journey—not the mission—is what matters the most.

On The Thin Line Between Awareness and Obliviousness

Because it’s summer, and I decided to take it really easy, I began to write on my iPod when I got bored. I just write the first that comes to mind.

Please post at the end 🙂

Let’s put forth an statement to be challenged: unintentional actions that although consciously can be argued—and for sake of argument will say it —was lacking, subconsciously there was a presence of action.

Now, let’s put forth the dilemma to evaluate our claim.

First, let’s address the case to no uncertain terms: there are two friends, both who have a common female friend. The female friend has, or was having, a romantic interest in person A. Person B, friend of Person A, develops an interest in the female. Now, consider that there is a line of trust between the three. Consider also that A is closer to the female friend and has more closure than B. Consider that B knows that the female has an interest in A.

Consider the circumstances—and the possibilities.

Let’s assume there is indeed a conscious will. Thus, an awareness of the situation. Person B knows that Person A has the attention of the female. Also, take an information given to the problem: there is a long friendship—prior to B’s—between the female and A. Also, take another piece of information: female feels strongly about A. B knows it too. Also, take into account that B knows that A has said many times that A and female were not compatible. Yet, A likes to keep the friendship because he cares about female; just not in a love way. Consider there is indecision in part of A. Consider B has seen all the information, and has trust of A and also gained for a while trust of female.

Now, let’s take all the information together. Let’s see what B sees. And more importantly, let’s reason possible solutions for him to get what he wants.

Before doing that one has to add something about B: he has given information to A about he pursuing  another woman other than the female that is interested in A. Let’s call her X. So he gives this information to A. Also, he wants A to pursue X.

Now, let’s start the work. Assume one scenario: attempting for X aware that A is an obstacle. A is an obstacle because X has residual attention/interest in A. So for B to appeal X he has to take A out of the equation. In doing so, he has to make A pursue X. However, he has to make A’s attempt unsuccessful to destroy the friendship. Only by severing the bond there is room for B to take A’s place in X’s perspective.

However, doing that proves to be tough. If B openly sabotages A it is clear B has a character worth questioning. It puts pressure on the friendship between A and B, and it can be damaging.

In this case, perception is reality.

Yet, it is fair to argue that the system here is inconsistent. That is, if B does what is described it undermines his odds towards X. Not to mention that he will ruin friendship with A.

However, at this point one has to ask if the friendship is a true partnership, or just a mean for an end?

Assume it is a mean. Then the friendship, and A by himself, becomes an asset. Thus, it is important to keep the friendships with both while encouraging A to go for X.

But again, it is clear that B cannot deliver. But why?

Reason: one assumes that B is working alone. If he is, then he wouldn’t get the end result. Thus, yes, he was not working alone.

For this model that is accurate. There are two individuals: female C and male Y. Both are friends with X. Both are known by A. And B sets forth to recruit them. Reasons for them to comply are irrelevant. In this model, they help.

Thus, with this it is more clear: C and Y help out B and thus, making A’s attempt futile. And thus, B successfully takes out A as an obstacle.

However one has to ask why A was playing along? After all, it is proven that he was upfront about his feelings. Even when X did not disclose.

Answer: B put pressure on both X and A to reveal feelings. One is that A was possibly put on a situation that hurt X. A tries to fix. X sees no reconciliation. B has the high ground because of Y and C. X is emotionally vulnerable. B is victorious and ends successful with X. He wins the situation.

So, my question to you reader is: do you think B was never aware of this—and thus able to argue plausible deniability that all the actions were not orchestrated?

If yes, then there is truly something subconsciously that orchestrate the actions. Thus, showing the true personality of B. Thus, showing his character demeanor and ethical stand. Can this then be argue to be just as much of motivation than to be conscious?

Or, if then no, how deep is the skill of persuasion B has to have in order to manage to project A in an antagonistic manner?

Either way, long plans, indeed.