Culture as the first artificial intelligence

Culture as Field Theory: The Dynamics of Our Collective Future

Imagine culture not as a fixed construct, but as a network of deliberations and decisions, a vast, intangible space where human experiences, beliefs, values, stories, and practices constantly interact and reform. A nonlinear process, intricately intertwined within its infinite complexity.

This type of network is characterized by high interdependence: All its elements – from individual values to complex practices – are interdependent and influence each other in such a way that a change in one place can affect the entire system. This approach ties into the ideas of field theory, as developed by Kurt Lewin, for example, by considering behavior and phenomena within a comprehensive, dynamic context. While Lewin often referred to psychological and social fields, we extend here the concept to culture as an immaterial field, arising and constantly reforming through collective deliberations and interactions. This network is the manifestation of our collective human striving for self-determination – the profound necessity to find answers to the fundamental questions of life from within ourselves, as no 'external description' has been provided to us.

We refer to cultural intelligence as 'artificial' because it possesses an immaterial status. It lies in the neural networking of individuals and their interactions, yet lacks an evolutionary 'physical entity' in the biological sense. It is the oldest intelligence of humans, enabling us as a species to solve complex problems and orient ourselves in the world. Its intelligence lies in its problem-solving competence under given conditions and within limited time. This often leads today to so-called time collisions, arising from the different speeds between technological innovation and the unavoidable, often lengthy deliberation processes. In these 'time collisions', we try to normatively weigh what is reasonable – an ongoing process of collective Deliberation, which sometimes calls for a 'good ruler' as a supposed shortcut. It is the network that enables us as a society to make reasoned decisions, manifested in emergent practices.

Cultural Strategic Foresight is in this picture the 'Doing Future' – the conscious exploration, understanding, and co-shaping of this cultural network, to decipher its logic, anticipate its dynamics, and influence its future expressions. This 'Doing Future' promotes resilience and sovereignty in terms of a successful culture. It bypasses a temporary stagnation, as seems peculiar to the Enlightenment. Tendencies towards purely instrumental reason can be avoided by establishing 'Doing Future' as a practical knowledge-based future thinking and method of critical thinking, tempering the imperative of mere action and standing guard against possible errors.

Long-term thinking is particularly successful when one starts with it in the short term.

The Dimensions of the Cultural Network: Scalars, Vectors, Matrices, and Tensors

Within every culture, phenomena exist that appear in specific fields of meaning. According to the ontology of fields of meaning, there is no overarching field of meaning for all fields. Instead, fields of meaning are infinitely complex, nested, and intertwined. Each field of meaning is a specific area within the overall field that enacts certain meanings and contexts. Our goal is to describe these fields of meaning and interpret the dimensions contained within. Here, we use the language of field theory to capture the various levels and complexities of these dimensions along our approach in the cycle for Cultural Strategic Foresight:

Scalar: The Single Value in the Network – The 'Fact'

A scalar is the smallest, single value or a specific attribute within a field of meaning. It is a clearly defined 'fact' that represents a particular expression in the cultural network.

• Example: '5,000 general practitioner positions are currently unfilled.' This value is an isolated data point, providing specific information in a relevant field of meaning (e.g. 'healthcare').

Vector: The Directed Force in the Network – The 'Trend'

A vector is a collection of scalars indicating a specific direction, trend, or directed force within a field of meaning. It describes a movement or development in the cultural network.

• Example: The scalar of 5,000 unfilled general practitioner positions is part of the vector 'Staff shortages and gaps in healthcare provision'. This vector summarizes that it's not just about the concrete number of unfilled positions, but also about factors such as the aging population, the decreasing attractiveness of the general practitioner profession for young physicians, and the overall burden on the healthcare system, all generating a common direction and force in a field of meaning.

Matrix: The Static Structure in the Network – The 'Relationship Layer'

A matrix is a structured arrangement of vectors and scalars that represents a snapshot or a specific 'relationship layer' within a field of meaning. It shows how various trends and facts relate to each other at a certain time or in a specific area and what static structures are emerging in the cultural network.

• Example: The matrix 'Future Healthcare in Germany' might encompass vectors like 'Staff shortages and gaps in healthcare provision' (with the scalar of the 5,000 unfilled general practitioner positions), 'Digitization of Medicine' (telemedicine, e-prescription), and 'Change in Patient Expectations' (stronger participation, wellness focus). This matrix shows us a complex web of relationships within a specific field of meaning in healthcare provision.

Tensor: The Dynamic Linkage in the Network – The 'Field Theory in Action'

A tensor is the most complex and comprehensive structure. It represents a specific, dynamic field of meaning or large, interconnected parts of it in its full, dynamic multidimensionality. The tensor is the description of the cultural network itself, as it evolves, interacts, and brings forth new cultural phenomena across various dimensions – such as timelines, different social groups, value systems, or global technological developments.

Tensors are generalizations and therefore abstract, serving as a space for projections.

The tensor captures the emergent properties of the cultural network: its ability to adapt, create new meanings, and find solutions for its own existence. It is the dynamic model with which the cultural network self-organizes and produces 'solutions' (in the form of new cultural practices, norms, or systems).

• Example of a tensor in the context of the cultural network: In the case of the healthcare system, the tensor 'Resilience of the Health and Social System in the Anthropocene' would be an apt term. This tensor would not only contain the matrix 'Future Healthcare in Germany', but also other, nested fields of meaning and their matrices like 'Climate Change and its Health Impacts', 'Global Pandemic Preparedness', 'Technological Disruptions' (e.g. AI in diagnostics), 'Change in the Work Environment and Appreciation of Care Professions' across different societal milieus and time periods. This tensor describes how the entire cultural network processes these interconnected challenges and brings forth new, emergent responses for societal resilience. It is the comprehensive representation of how our culture steers and evolves itself.

Why This Field Theory Analogy?

This linguistic transfer enables us to speak about complex cultural phenomena and their future directions with a precision known from the world of field theories. In doing so, we can more clearly convey our discourse:

• Where We Stand: By placing a factual question, phenomenon, or problem as a scalar, vector, matrix, or tensor, we instantly understand which level of abstraction we are looking at and which contexts are relevant.

• How We Proceed: The analogy offers a structure to systematically resolve unstructured problems or questions – from individual 'facts' (scalars) through 'trends' (vectors) and 'networks of relationships' (matrices) to the holistic 'field theory in action' (tensor).

This approach helps to create field descriptions that can ultimately lead to comprehensive field theories – always in the understanding of the cultural virtual space.