Every artificial machine is software and thereafter a machine. Difference that makes a difference — the difference creating a difference, according to George Bateson. Bateson once made an experiment. His story sounds that way: a frog's egg when being fertilized by a sperm, the equator passes through the point which the sperm enters in it — it's enough to draw the equator through one point — and it starts to divide along the equator. But if you just poke eggs at a place with a very thin straw, it will also start to divide. There will be just a half of chromosomes, but it will turn into a frog anyway. That means what is the only one egg's issue. It doesn't know where to start dividing. It can't choose. It can't create a choice. And Bateson says: this is the information. The Uzbeks have no illusions — a famous Russian neuropsychology story. Subject-matter is an aspect of optics. There is no connection between some real feral child and Rudyard Kipling's Mowgli. Any kind of intelligence means software which exists in the shape of a cloud of culture. Any kind of intelligence is artificial. There is no such thing as natural intelligence.

Human intelligence is always artificial, there is no such thing as natural intelligence. The important thing is there's the establishing intelligence but not preselected. Every new intelligence host received it by learning. The idea of a lost child growing up among wild animals bereft human contact still captivates our thoughts. But the person who assigns such an experiment should not expect the work to succeed and is rearing an animal. A Chinese feral child was found to have been living in a wild with a pack of pandas for at least three years. When the toddler was rescued he was not a human being anymore but some sort of a strange "subpanda".

Humans must remain in the care of their parents for much longer than any kind of animals. The explanation may be exactly the requirement a long time to learn human knowledge software we are talking about. Every human being is born as a preterm baby bearing at full term by human society itself to this extent. There is a commonest packet for all starters. Hereafter all of us can differentiate in number of ways: the quantity of content, the types of activities and the end products of learning. Each and every family possesses their own OCs which may have miscellaneous sorts of quality.

There is absolutely no such a problem as AI (artificial intelligence) versus NI (natural intelligence). And it never has been. You can tell me that a huge amount of people debate the AI problem with its possible solutions. You can tell me that kind of discussion seems so hard-hitting. Well unfortunately we have plenty of idiotic discussions nowadays.

The real problem is completely different sort of affairs.

The real problem is that, over the last few decades intelligence migrates from protein to silicone (it means migrates from protein to SiO2-like). Over the last few thousands of years of history intelligence was installed on protein, and there is massive migration of intelligence from protein to silicone over the last few decades.

What do we mean speaking of protein nature of the intelligence? So obviously "from protein" means we are ourselves.

What do we mean speaking of the intelligence becoming silicone (SiO2-like)?

"From silicone" means to the silicone platform — in other words machines/computers.

Using the computers' abilities to recognize complex patterns any human absorbs/gets the machine patterns. A14-years-old boy is gotten outplayed by a machine during the Turing test not because this machine is smarter, not at all. It's became possible since the boy educated using modern electronic gadgets descends to the level of machine. Remember we have said earlier that every human being is born as a preterm baby bearing at full term by human society. Well, it's changed. From this point forward good part of humanity is going to bear at full term by the man-machine environment.

This is the evolving intelligence problem that awaits the near-future society and it is the challenging one. What constitutes a human between protein and intelligence? What constitutes a human between Heaven and Earth?

What constitutes a human being apart from the protein? What constitutes a human being apart from the intellect?

Aren't we by any chance dealing with the return to the ancient topic of "soul"? In the Old Testament soul is often used as a synonym for the whole person. Gen 12:13 is an example, Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

But we have to keep moving further because it's not easy to think about soul and I'm not going to speak about that in my presentation today.

Let's look at this problem from other side.

Postindustrial society is the same as it was preindustrial. (In this case pre- is the same as post- — this is the game of prefixes). Megamashine by Lewis Mumford is coming back. The new pharaoh's rising. So maybe someday we would face The Exodus 2.0.

The fashionable catching-in question over the last few decades is about the nature of postindustrial society. There is a lot of critique aimed at post-industrialism. It claims that the postindustrial is negative term, but what is the content of this term? It is clear as daylight, it's the same as the pre-industrial — people somehow lived before industrialization, before everybody worked in factories, and they'll continue living after it.

There was a starting point of the Industrial Revolution in XVIII Century. Now we are on the verge of that great age ending. There is nothing to be afraid of. Some people will lose their jobs eventually. So… what's the problem? The people had no such way of working before the Industrial Revolution. They tilled the soil saving their souls and denying machines, they had no intention to become any part of machinery.

Famous Canadian philosopher and media theorist Marshall McLuhan quotes a parable about the Wayfarer and the Gardener by Chinese sage of Daosism Zhuang Zi:

"As Zi Gong was traveling through the regions north of the river Han, he saw an old man working in his vegetable garden. He had dug an irrigation ditch. The man would descend into a well, fetch up a vessel of water in his arms and pour it out into the ditch. While his efforts were tremendous, the results appeared to be very meager.

Zi Gong said, 'There is a way whereby you can irrigate a hundred ditches in one day, and whereby you can do much with little effort. Would you not like to hear of it?'

Then the gardener stood up, looked at him and said, 'And what would that be?'

Zi Gong replied, 'You take a wooden lever, weighted at the back and light in front. In this way you can bring up water so quickly that it just gushes out. This is called a draw-well.'

Then anger rose up in the old man's face, and he said, 'I have heard my teacher say that whoever uses machines does all his work like a machine. He who does his work like a machine grows a heart like a machine, and he who carries the heart of a machine in his breast loses his simplicity. He who has lost his simplicity becomes unsure in the strivings of his soul. Uncertainty in the strivings of the soul is something which does not agree with honest sense. It is not that I do not know of such things; I am ashamed to use them".

The Russians as a nation also never wanted to be a part of any machinery. Once the national common wisdom on that matter looks like "a tractor made of iron, so let it work".

The upcoming robotization is a pure genuine happiness for such a kind of a people. When we are speaking of migration from protein to silicone intelligence we mean actually the robotization in the world. And the bright side of that processing is clearly the alienation of humankind from the state of machinery.

The Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset in the early 20th century has introduced the concept of the Second Nature once made by Cicero and reinvented by Friedrich von Schelling. All these houses, roads, communications, our usual environment in which we are accustomed to live, we perceive now as something natural, something that appeared on its own and should exist as a norm of our life. Even though all of this was created by people, took hundreds of years to build, was invented, designed, and thought through in advance. So we should clearly understand that the Second Nature is not a natural state of affairs but something is needed to be permanently cultivated.

Culture is cultivating (in latin means ploughing up the soil). Cicero called it Cultura Animi — it is translated not like the culture of soul, but like the cultivating of soul (analogy is ploughing up the soil).

But this is cultivating of soul by means of that environment in which a preterm baby bearing at full term from the cradle to the grave.

Let's take another step.

So humankind is going to be allocated in the Second Nature. One can argue that there are a lot more people now than in the pre-industrial era. That's why we have a Second Nature that can support these people.

But please pay attention to the next thing!

When we start thinking about this construction — here is industrial — here is pre-industrial — and here is post-industrial (рисует в воздухе). On the whole, this is a recursive loop.

Time is not a linear sequence of events. Human history can be viewed as a sort of ongoing looping. Industrial Revolution is just one of the parts of this loop.

And here there is another kind of observation — a machine from a philosophical standpoint was born by far earlier the Industrial Age. In his most famous work "The Myth of the Machine" Lewis Mumford writes that the machine began when the first organizations appeared. According to him, a mega machine is a machine made up of men and their social relations.

So when I remember "The Myth of the Machine" I totally understand we're not going back to some sort of the Middle Age or even the Bronze Age but rather earlier.

And where did we come back?

Each and every social connection may be robotized nowadays. Human institutions are the same thing as the contractual agreements. Important thing to mention here is — what is a smart contract? It is a robotized contract which automatically implements the agreement it contains. It's some sort of contract-robot. It is written in such a way that it reacts only to verified operations: "if this entered here, this exited here".

That truly means the migrating intelligence. That preciously means the returning to the Neolithic man or maybe even to the pre-Neolithic not knowing a mega machine's existence.

Tomorrow we'll live in a world where we'll take a synthetic apple (or a genetically engineered apple, or an apple picked from a tree by a robot) from the fridge. Pre-Neolithic man ate some picked apples from a First Nature machine producing fruits i.e. a tree. If everything is robotized, then what is the difference between a hunter or a gatherer who picks the apple from the apple tree and a modern human? What's the difference between picking it from an apple versus a computerized refrigerator which is hooked up to the internet, which may be paid for with a guaranteed income that might be produced by the same robotic system?

We all are eager to move beyond the outgoing society speaking of the crypto-anarchists, the crypto-libertarians and any other kind of the crypto-ideology followers. Most of them promise a future brighter than our past getting rid of all bad things in the whole wide world. Unfortunately it's impossible task to gain. Otherwise we would get rid of humankind itself.

So we have the dangers of future we must have the courage to overcome them. To be able to do that we must draw the big picture describing the constitution of the world. It will be much easier to transform our perceptions of the world as a better place.

Firstly we need to have a subject (figure), secondly we need a ground (background). The subject (figure) is lying/based/located on it. I mean the gestalt approach.

The trouble is that we see neither the figure nor the background. That's why when we start a project at some point we discover that the project came to the whole opposite.

But if on the other hand we are going to get to know the figure and the background, we will be able to overcome the limitations of the existed shape of future. We will be able creating the multimodal reality, the methodological plurality and the ontological multiplicity. Our own shape of future is going to be very different from the existing reality.

Producing fundamental knowledge and know-how will be necessary for the new world's economic theory, manufacturing and ethics that is the applied philosophy.

Successful application of Newtonian mechanics has created the engineering revolution. The existing economic theory has been created by the father of modern capitalism Adam Smith evolving over the past hundred years. In management before the 20^th century only one person wasn't considered to be a unit of planning until the motivation rule was born because of the development of psychological science.

This historically confirms an obvious demand to upgrade science development for engineers, economists and entrepreneurs. It's impossible to do that on your own — we need Institute.

Otherwise we may face dawn new pharaoh's rising. A mindless using of so-called decentralized technologies paves the way for total centralization establishing through repeated M&As (Mergers and Acquisition process) and then to give a birth to the global overarching corporation. There is the dark side of migrating intelligence. CEO of the corporation will be a new pharaoh's incarnation himself. The Board of Directors will be his hierophants. All the others will be meanwhile part of this machinery connecting to reality by way of the digital perception.

We are doomed to the slavery if we will not be able creating the multimodal reality, the methodological plurality and the ontological multiplicity. Only in that case our own shape of future is going to be very different from the existing reality.

I will end my statement by quoting a famous text of John Law:

"Big and painful changes, for sure, which will lead to a world of less certainty. But a world in which the politics of ontology is no longer practised by stealth".

I speak of this openly here and now. Thank you. I'm prepared to answer your questions.