we’ve been discussing. The
scientific approach, when it encounters a situation that contradicts known
interaction constraints, seeks to refine the understanding of the parameters
surrounding the interaction in an effort to find a set of conditions that will
allow the interaction to fall within the rules. The religious approach,
particularly in extraordinary circumstances, is willing to entertain, as an act
of faith, the possibility that an interaction can be interpreted precisely as
it appears. This may mean that it is based in beyond natural means; that it is,
in fact a supernatural occurrence.
It is then
worth noticing again that the religious approach to problem solving is not
altogether foreign to the scientist. In chemistry, a standard way to compute a
property (the pH) of a solution of two constituents (base and acid) is to make
an assumption of where the range of the pH should fall, which then allows one
to carry out the hand computation of the result by simplifying the equations
involved. If the pH indeed falls into the presumed range, the solution is
deemed valid. Other examples go to the root of mathematics, such as reductio ad absurdum, where a hypothesis
is posited which is then eliminated as it leads to a contradiction in the
system under consideration; and inductive
reasoning, where a recurring phenomenon is assumed to follow a regular law.
In both these cases, an unobserved object is created, involving an act of
faith. Accepting the result validates the hypothesis, similarly to the thinking
involved in religious conclusions.
The title as
well as the theme of this chapter, “In His Own Image” can be construed as
establishing trust through the creation of standard forms. “I am like God. If
other people are like God, then they are like me. Therefore, I can confer a
level of trust upon them because of our inherent divinity.” Consider the golden
rule as a statement of policy based on this type of trust: “Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you.” We have suggested that within the human mind
trust is an integral aspect of the operation of the sensori-motor system.
Further, we suggest that humans have formed groups as an evolution derived
mechanism to enhance the natural selection prospects of the species. The
establishment of shared trust within the group is a primary requisite of any
successful grouping mechanism. In our parallel evaluation of human and computer
systems, we have now recognized that our knowledge of one or the other may be
more advanced, depending on the characteristics sought. In evaluating trust, we
have associated the degree to which it was conferred to the certainty of
causality chains. For example, if it is always observed that the apple falls
from the tree to the earth, the level of trust in gravity will be quite high.
If it is merely often observed that celebration of common rites leads to a
stronger presence in battle, would it be in sport, war or other communal
undertaking, trust will be granted to those rites. Actually, the level of trust
imbued in gravity is more immediately assessed than the trust imbued in ritual.
With that in mind, we will now turn our attention to computer networks, and
particularly to personal electronic devices.
In computer
systems, causality can be traced from the most elementary forms to the most
elaborate. We know, and hence trust this statement, because we have actually
collectively built these various elements in recent history and all the steps
that lead to today’s computers have been thoroughly documented and analyzed.
While with humans, we are a long way from dissecting the causality links
occurring in the brain, with computers we essentially know them all. Therefore,
we can discuss them in some detail, and we’ll use that knowledge later to see
if it sheds light on aspects of human networks that would otherwise be more
difficult to comprehend. We use this as an approximate means to finally reach
our goal, which is to use that additional understanding to predict how computer
networks will evolve.
|