Vladimir Arshinov

The boundaries of social acceptance and models of convergence of human and non-human actors of digital reality are defined. The constructive creative possibilities of convergent processes in distributed neural networks are analyzed from the point of view of possible scenarios for building “friendly” human-dimensional symbioses of natural and artificial intelligence. A comprehensive analysis of new management challenges related to the development of cyber-physical and cybersocial systems is carried out. A model of social organizations and organizational behavior in the conditions of cyberphysical reality is developed. The possibilities of reconciling human moral principles and “machine ethics” in the processes of modeling and managing digital reality are studied. The significance of various concepts of digital, machine and cyber-anymism for the socio-cultural understanding of the development of modern cyber-physical technologies, the anthropological dimension of a smart city is revealed. The article introduces the concept of hybrid society and shows the development of its models as self-organizing collective systems that consist of co-evolving biohybrid and socio-technical spheres. The importance of modern anthropogenic research for sustainable development is analyzed. The process of marking ontological boundaries between heterogeneous modalities in the digital world is investigated. Examples of acute social contexts that are able to set the vector of practical philosophy in the modern digital era are considered.

The paper deals with implementation of complexity paradigm in human enhancement issues. The transdisciplinary view on mind and body extension is proposed, where classical intersubjectivity problem has to be re-read in the context of mutual understanding of natural intelligence and AI. For self/self, self/other and self/environment communication we consider specific fractal interfaces. For this interfaces the complexity-observer is a reflective observer of self-organized “partial observers ensemble”, which includes himself as an order parameter. Such observer cognition is embodied and situated. Further, convergence of human enhancement and ambient technologies makes possible to create certain layer of reality, representing a certain mode of our corporeality as emerging process.

The problem of commensurability/incommensurability of different cultural codes is a key problem of modern civilizational development. This is the problem of the search for communicative unity in the world of cultural and biological diversity, which has to be protected, and the search for the cohesion of different Umwelten, of semiotically-defined artificial and natural environments, of ecological and cognitive niches, taking into account that each of them has their own identity and uniqueness. The purpose of the article is to draw attention to the fact that the question of the so-called incommensurability of different conceptual schemes, paradigms, language consciousnesses is widely discussed not only in cross-cultural studies and philosophical problems of translation but also in connection with the problems of incommensurability between the language of classical physics and the language of relativistic quantum physics. Attention is drawn to the problem of the incommensurability and correlation of different languages that are used in debates about the foundations of quantum mechanics, its interpretation, comprehension and ontology. Two approaches stand out in this debate. The first approach is based on the language of the formed being, on the language of things localized in time and on the logic of Aristotle. The second approach is based on the language of the becoming, process and nonlocality, on the search for various processual-oriented temporal logics. In this regard, we discuss the processual approach to understanding quantum mechanics, proposed in the philosophical and physical works of D. Bohm. The authors argue that the experience of constructive understanding of the metaproblems of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the critical reception of the legacy of such philosophers of the process as Peirce, Bergson and Whitehead, the deep reflection on the problems of commensurability/ incommensurability of linguistic consciousnesses of different cultures – will eventually create a common synergetic-interdisciplinary space of cooperation for the solutions of the above-mentioned issues.

The article is devoted to the memory of Vyacheslav Semenovich Stepin and Nikita Nikolaevich Moiseev, whose multifaceted work was integrally focused on philosophical, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research of the key ideas and principles of universal human-dimensional evolutionism. Other remarkable Russian scientists V.I. Vernadsky, S.P. Kurdyumov, S.P. Kapitsa, D.S. Chernavsky worked in the same tradition of universal evolutionism. While V.I. Vernadsky and N.N. Moiseev had been the originators of that scientific approach, V.S. Stepin provided philosophical foundations for the ideas of those remarkable scientists and thinkers. The scientific legacy of V.S. Stepin and N.N. Moiseev maintained the formation of a new quality of research into the philosophy of science and technology as well as into the philosophy of culture. This new quality is multidimensional and it is difficult to define unambiguously, but we presume the formation of those areas of philosophical knowledge as constructively oriented languages of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary co-participation of philosophy in the convergent-evolutionary development of scientific knowledge in general. In this regard, attention is paid to V.S. Stepin’s affirmations about non-classical nature of modern social and humanitarian knowledge. Quantum mechanics teaches us that the reality revealed through it is a hybrid construct, or symbiosis, of both mean and object of cognition. Therefore, the very act of cognitive observation constructs quantum reality. Thus, it is very close to the process of cognition in modern sociology and psychology. V.S. Stepin insisted that these principles are applicable to all complex selfdeveloping systems, and such are all “human-dimensional” objects of modern humanities. In all the phases of homeostasis changes, or crises, there is necessarily a share of chaos, instability, uncertainty in the selection process of future development scenarios, which is ineliminably affected by our observation. Therefore, a cognitive observer in the humanities should be considered as a concept of post-non-classical rationality, that is as an observer of complexity.