The Internet (with a different name) became public property - with access granted to chosen few.

Radio took precisely this course. Radio transmissions started in USA in 1920. Those were anarchic broadcasts with no discernible regularity. Non commercial organizations and not for profit organizations began their own broadcasts and even created radio broadcasting infrastructure (albeit of cheap and local kind) dedicated to their audiences. Trade unions, certain educational institutions and religious groups commenced "public radio" broadcasts.

This is followed by Commercial Phase.

When users (e.g., listeners in case of radio, or owners of PCs and modems in example of Internet) reach a critical mass - business sector is alerted. In name of capitalist ideology (another religion, really) it demands "privatization" of medium. This harps on very sensitive strings in every Western soul : efficient allocation of resources which is result of competition; corruption and inefficiency which are naturally associated with public sector ("Other People’s Money" - OPM); ulterior motives of members of ruling political echelons (the infamous American Paranoia); a lack of variety and of catering to tastes and interests of certain audiences; equation private enterprise = democracy and more.

The end result is same : private sector takes over medium from "below" (makes offers to owners or operators of medium - that they cannot possibly refuse) - or from "above" (successful lobbying in corridors of power leads to appropriate legislation and medium is "privatized").

Every privatization - especially that of a medium - provokes public opposition. There are (usually founded) suspicions that interests of public were compromised and sacrificed on altar of commercialization and rating. Fears of monopolization and cartelization of medium are evoked - and justified, in due time. Otherwise, there is fear of concentration of control of medium in a few hands. All these things do happen - but pace is so slow that initial fears are forgotten and public attention reverts to fresher issues.

A new Communications Act was legislated in USA in 1934. It was meant to transform radio frequencies into a national resource to be sold to private sector which will use it to transmit radio signals to receivers. In other words : radio was passed on to private and commercial hands. Public radio was doomed to be marginalized.

The American administration withdrew from its last major involvement in Internet in April 1995, when NSF ceased to finance some of networks and, thus, privatized its hitherto heavy involvement in net.

A new Communications Act was legislated in 1996. It permitted "organized anarchy". It allowed media operators to invade each other’s territories.

Phone companies will be allowed to transmit video and cable companies will be allowed to transmit telephony, for instance. This is all phased over a long period of time - still, it is a revolution whose magnitude is difficult to gauge and whose consequences defy imagination. It carries an equally momentous price tag - official censorship. "Voluntary censorship", to be sure, somewhat toothless standardization and enforcement authorities, to be sure - still, a censorship with its own institutions to boot. The private sector reacted by threatening litigation - but, beneath surface it is caving in to pressure and temptation, constructing its own censorship codes both in cable and in internet media.

The third phase is Institutionalization.

It is characterized by enhanced activities of legislation. Legislators, on all levels, discover medium and lurch at it passionately. Resources which were considered "free", suddenly are transformed to "national treasures not to be dispensed with cheaply, casually and with frivolity".

It is conceivable that certain parts of Internet will be "nationalized" (for instance, in form of a licensing requirement) and tendered to private sector. Legislation will be enacted which will deal with permitted and disallowed content (obscenity ? incitement ? racial or gender bias ?)

No medium in USA (not to mention wide world) has eschewed such legislation. There are sure to be demands to allocate time (or space, or software, or content, or hardware, or bandwidth) to "minorities", to "public affairs", to "community business". This is a tax that business sector will have to pay to fend off eager legislator and his nuisance value.

All this is bound to lead to a monopolization of hosts and servers. The important broadcast channels will diminish in number and be subjected to severe content restrictions. Sites which will not succumb to these requirements - will be deleted or neutralized. Content guidelines (euphemism for censorship) exist, even as we write, in all major content providers (CompuServe, AOL, Prodigy).

The last, determining, phase is The Bloodbath.

This is phase of consolidation. The number of players is severely reduced. The number of browser types will be limited to 2-3 (Netscape, Microsoft and which else ?). Networks will merge to form privately owned mega-networks. Servers will merge to form hyper-servers run on supercomputers. The number of ISPs will be considerably diminished.

50 companies ruled greater part of media markets in USA in 1983. The number in 1995 was 18. At end of century they will number 6.

This is stage when companies - fighting for financial survival - strive to acquire as many users/listeners/viewers as possible. The programming is shallowed to lowest (and widest) common denominator. Shallow programming dominates as long as bloodbath proceeds.

In hindsight, 20 years hence, we might come to understand that computers improved our capacity to do things differently and more productively. But one thing is fast becoming clear. The added benefits of IT are highly sensitive to and dependent upon historical, psychosocial and economic parameters outside perimeter of technology itself. When it is introduced, how it is introduced, for which purposes is it put to use and even by who it was introduced - largely determine costs of its introduction and, therefore, its feasibility and contribution to enhancement of productivity. The CEE countries better take note.

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, United Press International (UPI) and eBookWeb and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory, Suite101 and searcheurope.com.

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com

Consciousness, mental states, intelligence are transferable and can be stored and conferred. Pregnancy is a process of conferring intelligence. The book of instructions is stored in our genetic material. We pass on this book to our off spring. The decoding and unfolding of book are what we call embryonic phases. Intelligence, therefore, can (and is) passed on (in this case, through genetic material, in other words: through hardware).

We can identify an emitter (or transmitter) of mental states and a receiver of mental states (equipped with an independent copy of a book of instructions). The receiver can be passive (as television is). In such a case we will not be justified in saying that it is "intelligent" or has a mental life. But – if it possesses codes and instructions – it could make independent use of data, process it, decide upon it, pass it on, mutate it, transform it, react to it. In latter case we will not be justified in saying that receiver does NOT possess intelligence or mental states. Again, source, trigger of mental states are irrelevant. What is relevant is to establish that receiver has a copy of intelligence or of other mental states of agent (the transmitter). If so, then it is intelligent in its own right and has a mental life of its own.

Must source be point-like, an identifiable unit? Not necessarily. A programmer is a point-like source of intelligence (in case of a computer). A parent is a point-like source of mental states (in case of his child). But other sources are conceivable.

For instance, we could think about mental states as emergent. Each part of an entity might not demonstrate them. A neurone cell in brain has no mental states of it own. But when a population of such parts crosses a quantitatively critical threshold – an epiphenomenon occurs. When many neurones are interlinked – results are mental states and intelligence. The quantitative critical mass – happens also to be an important qualitative threshold.

Imagine a Chinese Gymnasium instead of a Chinese Room. Instead of one English speaker – there is a multitude of them. Each English speaker is equivalent of a neurone. Altogether, they constitute a brain. Searle says that if one English speaker does not understand Chinese, it would be ridiculous to assume that a multitude of English speakers would. But reality shows that this is exactly what will happen. A single molecule of gas has no temperature or pressure. A mass of them – does. Where did temperature and pressure come from? Not from any single molecule – so we are forced to believe that both these qualities emerged. Temperature and pressure (in case of gas molecules), thinking (in case of neurones) – are emergent phenomena.

All we can say is that there seems to be an emergent source of mental states. As an embryo develops, it is only when it crosses a certain quantitative threshold (number of differentiated cells) – that he begins to demonstrate mental states. The source is not clear – but locus is. The residence of mental states is always known – whether source is point-like and identifiable, or diffusely emerges as an epiphenomenon.

It is because we can say very little about source of mental states – and a lot about their locus, that we developed an observer bias. It is much easier to observe mental states in their locus – because they create behaviour. By observing behaviour – we deduce existence of mental states. The alternative is solipsism (or religious panpsychism, or mere belief). The dichotomy is clear and painful: either we, as observers, cannot recognize mental states, in principle – or, we can recognize them only through their products.

Consider a comatose person. Does he have a mental life going on? Comatose people have been known to have reawakened in past. So, we know that they are alive in more than limited physiological sense. But, while still, do they have a mental life of any sort?

We cannot know. This means that in absence of observables (behaviour, communication) – we cannot be certain that mental states exist. This does not mean that mental states ARE those observables (a common fallacy). This says nothing about substance of mental states. This statement is confined to our measurements and observations and to their limitations. Yet, Chinese Room purports to say something about black box that we call "mental states". It says that we can know (prove or refute) existence of a TRUE mental state – as distinct from a simulated one. That, despite appearances, we can tell a "real" mental state apart from its copy. Confusing source of intelligence with its locus is at bottom of this thought experiment. It is conceivable to have an intelligent entity with mental states – that derives (or derived) its intelligence and mental states from a point-like source or acquired these properties in an emergent, epiphenomenal way. The identity of source and process through which mental states were acquired are irrelevant. To say that entity is not intelligent (the computer, English speaker) because it got its intelligence from outside (the programmer) – is like saying that someone is not rich because he got his millions from national lottery.

Sam Vaknin is the author of Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited and After the Rain - How the West Lost the East. He is a columnist for Central Europe Review, United Press International (UPI) and eBookWeb and the editor of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory, Suite101 and searcheurope.com.

Visit Sam's Web site at http://samvak.tripod.com