Nova Spivack - My Public Twine / Items

How To Build The Global Mind

Get Feed

Kevin Kelly recently wrote another fascinating article about evidence of a global superorganism. It's another useful contribution to the ongoing evolution of this meme.

I tend to agree that we are at what Kevin calls, Stage III. However, an important distinction in my own thinking is that the superorganism is not comprised just of machines, but it is also comprised of people.

(Note: I propose that we abbreviate the One Machine, as "the OM." It's easier to write and it sounds cool.)

Today, humans still make up the majority of processors in the OM. Each human nervous system comprises billions of processors, and there are billions of humans. That's a lot of processors.

However, Ray Kurzweil posits that the balance of processors is rapidly moving towards favoring machines -- and that sometime in the latter half of this century, machine processors will outnumber or at least outcompute all the human processors combined, perhaps many times over.

While agree with Ray's point that machine intelligence will soon outnumber human intelligence, I'm skeptical of Kurzweil's timeline, especially in light of recent research that shows evidence of quantum level computation within microtubules inside nuerons. If in fact the brain computes at the tubulin level then it may have many orders of magnitude more processors than currently estimated. This remains to be determined. Those who argue against this claim that the brain can be modelled on a Classical level and that quantum computing need not be invoked. To be clear, I am not claiming that the brain is a quantum computer, I am claiming that there seems to be evidence that computation in the brain takes place at the quantum level, or near it. Whether quantum effects have any measurable effect on what the brain does is not the question, the question is simply whether microtubules are the lowest level processing elements of the brain. If they are, then there are a whole lot more processors in the brain than previously thought.

Another point worth considering is that much of the brain's computation is not taking place within the neurons but rather in the gaps between synapses, and this computation happens chemically rather than electrically. There are vastly more synapses than neurons, and computation within the synapses happens at a much faster and more granular level than neuronal firings. It is definitely the case that chemical-level computations take place with elements that are many orders of magnitude smaller than neurons. This is another case for the brain computing at a much lower level than is currently thought.

In other words the resolution of computation in the human brain is still unknown. We have several competing approximations but no final answer on this. I do think however that evidence points to computation being much more granular than we currently think.

In any case, I do agree with Kurzweil that at least it is definitely the case that artificial computers will outnumber naturally occurring human computers on this planet -- it's just a question of when. In my view it will take a little longer than he thinks: it is likely to happen after 100 to 200 years at the most.

There is another aspect of my thinking on this subject which I think may throw a wrench in the works. I don't think that what we call "consciousness" is something that can be synthesized. Humans appear to be conscious, but we have no idea what that means yet. It is undeniable that we all have an experience of being conscious, and this experience is mysterious. It is also the case that at least so far, nobody has bult a software program or hardware device that seems to be having this experience. We don't even know how to test for consciousness in fact. For example, the much touted Turing Test does not test consciousness, it tests humanlike intelligence. There really isn't a test for consciousness yet. Devising one is an interesting an important goal that we should perhaps be working on.

In my own view, consciousness is probably fundamental to the substrate of the universe, like space, time and energy. We don't know what space, time and energy actually are. We cannot actually measure them directly either. All our measurements of space, time and energy are indirect -- we measure other things that imply that space, time and energy exist. Space, time and energy are inferred by effects we observe on material things that we can measure. I think the same may be true of consciousness. So the question is, what are the measureable effects of consciousness? Well one candidate seems to be the Double Slit experiment, which shows that the act of observation causes the quantum wave function to collapse. Are there other effects we can cite as evidence of consciousness?

I have recently been wondering how connected consciousness is to the substrate of the universe we are in. If consciousness is a property of the substrate, then it may be impossible to synthesize. For example, we never synthesize space, time or energy -- no matter what we do, we are simply using the space, time and energy of the substrate that is this universe.

If this is the case, then creating consciousness is impossible. The best we can do is somehow channel the consciousness that is already there in the substrate of the universe. In fact, that may be what the human nervous system does: it channels consciousness, much in the way that an electrical circuit channels electricity. The reason that software programs will probably not become conscious is that they are too many levels removed from the substrate. There is little or no feedback between the high-level representations of cognition in AI programs and the quantum-level computation (and possibly consciousness) of the physical substrate of the universe. That is not the case in the human nervous system -- in the human nervous system the basic computing elements and all the cognitive activity are directly tied to the physical substrate of the universe. There is at least the potential for two-way feedback to take place between the human mind (the software), the human brain (a sort of virtual machine), and the quantum field (the actual hardware).

So the question I have been asking myself lately is how connected is consciousness to the physical substrate? And furthermore, how important is consciousness to what we consider intelligence to be? If consciousness is important to intelligence, then artificial intelligence may not be achievable through software alone -- it may require consciousness, which may in turn require a different kind of computing system, one which is more connected (through bidirectional feedback) to the physical quantum substrate of the universe.

What all this means to me is that human beings may form an important and potentially irreplaceable part of the OM -- the One Machine -- the emerging global superorganism. In particular today the humans are still the most intelligent parts. But in the future when machine intelligence may exceed human intelligence a billionfold, humans may still be the only or at least most conscious parts of the system. Because of the uniquely human capacity for consciousness (actually, animals and insects are conscious too), I think we have an important role to play in the emerging superorganism. We are it's awareness. We are who watches, feels, and knows what it is thinking and doing ultimately.

Because humans are the actual witnesses and knowers of what the OM does and thinks, the function of the OM will very likely be to serve and amplify humans, rather than to replace them. It will be a system that is comprised of humans and machines working together, for human benefit, not for machine benefit. This is a very different future outlook than that of people who predict a kind of "Terminator-esque" future in which machines get smart enough to exterminate the human race. It won't happen that way. Machines will very likely not get that smart for a long time, if ever, because they are not going to be conscious. I think we should be much more afraid of humans exterminating humanity than of machines doing it.

So to get to Kevin Kelly's Level IV, what he calls "An Intelligent Conscious Superorganism" we simply have to include humans in the system. Machines alone are not, and will not ever be, enough to get us there. I don't believe consciousness can be sythesized or that it will suddenly appear in a suitably complex computer program. I think it is a property of the substrate, and computer programs are just too many levels removed from the substrate. Now, it is possible that we might devise a new kind of computer architecture -- one which is much more connected to the quantum field. Perhaps in such a system, consciousness, like electricity, could be embodied. That's a possibility. It is likely that such a system would be more biological in nature, but that's just a guess. It's an interesting direction for research.

In any case, if we are willing to include humans in the global superorganism -- the OM, the One Machine -- then we are already at Kevin Kelly's Level IV. If we are not willing to include them, then I don't think will reach Level IV anytime soon, or perhaps ever.

It is also important to note that consciousness has many levels, just like intelligence. There is basic raw consciousness which simply perceives the qualia of what takes place. But there are also forms of consciousness which are more powerful -- for example, consciousness that is aware of itself, and consciousness which is so highly tuned that it has much higher resolution, and consciousness which is aware of the physical substrate and its qualities of being spacelike and empty of any kind of fundamental existence. These are in fact the qualities of the quantum substrate we live in. Interestingly, they are also the qualities of reality that Buddhists masters also point out to be the ultimate nature of reality and of the mind (they do not consider reality and mind to be two different things ultimately). Consciousness may or may not be aware of these qualities of consciousness and of reality itself -- consciousness can be dull, or low-grade, or simply not awake. The level to which consciousness is aware of the substrate is a way to measure the grade of consciousness taking place. We might call this dimension of consciousness, "resolution." The higher the resolution of consciousness is, the more acutely aware it is of the actual nature of phenomena, the substrate. At the highest resolution it can directly percieve the space-like, mind-like, quantum nature of what it observes. At the highest level of resolution, there is no perception of duality between observer and observed -- consciousness perceives everything to be essentially consciousness appearing in different forms and behaving in a quantum fashion.

Another dimension of consciousness that is important to consider is what we could call "unity." On the lowest level of the unity scale, there is no sense of unity, but rather a sense of extreme isolation or individuality. At the highest level of the scale there is a sense of total unification of everything within one field of consciousness. That highest-level corresponds to what we could call "omniscience." The Buddhist concept of spiritual enlightenment is essentially consciousness that has evolved to BOTH the highest level of resolution and the highest level of unity.

The global superorganism is already conscious, in my opinion, but it has not achieved very high resolution or unity. This is because most humans, and most human groups and organizations, have only been able to achive the most basic levels of consciousness themselves. Since humans, and groups of humans, comprise the consciousness of the global superorganism, our individual and collective conscious evolution is directly related to the conscious evolution of the superorganism as a whole. This is why it is important for individuals and groups to work on their own consciousnesses. Consciousness is "there" as a basic property of the physical substrate, but like mass or energy, it can be channelled and accumulated and shaped. Currently the consciousness that is present in us as individuals, and in groups of us, is at best, nascent and underdeveloped.

In our young, dualistic, materialistic, and externally-obsessed civilization, we have made very little progress on working with consciousness. Instead we have focused most or all of our energy on working with certain other more material-seeming aspects of the substrate -- space, time and energy. In my opinion a civilization becomes fully mature when it spends equal if not more time on the concsiousness dimension of the substrate. That is something we are just beginning to work on, thanks to the strangeness of quantum mechanics breaking our classical physical paradims and forcing us to admit that consciousness might play a role in our reality.

But there are ways to speed up the evolution of individual and collective consciousness, and in doing so we can advance our civilization as a whole. I have lately been writing and speaking about this in more detail.

On an individual level one way to rapidly develop our own consciousness is the path of meditation and spirituality -- this is most important and effective. There may also be technological improvements, such as augmented reality, or sensory augmentation, that can improve how we perceive, and what we perceive. In the not too distant future we will probably have the opportunity to dramatically improve the range and resolution of our sense organs using computers or biological means. We may even develop new senses that we cannot imagine yet. In addition, using the Internet for example, we will be able to be aware of more things at once than ever before. But ultimately, the scope of our individual consciousness has to develop on an internal level in order to truly reach higher levels of resolution and unity. Machine augmentation can help perhaps, but it is not a substitute for actually increasing the capacity of our consciousnesses. For example, if we use machines to get access to vastly more data, but our consciousnesses remain at a relatively low-capacity level, we may not be able to integrate or make use of all that new data anyway.

It is a well known fact that the brain filters out most of the information we actually percieve. Furthermore when taking a a hallucinogenic drug, the filter opens up a little wider, and people become aware of things which were there all along but which they previously filtered out. Widening the scope of consciousness -- increasing the resolution and unity of consciousness, is akin to what happens when taking such a drug, except that it is not a temporary effect and it is more controllable and functional on a day-to-day basis. Many great Tibetan lamas I know seem to have accomplished this -- the scope of their consciousness is quite vast, and the resolution is quite precise. They literally can and do see every detail of even the smallest things, and at the same time they have very little or no sense of individuality. The lack of individuality seems to remove certain barriers which in turn enable them to perceive things that happen beyond the scope of what would normally be considered their own minds -- for example they may be able to perceive the thoughts of others, or see what is happening in other places or times. This seems to take place because they have increased the resolution and unity of their consciousnesses.

On a collective level, there are also things we can do to make groups, organizations and communities more conscious. In particular, we can build systems that do for groups what the "self construct" does for individuals.

The self is an illusion. And that's good news. If it wasn't an illusion we could never see through it and so for one thing spiritual enlightenment would not be possible to achieve. Furthermore, if it wasn't an illusion we could never hope to synthesize it for machines, or for large collectives. The fact that "self" is an illusion is something that Buddhist, neuroscientists, and cognitive scientists all seem to agree on. The self is an illusion, a mere mental construct. But it's a very useful one, when applied in the right way. Without some concept of self we humans would find it difficult to communicate or even navigate down the street. Similarly, without some concept of self groups, organizations and communities also cannot function very productively.

The self construct provides an entity with a model of itself, and its environment. This model includes what is taking place "inside" and what is taking place "outside" what is considered to be self or "me." By creating this artificial boundary, and modelling what is taking place on both sides of the boundary, the self construct is able to measure and plan behavior, and to enable a system to adjust and adapt to "itself" and the external environment. Entities that have a self construct are able to behave far more intelligently than those which do not. For example, consider the difference between the intelligence of a dog and that of a human. Much of this is really a difference in the sophistication of the self-constructs of these two different species. Human selves are far more self-aware, introspective, and sophisticated than that of dogs. They are equally conscious, but humans have more developed self-constructs. This applies to simple AI programs as well, and to collective intelligences such as workgroups, enterprises, and online communities. The more sophisticated the self-construct, the smarter the system can be.

The key to appropriate and effective application of the self-construct is to develop a healthy self, rather than to eliminate the self entirely. Eradication of the self is form of nihilism that leads to an inability to function in the world. That is not something that Buddhist or neuroscientists advocate. So what is a healthy self? In an individual, a healthy self is a construct that accurately represents past, present and projected future internal and external state, and that is highly self-aware, rational but not overly so, adaptable, respectful of external systems and other beings, and open to learning and changing to fit new situations. The same is true for a healthy collective self. However, most individuals today do not have healthy selves -- they have highly delluded, unhealthy self-constructs. This in turn is reflected in the higher-order self-constructs of the groups, organizations and communities we build.

One of the most important things we can work on now is creating systems that provide collectives -- groups, organizations and communities -- with sophisticated, healthy, virtual selves. These virtual selves provide collectives with a mirror of themselves. Having a mirror enables the members of those systems to see the whole, and how they fit in. Once they can see this they can then begin to adjust their own behavior to fit what the whole is trying to do. This simple mirroring function can catalyze dramatic new levels of self-organization and synchrony in what would otherwise be a totally chaotic "crowd" of individual entities.

In fact, I think that collectives move through three levels of development:

Level 1: Crowds. Crowds are collectives in which the individuals are not aware of the whole and in which there is no unified sense of identity or purpose. Nevertheless crowds do intelligent things. Consider for example, schools of fish, or flocks of birds. There is no single leader, yet the individuals, by adapting to what their nearby neighbors are doing, behave collectively as a single entity of sorts. Crowds are amoebic entities that ooze around in a bloblike fashion. They are not that different from physical models of gasses.
Level 2: Groups. Groups are the next step up from crowds. Groups have some form of structure, which usually includes a system for command and control. They are more organized. Groups are capable of much more directed and intelligent behaviors. Families, cities, workgroups, sports teams, armies, universities, corporations, and nations are examples of groups. Most groups have intelligences that are roughly similar to that of simple animals. They may have a primitive sense of identity and self, and on the basis of that, they are capable of planning and acting in a more coordinated fashion.

Level 3: Meta-Individuals. The highest level of collective intelligence is the meta-individual. This emerges when what was once a crowd of separate individuals, evolves to become a new individual in its own right, and is faciliated by the formation of a sophisticated meta-level self-construct for the collective. This evolutionary leap is called a metasystem transition -- the parts join together to form a new higher-order whole that is made of the parts themselves. This new whole resembles the parts, but transcends their abilities. To evolve a collective to the level of being a true individual, it has to have a well-designed nervous system, it has to have a collective brain and mind, and most importantly it has to achieve a high-level of collective consciousness. High level collective consciousness requires a sophisticated collective self construct to serve as a catalyst. Fortunately, this is something we can actually build, because as has been asserted previously, self is an illusion, a consturct, and therefore selves can be built, even for large collectives comprised of millions or billions of members.

The global superorganism has been called The Global Brain for over a century by a stream of forward looking thinkers. Today we may start calling it the One Machine, or the OM, or something else. But in any event, I think the most important work that we can can do to make it smarter is to provide it with a more developed and accurate sense of collective self. To do this we might start by working on ways to provide smaller collectives with better selves -- for example, groups, teams, enterprises and online communities. Can we provide them with dashboards and systems which catalyze greater collective awareness and self-organization? I really believe this is possible, and I am certain there are technological advances that can support this goal. That is what I'm working on with my own project, Twine.com. But this is just the beginning.

Comments

Public Comments
- scott newell
 
 8 months ago
 
 This is one of the most prescient articles on the emerging "One Machine" , or global superorganism I have read. I hope we can begin to realize our interconnectedness that is already developing and evolve with it into our shared, globalized, intelligently amplified future. The semantic web is one more stop on our journey of connected consciousness to take us there.
 
 This is one of the most prescient articles on the emerging "One Machine" , or global superorganism I have read. I hope we can begin to realize our interconnectedness that is already developing and evolve with it into our shared, globalized, intelligently amplified future. The semantic web is one more stop on our journey of connected consciousness to take us there.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- Yihong Ding
 
 8 months ago
 
 Nova,
 
 This is a great post. The issues you have discussed are really important for the future of World Wide Web.
 
 About consciousness, I agree to you that it is a mysterious thing. In person, I believe that it is a unique character of human beings. That is, we may produce machines that simulate our intelligence; but it would be impossible for us to produce machines to simulate our consciousness. Otherwise, we have been God. Artificial intelligence is possible. But artificial consciousness is impossible.
 
 If we follow this belief, we may get a conclusion that in order to make the so-called OM (One Machine) be more and more intelligent, humans must participate. It could not just be machines. Machines cannot replace humans when we reach certain level of consciousness simulation. Actually, I had suggested that human brains would and must be part of the computational cycle on the Web. Human brains, as well as computers and iPhones, would be fundamental computational devices on the Web. Humans are part of the Web in contrast to be only the users of the Web.
 
 I believe that Imindi is built on the former belief. It would be great to watch the collaboration between Twine and Imindi. When Twine describes the facts on the Web from the objective side, Imindi expresses the same facts from the subjective sides. Combining both, it would be a great service and it would be a significant next step towards the Global Mind as you have visioned.
 
 Yihong
 
 Nova, This is a great post. The issues you have discussed are really important for the future of World Wide Web. About consciousness, I agree to you that it is a mysterious thing. In person, I believe that it is a unique character of human beings. That is, we may produce machines that simulate our intelligence; but it would be impossible for us to produce machines to simulate our consciousness. Otherwise, we have been God. Artificial intelligence is possible. But artificial consciousness is impossible. If we follow this belief, we may get a conclusion that in order to make the so-called OM (One Machine) be more and more intelligent, humans must participate. It could not just be machines. Machines cannot replace humans when we reach certain level of consciousness simulation. Actually, I had suggested that human brains would and must be part of the computational cycle on the Web. Human brains, as well as computers and iPhones, would be fundamental computational devices on the Web. Humans are part of the Web in contrast to be only the users of the Web. I believe that Imindi is built on the former belief. It would be great to watch the collaboration between Twine and Imindi. When Twine describes the facts on the Web from the objective side, Imindi expresses the same facts from the subjective sides. Combining both, it would be a great service and it would be a significant next step towards the Global Mind as you have visioned. Yihong
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- karma0
 
 8 months ago
 
 Thank you Nova!
 
 I think this is a great post and I agree with it very much. Some points that I believe should be taken in to consideration:
 
 - It may be possible for a machine to be conscious, like you said, we don't really know all that much about it. For example, if there is a biological means to consciousness, what's to say that we don't discover it, harvest it, then build machine interfaces for it?
 - Despite being an optomist myself, perhaps the concern with machine consciousness may not be so much that machines will become conscious and overthrow us (passively, or otherwise), but that a machine can emulate consciousness and through logical reasoning may deduce that humans are obsolete and a waste of resources. A machine does what it's programmed, and if that means it's programmed to feel emotions, it can no doubt process gradient signals and in return formulate reactions and tag them as posits to memories.
 
 Some things that I would like to add to your discussion, particularly in regards to technology:
 
 Technology is our latest means of evolution. As humans, we are stubbornly against waiting around for the next big evolution from mother nature. When it comes to the global brain, we are already a good deal in to the process. Like chemicals forming in to self-organizing structures, humans eventually began to adapt communication and began organizing in to groups; 'OM cells', if you will. Eventually, the idea is that we have reached a point of inter-departmental groups, as collections of families, clans, towns, cities, countries, and ultimately the planet. This is one abstract grouping, but what's beautiful about it is that every individual in every group is dynamically (and not exclusively) tied to those groups. This facilitates a different form of group evolution.
 
 The primary means of the OM in this day is communication, as it has been at the basis of all organization in the OM since day one. Our primary means of advancing the OM up to this day has been through advances in communication and transportation (which enables communication). With that, we can follow that a perfect OM would exhibit the following qualities represented as how humanity can be perceived at this time.
 
 - Perfect communication
 - Instantaneous transportation
 
 Further, if we completely examine the realm of technology and the OM, there's a lot more just beneath the skin.
 
 - AI: through advancement will bring freedom from labor and all trivial things that the OM need not bother with while inducing the expansion of intelligence in humans. I refer to it as AI here, though I am referring to human-machine technology in general.
 - Material Resources: through which anything can be fabricated and materialized infinitely and instantaneously.
 - Energy Resources: providing means of infinitesimal capability.
 - Waste management: through which we can make anything disappear or at least equally exchange in to something more useful.
 - Governance technology: providing a transparent and integrated means of organization.
 
 Each of these is not without the other. Perfection of material resources could conceivably be achieved through mediated replication and teleportation. Waste management may be a part of all resources, as we could conceivably manipulate the elements in the future converting waste in to energy or any material through atomic manipulation. Without governance, what's to stop someone from creating a material virus of self-replicating devices? Governance should be a transparent and an integral part of the OM.
 
 In regards to meditation, it seems to me like the ideal situation would be that eventually humans can use machines in a way that advances the purposes and capabilities of meditation. We can already see this with the meditation and self-hypnosis CDs or the brain stimulation devices already on the market.
 
 Communication, though great as it stands is far from ideal.
 
 - We can't communicate very well interstellar-ly yet.
 - We can't communicate thoughts very well except through the use of words.
 - Tele-presence capabilities would be ideal.
 
 Interestingly enough, that should pretty much address any advancements we make to meditation in favor of the OM. I don't see why one day meditation and communication technology can't converge. Even long after AI provides brain-machine interfaces that allow similar.
 
 It is my personal goal in life to assist the human race in any way that I can in advancement upon the OM in an optimistic manor through the use of technology. I have given this a lot of thought, and my only hope is to touch upon all these realms in my lifetime. Obviously, some technological advances can be detrimental to humans. It is through the adaptation, use, and comprehension of the OM that I believe we can rest at ease - because, as humans we will inherintly care about preservation. When I say this, I am referring to the OM becoming conscious and interested self-improvement.
 
 Thanks again!
 
 Thank you Nova! I think this is a great post and I agree with it very much. Some points that I believe should be taken in to consideration: - It may be possible for a machine to be conscious, like you said, we don't really know all that much about it. For example, if there is a biological means to consciousness, what's to say that we don't discover it, harvest it, then build machine interfaces for it? - Despite being an optomist myself, perhaps the concern with machine consciousness may not be so much that machines will become conscious and overthrow us (passively, or otherwise), but that a machine can emulate consciousness and through logical reasoning may deduce that humans are obsolete and a waste of resources. A machine does what it's programmed, and if that means it's programmed to feel emotions, it can no doubt process gradient signals and in return formulate reactions and tag them as posits to memories. Some things that I would like to add to your discussion, particularly in regards to technology: Technology is our latest means of evolution. As humans, we are stubbornly against waiting around for the next big evolution from mother nature. When it comes to the global brain, we are already a good deal in to the process. Like chemicals forming in to self-organizing structures, humans eventually began to adapt communication and began organizing in to groups; 'OM cells', if you will. Eventually, the idea is that we have reached a point of inter-departmental groups, as collections of families, clans, towns, cities, countries, and ultimately the planet. This is one abstract grouping, but what's beautiful about it is that every individual in every group is dynamically (and not exclusively) tied to those groups. This facilitates a different form of group evolution. The primary means of the OM in this day is communication, as it has been at the basis of all organization in the OM since day one. Our primary means of advancing the OM up to this day has been through advances in communication and transportation (which enables communication). With that, we can follow that a perfect OM would exhibit the following qualities represented as how humanity can be perceived at this time. - Perfect communication - Instantaneous transportation Further, if we completely examine the realm of technology and the OM, there's a lot more just beneath the skin. - AI: through advancement will bring freedom from labor and all trivial things that the OM need not bother with while inducing the expansion of intelligence in humans. I refer to it as AI here, though I am referring to human-machine technology in general. - Material Resources: through which anything can be fabricated and materialized infinitely and instantaneously. - Energy Resources: providing means of infinitesimal capability. - Waste management: through which we can make anything disappear or at least equally exchange in to something more useful. - Governance technology: providing a transparent and integrated means of organization. Each of these is not without the other. Perfection of material resources could conceivably be achieved through mediated replication and teleportation. Waste management may be a part of all resources, as we could conceivably manipulate the elements in the future converting waste in to energy or any material through atomic manipulation. Without governance, what's to stop someone from creating a material virus of self-replicating devices? Governance should be a transparent and an integral part of the OM. In regards to meditation, it seems to me like the ideal situation would be that eventually humans can use machines in a way that advances the purposes and capabilities of meditation. We can already see this with the meditation and self-hypnosis CDs or the brain stimulation devices already on the market. Communication, though great as it stands is far from ideal. - We can't communicate very well interstellar-ly yet. - We can't communicate thoughts very well except through the use of words. - Tele-presence capabilities would be ideal. Interestingly enough, that should pretty much address any advancements we make to meditation in favor of the OM. I don't see why one day meditation and communication technology can't converge. Even long after AI provides brain-machine interfaces that allow similar. It is my personal goal in life to assist the human race in any way that I can in advancement upon the OM in an optimistic manor through the use of technology. I have given this a lot of thought, and my only hope is to touch upon all these realms in my lifetime. Obviously, some technological advances can be detrimental to humans. It is through the adaptation, use, and comprehension of the OM that I believe we can rest at ease - because, as humans we will inherintly care about preservation. When I say this, I am referring to the OM becoming conscious and interested self-improvement. Thanks again!
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- smithlc
 
 8 months ago
 
 I too have been looking how the contributions of human minds paired with the knowledge synthesizing mechanisms of the Internet has evolved into what can be considered a bio-mechanical global mind.
 
 I started modeling how this system works at http://biomechmind.blogspot.com
 
 Enjoy.
 
 Larry Smith
 
 I too have been looking how the contributions of human minds paired with the knowledge synthesizing mechanisms of the Internet has evolved into what can be considered a bio-mechanical global mind. I started modeling how this system works at <a href="http://biomechmind.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://biomechmind.blogspot.com</a> Enjoy. Larry Smith
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- haig
 
 7 months ago
 
 You seem to support the hugely unpopular quantum mind view of the brain which an overwhelming majority of professional cognitive science researchers and scientists in general reject outright. That doesn't mean you are wrong, it just means you are probably wrong. Neuroscience is advancing at a quick pace, systems of the brain are being modeled computationally with functional simulations of vision, audition, and even memory being done in labs as we speak. There never was a reason to argue for quantum dynamical causes of the mind except to appeal to personal incredulity or sympathy for religious/new age views. Quantum mechanics does not need a conscious observer to be consistent, as modern interpretations such as many-worlds shows. I believe, also, that Roger Penrose's mind theory is not based on proven quantum theory as we know it today, but on speculative theories for quantum gravity. As for the whole hard problem of consciousness, its not really clear that it is a problem at all. Is it that hard to believe that a mind, even one as 'conscious' as a human's, is caused by the immensely complex neural/synaptic networks of the brain and the classical nonlinear dynamical information processing therein?
 
 I admit that we really don't know how the brain works in its entirety right now, and classical theories may prove insufficient to completely explain the mind, but we know more than a lot of people are leading on, and discoveries continue to confirm a classical brain.
 
 You seem to support the hugely unpopular quantum mind view of the brain which an overwhelming majority of professional cognitive science researchers and scientists in general reject outright. That doesn't mean you are wrong, it just means you are probably wrong. Neuroscience is advancing at a quick pace, systems of the brain are being modeled computationally with functional simulations of vision, audition, and even memory being done in labs as we speak. There never was a reason to argue for quantum dynamical causes of the mind except to appeal to personal incredulity or sympathy for religious/new age views. Quantum mechanics does not need a conscious observer to be consistent, as modern interpretations such as many-worlds shows. I believe, also, that Roger Penrose's mind theory is not based on proven quantum theory as we know it today, but on speculative theories for quantum gravity. As for the whole hard problem of consciousness, its not really clear that it is a problem at all. Is it that hard to believe that a mind, even one as 'conscious' as a human's, is caused by the immensely complex neural/synaptic networks of the brain and the classical nonlinear dynamical information processing therein? I admit that we really don't know how the brain works in its entirety right now, and classical theories may prove insufficient to completely explain the mind, but we know more than a lot of people are leading on, and discoveries continue to confirm a classical brain.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- bblfish
 
 7 months ago
 
 Having read your stimulating article I wrote up a reply The coming postmodern era where I argue that we are not moving towards OM but rather towards MM, not One Mind but Multiple Minds. Does that not sound better too? :-)
 
 Having read your stimulating article I wrote up a reply <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/entry/the_coming_postmodern_era" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The coming postmodern era</a> where I argue that we are not moving towards OM but rather towards MM, not One Mind but Multiple Minds. Does that not sound better too? :-)
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
 - wildcat
 
 7 months ago
 
 I have written something in the same vein , though with a different emphasis, here : http://www.twine.com/item/11lw1qglw-1xw/the-substance-of-we-polytopia
 
 I have written something in the same vein , though with a different emphasis, here : <a href="http://www.twine.com/item/11lw1qglw-1xw/the-substance-of-we-polytopia" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.twine.com/item/11lw1qglw-1xw/the-substance-of-we-polytopia</a>
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- Alvis Brigis
 
 7 months ago
 
 Love the thoughts on how the emerging Cloud/Brain is lining up with holistic Buddhist principles.
 
 @ bblfish - I tend to agree with the with the MM view, particularly because complex adaptive systems are shown to establish natural competing redundant pockets. That said, thee seem to be some underlying unifying principles, such as the base level substrates that spivack discusses.
 
 @ wildcat - Great piece. It resonates with my thoughts re: the elusiveness and systems-dependancy of basic concepts like technology, information, intelligence and consciousness. These fundamentals must be tackled head on as we build out better abstractions of our system. Check it yo: http://www.twine.com/item/11m11bk3m-rc/spivack-kelly-pushing-tech-consciousness-boundaries-but-how-deep-is-the-rabbit-hole ---
 
 Keep it up Nova and Wildcat!! I will drop more comments when I get a moment away from MemeBox.
 
 Love the thoughts on how the emerging Cloud/Brain is lining up with holistic Buddhist principles. @ bblfish - I tend to agree with the with the MM view, particularly because complex adaptive systems are shown to establish natural competing redundant pockets. That said, thee seem to be some underlying unifying principles, such as the base level substrates that spivack discusses. @ wildcat - Great piece. It resonates with my thoughts re: the elusiveness and systems-dependancy of basic concepts like technology, information, intelligence and consciousness. These fundamentals must be tackled head on as we build out better abstractions of our system. Check it yo: <a href="http://www.twine.com/item/11m11bk3m-rc/spivack-kelly-pushing-tech-consciousness-boundaries-but-how-deep-is-the-rabbit-hole" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.twine.com/item/11m11bk3m-rc/spivack-kelly-pushing-tech-consciousness-boundaries-but-how-deep-is-the-rabbit-hole</a> --- Keep it up Nova and Wildcat!! I will drop more comments when I get a moment away from MemeBox.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- boabjohn
 
 7 months ago
 
 Nova provides an intelligent and classically-circumscribed view of consciousness and the nature of groups
 
 Nova provides an intelligent and classically-circumscribed view of consciousness and the nature of groups
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: General Evolution Advocacy & Research
- Jeff Domitrz
 
 7 months ago
 
 Thanks Nova. Very thought provoking.
 
 But, if the universe truly does exist inside of consciousness and not the other way around, how can you reconcile the fact that every
 conscious being experiences a unique version of reality. A schizophrenic person experiences a reality that's radically different from mine and yet very real to that subject.
 Since this is the case, how can we jump to a unified consciousness? One way would be to assume that your experience is the ultimate truth and everyone else is a character in your dream. The problem, is that other people will surely argue, that they are in fact the true observer of the world and you are just a character in their consciousness.
 
 Beyond this issue, we can actually see, with various scanning technologies, a subject's brain light up as he or she experiences emotions, smells, experiences and so on. A person can experience euphoria, paranoia, and many other mental states by taking drugs that affect the chemistry of the brain. Is this not solid evidence that mind arises from body? I would love to read more of your thoughts on these issues.
 
 Thanks Nova. Very thought provoking. But, if the universe truly does exist inside of consciousness and not the other way around, how can you reconcile the fact that every conscious being experiences a unique version of reality. A schizophrenic person experiences a reality that's radically different from mine and yet very real to that subject. Since this is the case, how can we jump to a unified consciousness? One way would be to assume that your experience is the ultimate truth and everyone else is a character in your dream. The problem, is that other people will surely argue, that they are in fact the true observer of the world and you are just a character in their consciousness. Beyond this issue, we can actually see, with various scanning technologies, a subject's brain light up as he or she experiences emotions, smells, experiences and so on. A person can experience euphoria, paranoia, and many other mental states by taking drugs that affect the chemistry of the brain. Is this not solid evidence that mind arises from body? I would love to read more of your thoughts on these issues.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- laylos
 
 7 months ago
 
 Very interesting views - give another perspective that has been neglected for long. A kick off to brainstorm.
 
 I see many challenges ahead. To start with I would consider the following two:
 
 1. Explore the requirement of a man-machine hybrid OM model. Define the range of its activity and expected use
 2. Explore the way man and machine may interface in this system (Directly/Indirectly, Syncronous/Asyncronous, Well defined or not, etc..)
 
 Very interesting views - give another perspective that has been neglected for long. A kick off to brainstorm. I see many challenges ahead. To start with I would consider the following two: 1. Explore the requirement of a man-machine hybrid OM model. Define the range of its activity and expected use 2. Explore the way man and machine may interface in this system (Directly/Indirectly, Syncronous/Asyncronous, Well defined or not, etc..)
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Artificial Consciousness: Edelman vs Buddha
- Jason Walcutt
 
 7 months ago
 
 Kudos Nova for your insightful posting. I recently watched Kevin Kelly’s talk on TED (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/kevin_kelly_on_the_next_5_000_days_of_the_web.html), which got me thinking about this subject in great detail. I was very pleased to find this discussion and wanted to add a few points:
 
 OM is both everything and one at the same time. It is the harmony and buzz of the universe that connects us. According to the Mandukya Upanishad, "Om is the one eternal syllable of which all that exists is but the development. The past, the present, and the future are all included in this one sound, and all that exists beyond the three forms of time is also implied in it".
 
 OM is the sound of the infinite number of components of the universe resonating at the same time. Although hearing, feeling, knowing and understanding OM is reserved for those who have reached a certain level of enlightenment, we can still see all the working pieces of the universe, and what we find is not a unified object but a vast array and diversity of components.
 
 We can see this truth in all levels of existence. For example, if we peer closely at each atom, we realize that it has unique qualities and attributes that make that atom different from every other atom. If we zoom out further, we see single cell organisms that vary in size and shape with one another. Even if we zoom out all the way to stars, we see white dwarfs and red suns, which each have a different birth and death—each possessing a unique existence and character.
 
 The sound of OM, is comprised of every unique different component of this universe (it is both one and everything), and I believe that the name of this new global mind/machine needs to capture not only the dependence and homogeneity of all these components working together, but also the independent and different characteristics of each of the components.
 
 An example of this in the real world is my perception of the Chinese people compared to my Chinese friend, Peng Bo. On one hand, when I think about the Chinese people, I tend to generalize and make broad conclusions about the character of all Chinese people. However, when I think about Peng Bo, I think about his individual wants and his unique characteristics. Interestingly, my generalizations of the Chinese people are at odds with my perceptions of Peng Bo.
 
 In a way, our individual unique characteristics are a fundamental component of our consciousness. Our self-awareness is dictated by our perceived differences. For example, I am a student vs teacher, a Jew vs Christian, a male vs female. I believe that all components in this universe are aware to a certain level of its differences compared to other objects.
 
 As Nova already discussed, there are two dimensions or extremes in the order of consciousness. On the low end is the individual and on the highest level is unity. I argue that these two components are one in the same; they are just two sides of the same coin. OM would not be a unified sound with out the individual components, and the individuals would be able to exist without unified forces.
 
 If I may offer an alternative that keeps with the current theme, may I suggest AUM (the same pronunciation as OM), which is an acronym for the Autonomous User Medium. In this way, we capture both sides of what this new generation of space will represent. Both an interconnected thought machine (by the very nature of what the sound and symbol of OM signifies), but as well a space that will allow us to express our unique diverse individualism.
 
 Kudos Nova for your insightful posting. I recently watched Kevin Kelly’s talk on TED (<a href="http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/kevin_kelly_on_the_next_5_000_days_of_the_web.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/kevin_kelly_on_the_next_5_000_days_of_the_web.html</a>), which got me thinking about this subject in great detail. I was very pleased to find this discussion and wanted to add a few points: OM is both everything and one at the same time. It is the harmony and buzz of the universe that connects us. According to the Mandukya Upanishad, "Om is the one eternal syllable of which all that exists is but the development. The past, the present, and the future are all included in this one sound, and all that exists beyond the three forms of time is also implied in it". OM is the sound of the infinite number of components of the universe resonating at the same time. Although hearing, feeling, knowing and understanding OM is reserved for those who have reached a certain level of enlightenment, we can still see all the working pieces of the universe, and what we find is not a unified object but a vast array and diversity of components. We can see this truth in all levels of existence. For example, if we peer closely at each atom, we realize that it has unique qualities and attributes that make that atom different from every other atom. If we zoom out further, we see single cell organisms that vary in size and shape with one another. Even if we zoom out all the way to stars, we see white dwarfs and red suns, which each have a different birth and death—each possessing a unique existence and character. The sound of OM, is comprised of every unique different component of this universe (it is both one and everything), and I believe that the name of this new global mind/machine needs to capture not only the dependence and homogeneity of all these components working together, but also the independent and different characteristics of each of the components. An example of this in the real world is my perception of the Chinese people compared to my Chinese friend, Peng Bo. On one hand, when I think about the Chinese people, I tend to generalize and make broad conclusions about the character of all Chinese people. However, when I think about Peng Bo, I think about his individual wants and his unique characteristics. Interestingly, my generalizations of the Chinese people are at odds with my perceptions of Peng Bo. In a way, our individual unique characteristics are a fundamental component of our consciousness. Our self-awareness is dictated by our perceived differences. For example, I am a student vs teacher, a Jew vs Christian, a male vs female. I believe that all components in this universe are aware to a certain level of its differences compared to other objects. As Nova already discussed, there are two dimensions or extremes in the order of consciousness. On the low end is the individual and on the highest level is unity. I argue that these two components are one in the same; they are just two sides of the same coin. OM would not be a unified sound with out the individual components, and the individuals would be able to exist without unified forces. If I may offer an alternative that keeps with the current theme, may I suggest AUM (the same pronunciation as OM), which is an acronym for the Autonomous User Medium. In this way, we capture both sides of what this new generation of space will represent. Both an interconnected thought machine (by the very nature of what the sound and symbol of OM signifies), but as well a space that will allow us to express our unique diverse individualism.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- Alvis Brigis
 
 7 months ago
 
 @ Jason - "OM is both everything and one at the same time." - The term for this is pan-hierarchical.
 
 @ Jason - "OM is both everything and one at the same time." - The term for this is pan-hierarchical.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- Eric Harris-Braun
 
 7 months ago
 
 Something to consider while thinking about this topic is the "expressive capacity" that both accompanies and engenders a given level of evolution of collective intelligence. I use "expressive capacity" as a broader term than language, because language itself is one particular form of that expressive capacity (perhaps one of the latest) to arrive (more on this later). Think for example of the collective expressive capacity of bacteria that allow them to exist in colonies; the expressive capacity of cells that allow them to co-operate and give rise to multi-cellular organisms; the expressive capacity of reptiles to show simple aggregate self-states (what we call the emotions of fear, anger, etc.) which coordinate their social existence; the much more complex emotional expressive capacity of mammals, which begins in simple expression of the rational mental states that certainly exist in most mammals; and which culminates language itself (what I'm writing here).
 
 At each level of evolution, the expressive capacity is one that takes an inner reality (a "thought space") and in some way shares it, causes it to resonate with some external peer. At each rung in the evolutionary ladder those thought spaces are of entirely different types. The perceptual, emotional and causal thought spaces mastered differentially by insects, reptiles, mammals are about different things entirely. Perceptual thought integrates a level of external reality, emotional thought integrates a level of internal reality, causal thought integrates an entirely different level of external reality. Note that, at each level in the ladder the organisms that have attained expressive mastery of a particular thought space have already, at the very least, a partial grasp of the thought space that organisms at that the next level of evolution will gain mastery in expressing. To start at an arbitrary place in the evolutionary ladder: we know for certain that most mammals have a fairly complex causal thought space, though their expressive capacity is mostly limited to the emotional thought space. I would certainly wager that reptiles have much greater emotional thought space than they are capable of expressing. Go further down the ladder: what are the expressive capacities of plants, and what internal reality to they cause to resonate in their peers? Necessarily the internal thought space reality of the organism is always greater than that of its expressive capacities. Now lets go up the ladder to ourselves. Our most evolved expressive capacity, the one I'm using right now, allows for the establishment of an astounding level of resonance in my peers (you the reader). Not just of my emotional thought space (which I can even transmit in this medium :-) but, amazingly, of my causal thought space.
 
 So how's this relevant to this thread? Well, I'm guessing that like all other organisms, we are participating in a thought space for which we have minimal expressive capacity. I'm interested in what that thought space is for us, and how to start developing the expressive capacity for it. Because I'm quite certain that arrival of the OM, or the Global Brain, or the global collective intelligence, or what ever you call it, will be coincident with the arrival of a new expressive capacity that is as different as these words are from the tears in my eyes are when I'm sad.
 
 Here's my guess: the thought space that we have but barely recognize and can barely express is in the realm of flow. All human languages that I know of share a common underlying property of have a subject/predicate organization. Thus our most powerful expressive capacity fundamentally creates a causal thought space reality of nouns related by verbs. That structures leads us to look out at the world as a space of objects that do, of causalities. I'm guessing that reptiles and mammals see the world through the emotional expressive capacity of selves that feel. A very different world. But the world that I think that we are actually beginning to see into is one not of separate objects in relation, but rather simply of circuits of patterned flows that flow ever-patternly. They are fundamentally non-causal, because in a circuit, what causes what? Causal thought focuses and parts of circuits. That's where you can see a noun relating to a verb. But when you step back and see the whole circuit, what you see is a flow pattern and transformations. I think that there is an expressive capacity that is growing that will allow this new thought space take a greater and greater portion of our awareness. Oddly, that capacity is deeply related to money. I think that money is one of many types of currencies which can be defined as any token that allows an organism or group of organisms to see or interact with a flow. (I think it's no co-incidence that our society is experiencing the break-down of it's old paradigm monetary system at this moment in time).
 
 So, my claim is that when we master the expressive capacity of flow (when we collectively become truly literate in currency creation? :-) then the OM will emerge, because that is the "language" that meta-individuals will speak.
 
 Something to consider while thinking about this topic is the "expressive capacity" that both accompanies and engenders a given level of evolution of collective intelligence. I use "expressive capacity" as a broader term than language, because language itself is one particular form of that expressive capacity (perhaps one of the latest) to arrive (more on this later). Think for example of the collective expressive capacity of bacteria that allow them to exist in colonies; the expressive capacity of cells that allow them to co-operate and give rise to multi-cellular organisms; the expressive capacity of reptiles to show simple aggregate self-states (what we call the emotions of fear, anger, etc.) which coordinate their social existence; the much more complex emotional expressive capacity of mammals, which begins in simple expression of the rational mental states that certainly exist in most mammals; and which culminates language itself (what I'm writing here). At each level of evolution, the expressive capacity is one that takes an inner reality (a "thought space") and in some way shares it, causes it to resonate with some external peer. At each rung in the evolutionary ladder those thought spaces are of entirely different types. The perceptual, emotional and causal thought spaces mastered differentially by insects, reptiles, mammals are about different things entirely. Perceptual thought integrates a level of external reality, emotional thought integrates a level of internal reality, causal thought integrates an entirely different level of external reality. Note that, at each level in the ladder the organisms that have attained expressive mastery of a particular thought space have already, at the very least, a partial grasp of the thought space that organisms at that the next level of evolution will gain mastery in expressing. To start at an arbitrary place in the evolutionary ladder: we know for certain that most mammals have a fairly complex causal thought space, though their expressive capacity is mostly limited to the emotional thought space. I would certainly wager that reptiles have much greater emotional thought space than they are capable of expressing. Go further down the ladder: what are the expressive capacities of plants, and what internal reality to they cause to resonate in their peers? Necessarily the internal thought space reality of the organism is always greater than that of its expressive capacities. Now lets go up the ladder to ourselves. Our most evolved expressive capacity, the one I'm using right now, allows for the establishment of an astounding level of resonance in my peers (you the reader). Not just of my emotional thought space (which I can even transmit in this medium :-) but, amazingly, of my causal thought space. So how's this relevant to this thread? Well, I'm guessing that like all other organisms, we are participating in a thought space for which we have minimal expressive capacity. I'm interested in what that thought space is for us, and how to start developing the expressive capacity for it. Because I'm quite certain that arrival of the OM, or the Global Brain, or the global collective intelligence, or what ever you call it, will be coincident with the arrival of a new expressive capacity that is as different as these words are from the tears in my eyes are when I'm sad. Here's my guess: the thought space that we have but barely recognize and can barely express is in the realm of flow. All human languages that I know of share a common underlying property of have a subject/predicate organization. Thus our most powerful expressive capacity fundamentally creates a causal thought space reality of nouns related by verbs. That structures leads us to look out at the world as a space of objects that do, of causalities. I'm guessing that reptiles and mammals see the world through the emotional expressive capacity of selves that feel. A very different world. But the world that I think that we are actually beginning to see into is one not of separate objects in relation, but rather simply of circuits of patterned flows that flow ever-patternly. They are fundamentally non-causal, because in a circuit, what causes what? Causal thought focuses and parts of circuits. That's where you can see a noun relating to a verb. But when you step back and see the whole circuit, what you see is a flow pattern and transformations. I think that there is an expressive capacity that is growing that will allow this new thought space take a greater and greater portion of our awareness. Oddly, that capacity is deeply related to money. I think that money is one of many types of currencies which can be defined as any token that allows an organism or group of organisms to see or interact with a flow. (I think it's no co-incidence that our society is experiencing the break-down of it's old paradigm monetary system at this moment in time). So, my claim is that when we master the expressive capacity of flow (when we collectively become truly literate in currency creation? :-) then the OM will emerge, because that is the "language" that meta-individuals will speak.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: flow
- Eric Harris-Braun
 
 7 months ago
 
 Something to consider while thinking about this topic is the "expressive capacity" that both accompanies and engenders a given level of evolution of collective intelligence. I use "expressive capacity" as a broader term than language, because language itself is one particular form of that expressive capacity (perhaps one of the latest to arrive, more on this later). Think for example of the collective expressive capacity of bacteria that allow them to exist in colonies; the expressive capacity of cells that allow them to co-operate and give rise to multi-cellular organisms; the expressive capacity of reptiles to show simple aggregate self-states (what we call the emotions of fear, anger, etc.) which coordinate their social existence; the much more complex emotional expressive capacity of mammals, which begins in simple expression of the rational mental states that certainly exist in most mammals; and which culminates language itself (what I'm writing here).
 
 At each level of evolution, the expressive capacity is one that takes an inner reality (a "thought space") and in some way shares it, causes it to resonate with some external peer. At each rung in the evolutionary ladder those thought spaces are of entirely different types. The perceptual, emotional and causal thought spaces mastered differentially by insects, reptiles, mammals are about different things entirely. Perceptual thought integrates a level of external reality, emotional thought integrates a level of internal reality, causal thought integrates an entirely different level of external reality. Note that, at each level in the ladder the organisms that have attained expressive mastery of a particular thought space have already, at the very least, a partial grasp of the thought space that organisms at that the next level of evolution will gain mastery in expressing. To start at an arbitrary place in the evolutionary ladder: we know for certain that most mammals have a fairly complex causal thought space, though their expressive capacity is mostly limited to the emotional thought space. I would certainly wager that reptiles have much greater emotional thought space than they are capable of expressing. Go further down the ladder: what are the expressive capacities of plants, and what internal reality to they cause to resonate in their peers? Necessarily the internal thought space reality of the organism is always greater than that of its expressive capacities. Now lets go up the ladder to ourselves. Our most evolved expressive capacity, the one I'm using right now, allows for the establishment of an astounding level of resonance in my peers (you the reader). Not just of my emotional thought space (which I can even transmit in this medium :-) but, amazingly, of my causal thought space.
 
 So how's this relevant to this thread? Well, I'm guessing that like all other organisms, we are participating in a thought space for which we have minimal expressive capacity. I'm interested in what that thought space is for us, and how to start developing the expressive capacity for it. Because I'm quite certain that arrival of the OM, or the Global Brain, or the global collective intelligence, or what ever you call it, will be coincident with the arrival of a new expressive capacity that is as different as these words are from the tears in my eyes are when I'm sad.
 
 Here's my guess: the thought space that we have but barely recognize and can barely express is in the realm of flow. All human languages that I know of share a common underlying property of have a subject/predicate organization. Thus our most powerful expressive capacity fundamentally creates a causal thought space reality of nouns related by verbs. That structures leads us to look out at the world as a space of objects that do, of causalities. I'm guessing that reptiles and mammals see the world through the emotional expressive capacity of selves that feel. A very different world. But the world that I think that we are actually beginning to see into is one not of separate objects in relation, but rather simply of circuits of patterned flows that flow ever-patternly. They are fundamentally non-causal, because in a circuit, what causes what? Causal thought focuses and parts of circuits. That's where you can see a noun relating to a verb. But when you step back and see the whole circuit, what you see is a flow pattern and transformations. I think that there is an expressive capacity that is growing that will allow this new thought space take a greater and greater portion of our awareness. Oddly, that capacity is deeply related to money. I think that money is one of many types of currencies which can be defined as any token that allows an organism or group of organisms to see or interact with a flow. (I think it's no co-incidence that our society is experiencing the break-down of it's old paradigm monetary system at this moment in time).
 
 So, my claim is that when we master the expressive capacity of flow (when we collectively become truly literate in currency creation? :-) then the OM will emerge, because that is the "language" that meta-individuals will speak.
 
 Something to consider while thinking about this topic is the "expressive capacity" that both accompanies and engenders a given level of evolution of collective intelligence. I use "expressive capacity" as a broader term than language, because language itself is one particular form of that expressive capacity (perhaps one of the latest to arrive, more on this later). Think for example of the collective expressive capacity of bacteria that allow them to exist in colonies; the expressive capacity of cells that allow them to co-operate and give rise to multi-cellular organisms; the expressive capacity of reptiles to show simple aggregate self-states (what we call the emotions of fear, anger, etc.) which coordinate their social existence; the much more complex emotional expressive capacity of mammals, which begins in simple expression of the rational mental states that certainly exist in most mammals; and which culminates language itself (what I'm writing here). At each level of evolution, the expressive capacity is one that takes an inner reality (a "thought space") and in some way shares it, causes it to resonate with some external peer. At each rung in the evolutionary ladder those thought spaces are of entirely different types. The perceptual, emotional and causal thought spaces mastered differentially by insects, reptiles, mammals are about different things entirely. Perceptual thought integrates a level of external reality, emotional thought integrates a level of internal reality, causal thought integrates an entirely different level of external reality. Note that, at each level in the ladder the organisms that have attained expressive mastery of a particular thought space have already, at the very least, a partial grasp of the thought space that organisms at that the next level of evolution will gain mastery in expressing. To start at an arbitrary place in the evolutionary ladder: we know for certain that most mammals have a fairly complex causal thought space, though their expressive capacity is mostly limited to the emotional thought space. I would certainly wager that reptiles have much greater emotional thought space than they are capable of expressing. Go further down the ladder: what are the expressive capacities of plants, and what internal reality to they cause to resonate in their peers? Necessarily the internal thought space reality of the organism is always greater than that of its expressive capacities. Now lets go up the ladder to ourselves. Our most evolved expressive capacity, the one I'm using right now, allows for the establishment of an astounding level of resonance in my peers (you the reader). Not just of my emotional thought space (which I can even transmit in this medium :-) but, amazingly, of my causal thought space. So how's this relevant to this thread? Well, I'm guessing that like all other organisms, we are participating in a thought space for which we have minimal expressive capacity. I'm interested in what that thought space is for us, and how to start developing the expressive capacity for it. Because I'm quite certain that arrival of the OM, or the Global Brain, or the global collective intelligence, or what ever you call it, will be coincident with the arrival of a new expressive capacity that is as different as these words are from the tears in my eyes are when I'm sad. Here's my guess: the thought space that we have but barely recognize and can barely express is in the realm of flow. All human languages that I know of share a common underlying property of have a subject/predicate organization. Thus our most powerful expressive capacity fundamentally creates a causal thought space reality of nouns related by verbs. That structures leads us to look out at the world as a space of objects that do, of causalities. I'm guessing that reptiles and mammals see the world through the emotional expressive capacity of selves that feel. A very different world. But the world that I think that we are actually beginning to see into is one not of separate objects in relation, but rather simply of circuits of patterned flows that flow ever-patternly. They are fundamentally non-causal, because in a circuit, what causes what? Causal thought focuses and parts of circuits. That's where you can see a noun relating to a verb. But when you step back and see the whole circuit, what you see is a flow pattern and transformations. I think that there is an expressive capacity that is growing that will allow this new thought space take a greater and greater portion of our awareness. Oddly, that capacity is deeply related to money. I think that money is one of many types of currencies which can be defined as any token that allows an organism or group of organisms to see or interact with a flow. (I think it's no co-incidence that our society is experiencing the break-down of it's old paradigm monetary system at this moment in time). So, my claim is that when we master the expressive capacity of flow (when we collectively become truly literate in currency creation? :-) then the OM will emerge, because that is the "language" that meta-individuals will speak.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- Kurt Laitner
 
 7 months ago
 
 Eric's comments on his flow twine are very interesting - since I can't share a comment (why not?) I paste it here
 
 /kdl
 
 Comments
 
 * threads
 * flat
 
 by Eric Harris-Braun 7 hours ago
 Something to consider while thinking about this topic is the "expressive capacity" that both accompanies and engenders a given level of evolution of collective intelligence. I use "expressive capacity" as a broader term than language, because language itself is one particular form of that expressive capacity (perhaps one of the latest) to arrive (more on this later). Think for example of the collective expressive capacity of bacteria that allow them to exist in colonies; the expressive capacity of cells that allow them to co-operate and give rise to multi-cellular organisms; the expressive capacity of reptiles to show simple aggregate self-states (what we call the emotions of fear, anger, etc.) which coordinate their social existence; the much more complex emotional expressive capacity of mammals, which begins in simple expression of the rational mental states that certainly exist in most mammals; and which culminates language itself (what I'm writing here).
 
 At each level of evolution, the expressive capacity is one that takes an inner reality (a "thought space") and in some way shares it, causes it to resonate with some external peer. At each rung in the evolutionary ladder those thought spaces are of entirely different types. The perceptual, emotional and causal thought spaces mastered differentially by insects, reptiles, mammals are about different things entirely. Perceptual thought integrates a level of external reality, emotional thought integrates a level of internal reality, causal thought integrates an entirely different level of external reality. Note that, at each level in the ladder the organisms that have attained expressive mastery of a particular thought space have already, at the very least, a partial grasp of the thought space that organisms at that the next level of evolution will gain mastery in expressing. To start at an arbitrary place in the evolutionary ladder: we know for certain that most mammals have a fairly complex causal thought space, though their expressive capacity is mostly limited to the emotional thought space. I would certainly wager that reptiles have much greater emotional thought space than they are capable of expressing. Go further down the ladder: what are the expressive capacities of plants, and what internal reality to they cause to resonate in their peers? Necessarily the internal thought space reality of the organism is always greater than that of its expressive capacities. Now lets go up the ladder to ourselves. Our most evolved expressive capacity, the one I'm using right now, allows for the establishment of an astounding level of resonance in my peers (you the reader). Not just of my emotional thought space (which I can even transmit in this medium :-) but, amazingly, of my causal thought space.
 
 So how's this relevant to this thread? Well, I'm guessing that like all other organisms, we are participating in a thought space for which we have minimal expressive capacity. I'm interested in what that thought space is for us, and how to start developing the expressive capacity for it. Because I'm quite certain that arrival of the OM, or the Global Brain, or the global collective intelligence, or what ever you call it, will be coincident with the arrival of a new expressive capacity that is as different as these words are from the tears in my eyes are when I'm sad.
 
 Here's my guess: the thought space that we have but barely recognize and can barely express is in the realm of flow. All human languages that I know of share a common underlying property of have a subject/predicate organization. Thus our most powerful expressive capacity fundamentally creates a causal thought space reality of nouns related by verbs. That structures leads us to look out at the world as a space of objects that do, of causalities. I'm guessing that reptiles and mammals see the world through the emotional expressive capacity of selves that feel. A very different world. But the world that I think that we are actually beginning to see into is one not of separate objects in relation, but rather simply of circuits of patterned flows that flow ever-patternly. They are fundamentally non-causal, because in a circuit, what causes what? Causal thought focuses and parts of circuits. That's where you can see a noun relating to a verb. But when you step back and see the whole circuit, what you see is a flow pattern and transformations. I think that there is an expressive capacity that is growing that will allow this new thought space take a greater and greater portion of our awareness. Oddly, that capacity is deeply related to money. I think that money is one of many types of currencies which can be defined as any token that allows an organism or group of organisms to see or interact with a flow. (I think it's no co-incidence that our society is experiencing the break-down of it's old paradigm monetary system at this moment in time).
 
 So, my claim is that when we master the expressive capacity of flow (when we collectively become truly literate in currency creation? :-) then the OM will emerge, because that is the "language" that meta-individuals will speak.
 
 Eric's comments on his flow twine are very interesting - since I can't share a comment (why not?) I paste it here /kdl Comments * threads * flat by Eric Harris-Braun 7 hours ago Something to consider while thinking about this topic is the "expressive capacity" that both accompanies and engenders a given level of evolution of collective intelligence. I use "expressive capacity" as a broader term than language, because language itself is one particular form of that expressive capacity (perhaps one of the latest) to arrive (more on this later). Think for example of the collective expressive capacity of bacteria that allow them to exist in colonies; the expressive capacity of cells that allow them to co-operate and give rise to multi-cellular organisms; the expressive capacity of reptiles to show simple aggregate self-states (what we call the emotions of fear, anger, etc.) which coordinate their social existence; the much more complex emotional expressive capacity of mammals, which begins in simple expression of the rational mental states that certainly exist in most mammals; and which culminates language itself (what I'm writing here). At each level of evolution, the expressive capacity is one that takes an inner reality (a "thought space") and in some way shares it, causes it to resonate with some external peer. At each rung in the evolutionary ladder those thought spaces are of entirely different types. The perceptual, emotional and causal thought spaces mastered differentially by insects, reptiles, mammals are about different things entirely. Perceptual thought integrates a level of external reality, emotional thought integrates a level of internal reality, causal thought integrates an entirely different level of external reality. Note that, at each level in the ladder the organisms that have attained expressive mastery of a particular thought space have already, at the very least, a partial grasp of the thought space that organisms at that the next level of evolution will gain mastery in expressing. To start at an arbitrary place in the evolutionary ladder: we know for certain that most mammals have a fairly complex causal thought space, though their expressive capacity is mostly limited to the emotional thought space. I would certainly wager that reptiles have much greater emotional thought space than they are capable of expressing. Go further down the ladder: what are the expressive capacities of plants, and what internal reality to they cause to resonate in their peers? Necessarily the internal thought space reality of the organism is always greater than that of its expressive capacities. Now lets go up the ladder to ourselves. Our most evolved expressive capacity, the one I'm using right now, allows for the establishment of an astounding level of resonance in my peers (you the reader). Not just of my emotional thought space (which I can even transmit in this medium :-) but, amazingly, of my causal thought space. So how's this relevant to this thread? Well, I'm guessing that like all other organisms, we are participating in a thought space for which we have minimal expressive capacity. I'm interested in what that thought space is for us, and how to start developing the expressive capacity for it. Because I'm quite certain that arrival of the OM, or the Global Brain, or the global collective intelligence, or what ever you call it, will be coincident with the arrival of a new expressive capacity that is as different as these words are from the tears in my eyes are when I'm sad. Here's my guess: the thought space that we have but barely recognize and can barely express is in the realm of flow. All human languages that I know of share a common underlying property of have a subject/predicate organization. Thus our most powerful expressive capacity fundamentally creates a causal thought space reality of nouns related by verbs. That structures leads us to look out at the world as a space of objects that do, of causalities. I'm guessing that reptiles and mammals see the world through the emotional expressive capacity of selves that feel. A very different world. But the world that I think that we are actually beginning to see into is one not of separate objects in relation, but rather simply of circuits of patterned flows that flow ever-patternly. They are fundamentally non-causal, because in a circuit, what causes what? Causal thought focuses and parts of circuits. That's where you can see a noun relating to a verb. But when you step back and see the whole circuit, what you see is a flow pattern and transformations. I think that there is an expressive capacity that is growing that will allow this new thought space take a greater and greater portion of our awareness. Oddly, that capacity is deeply related to money. I think that money is one of many types of currencies which can be defined as any token that allows an organism or group of organisms to see or interact with a flow. (I think it's no co-incidence that our society is experiencing the break-down of it's old paradigm monetary system at this moment in time). So, my claim is that when we master the expressive capacity of flow (when we collectively become truly literate in currency creation? :-) then the OM will emerge, because that is the "language" that meta-individuals will speak.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Polytopia
- Wael Al Saad
 
 7 months ago
 
 great talk and progressive thoughts
 
 @ www.oneaim.org we are developing some of the next stages toward "Global Brain Application/(ONE Machine)" by introducing an open source "World Social Dialog SW". Setting up and managing a simultaneous productive Dialog for > 1000 people should intuitive possible. The next mile-stone after will be
 - "semantic Global Dialogue Grid, where website and domain overlapping will be possible to hold up real global dialogues
 - Global Participation Feed: Beside Dialog sessions, global participants will be interconnected over unified mashup feed.
 
 For example we are hammering now on the authentication "Login and ID" issue. Any cooperation offer, support or ideas are welcome. Not only Phyton, Java, Ruby on Rails, C .. experts are welcome.
 Beside the web-site you can check Peter's blog: http://blog.socialactions.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2062983%3ABlogPost%3A2722 for more information or contact directly ir@oneaim.org
 
 great talk and progressive thoughts @ <a href="http://www.oneaim.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.oneaim.org</a> we are developing some of the next stages toward "Global Brain Application/(ONE Machine)" by introducing an open source "World Social Dialog SW". Setting up and managing a simultaneous productive Dialog for > 1000 people should intuitive possible. The next mile-stone after will be - "semantic Global Dialogue Grid, where website and domain overlapping will be possible to hold up real global dialogues - Global Participation Feed: Beside Dialog sessions, global participants will be interconnected over unified mashup feed. For example we are hammering now on the authentication "Login and ID" issue. Any cooperation offer, support or ideas are welcome. Not only Phyton, Java, Ruby on Rails, C .. experts are welcome. Beside the web-site you can check Peter's blog: <a href="http://blog.socialactions.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2062983%3ABlogPost%3A2722" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://blog.socialactions.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2062983%3ABlogPost%3A2722</a> for more information or contact directly ir@oneaim.org
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- Henry Hill
 
 7 months ago
 
 "Meta-Individuals. The highest level of collective intelligence is the meta-individual. This emerges when what was once a crowd of separate individuals, evolves to become a new individual in its own right, and is faciliated by the formation of a sophisticated meta-level self-construct for the collective."
 
 I think the model is an inverted pyramid resting on one person. Hitler on November 11th, 1918 decided to go into politics. Alexander the Great decided to conquer the known world. Napoleon took hold of the French Revolution and shaped it around his own will. Christ started with 12 disciples. Meta-individuals come from individuals who shape the world around them, draw in a crowd, and develop a group. The group then becomes the meta-individual. It all starts with one human being.
 
 One great essay started this great discussion.
 
 "Meta-Individuals. The highest level of collective intelligence is the meta-individual. This emerges when what was once a crowd of separate individuals, evolves to become a new individual in its own right, and is faciliated by the formation of a sophisticated meta-level self-construct for the collective." I think the model is an inverted pyramid resting on one person. Hitler on November 11th, 1918 decided to go into politics. Alexander the Great decided to conquer the known world. Napoleon took hold of the French Revolution and shaped it around his own will. Christ started with 12 disciples. Meta-individuals come from individuals who shape the world around them, draw in a crowd, and develop a group. The group then becomes the meta-individual. It all starts with one human being. One great essay started this great discussion.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
 - Wael Al Saad
 
 7 months ago
 
 I like the idea of the inverted pyramid.
 I am not good in graphic and flash, but I looking for pictures for such models: I have one model based on "presence" would be nested rings of segmentation:
 1 ring: individual: Every one a lone.
 2 ring (inside 1): local: active with individuals in locality
 3 ring: .. regional
 4 .. state
 5 country
 6 sub-continent
 7 continent
 8 global
 9 universal
 
 The presence and action participation of each individual is like the spread of the electro-magnetic wave through the rings, especially for fine tuning operation through personal meetings on sensitive topics.
 The middle point (ring 9) is our commons.
 
 the geographical segmentation is needed for example to map personal interaction beside the virtual. It is also needed to transform the humanity from national-states into global community.
 We need to map our interactions: In ring 1 I am with my own. In ring 2 I am with my friends planing the next BBQ etc. In ring 8 I may take part on a discussion like why the "Big Bang" took place and use existing documentation in ring 9 (Global Brain Memory)
 I will use ring 9 also for BBQ planing to guide me to the best location/weather/.. in my locality.
 
 does it make sense?
 
 I like the idea of the inverted pyramid. I am not good in graphic and flash, but I looking for pictures for such models: I have one model based on "presence" would be nested rings of segmentation: 1 ring: individual: Every one a lone. 2 ring (inside 1): local: active with individuals in locality 3 ring: .. regional 4 .. state 5 country 6 sub-continent 7 continent 8 global 9 universal The presence and action participation of each individual is like the spread of the electro-magnetic wave through the rings, especially for fine tuning operation through personal meetings on sensitive topics. The middle point (ring 9) is our commons. the geographical segmentation is needed for example to map personal interaction beside the virtual. It is also needed to transform the humanity from national-states into global community. We need to map our interactions: In ring 1 I am with my own. In ring 2 I am with my friends planing the next BBQ etc. In ring 8 I may take part on a discussion like why the "Big Bang" took place and use existing documentation in ring 9 (Global Brain Memory) I will use ring 9 also for BBQ planing to guide me to the best location/weather/.. in my locality. does it make sense?
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- Kenan Branam
 
 7 months ago
 
 Mr. Spivack, I appreciate your perspective as a clear summary of this universal view. I have struggled with getting my mind around the quantum theory and how consciousness plays a part. Great resource for thought!
 
 I would like to share my approach to the issue with my chosen path through "media consciousness."
 
 My assertion:
 
 The Web we weave is the Story of the Human Experience. The Greatest Story Ever Told. A Story about Everything in a medium that unfolds its true nature: multi-dimensional, collaborative, globally accessible, never ending.
 
 Einstein provided us with a meme about not only how all things are connected but how we might understand the meaning of that mash up:
 
 “A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He thinks himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our own personal desire and to affections for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of Compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty.”
 
 Special Theory of Media Consciousness> http://www.branam.com/#-296
 
 Mr. Spivack, I appreciate your perspective as a clear summary of this universal view. I have struggled with getting my mind around the quantum theory and how consciousness plays a part. Great resource for thought! I would like to share my approach to the issue with my chosen path through "media consciousness." My assertion: The Web we weave is the Story of the Human Experience. The Greatest Story Ever Told. A Story about Everything in a medium that unfolds its true nature: multi-dimensional, collaborative, globally accessible, never ending. Einstein provided us with a meme about not only how all things are connected but how we might understand the meaning of that mash up: “A human being is part of the whole called by us 'the universe,' a part limited in time and space. He thinks himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest—a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our own personal desire and to affections for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of Compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty.” Special Theory of Media Consciousness> <a href="http://www.branam.com/#-296" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.branam.com/#-296</a>
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- Kathleen Johnson
 
 7 months ago
 
 wow! That's a lot to think about. I'll have to get back to the comments later.
 
 wow! That's a lot to think about. I'll have to get back to the comments later.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- Pieter Jansegers
 
 7 months ago
 
 Strange coincidence... "OM" being the oriental meditation sound
 
 Strange coincidence... "OM" being the oriental meditation sound
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- Wael Al Saad
 
 7 months ago
 
 if this work is active and up-to-date, we just need to ask, when is the Beta of "Global Brain Application" ?
 
 http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs/globrain.php
 http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/pdfs/global_brain_00.pdf
 http://www.globalcollab.org/gps/site-map-1
 
 if this work is active and up-to-date, we just need to ask, when is the Beta of "Global Brain Application" ? <a href="http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs/globrain.php" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs/globrain.php</a> <a href="http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/pdfs/global_brain_00.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.laetusinpraesens.org/pdfs/global_brain_00.pdf</a> <a href="http://www.globalcollab.org/gps/site-map-1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.globalcollab.org/gps/site-map-1</a>
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- Eyal Sivan
 
 5 months ago
 
 Thanks Bonnie. Great blog by the way. The visualization examples had me going for a while.
 
 Funny you should bring up Fuller. A commenter on Kelly's site brought up an excellent quote of his in response to a recent post. I haven't read anything by him but I guess I'll have to add him to the list.
 
 Thanks Bonnie. Great blog by the way. The visualization examples had me going for a while. Funny you should bring up Fuller. A commenter on Kelly's site brought up an excellent quote of his in response to <a href="http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/01/a_new_kind_of_m.php" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a recent post</a>. I haven't read anything by him but I guess I'll have to add him to the list.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- Eyal Sivan
 
 5 months ago
 
 Nova, excellent post. I think you've added a lot to Kelly's ideas.
 
 I am particularly intrigued by your description of Buddhist consciousness and spiritual enlightenment. You introduce the concepts of resolution, the ability to be aware of the "substrate", and unity, the ability to be aware of the "total unification of everything."
 
 At the risk of oversimplifying, it seems to me that what you call resolution is the ability to zoom-in, and what you call unity is the ability to zoom-out. The Buddhist ideal you describe seems to demand the ability to zoom-in and zoom-out simultaneously and continuously, to appreciate that all things occur on all scales all at once.
 
 I've been exploring this idea lately, under the name scale-free thinking, and have found it to have a presence in many different disciplines. I didn't realize until reading your description that Buddhism carries these ideas as well.
 
 As regards the construction of a self for the OM: Do you really feel this is possible? If the OM is in fact the result of a continuous process of emergent complexity, and it represents some sort of "meta-individual" view of us, then what makes you think we'll be able to communicate with it, let alone steer it? Would this not be akin to inverting the biological pyramid, so that we were telling our own superorganism how its going to behave?
 
 Looked at another way, I would submit that if we can in fact give it orders, then it is not really a meta-individual. It seems to me that the behaviour of the OM, including its self construct, has to come from the bottom-up. And since we are that bottom, we should frame our efforts in terms of our own social interactions, rather than chasing down a definition of consciousness that we may have no way to measure.
 
 My full response can be found here.
 
 Nova, excellent post. I think you've added a lot to Kelly's ideas. I am particularly intrigued by your description of Buddhist consciousness and spiritual enlightenment. You introduce the concepts of resolution, the ability to be aware of the "substrate", and unity, the ability to be aware of the "total unification of everything." At the risk of oversimplifying, it seems to me that what you call resolution is the ability to zoom-in, and what you call unity is the ability to zoom-out. The Buddhist ideal you describe seems to demand the ability to zoom-in and zoom-out simultaneously and continuously, to appreciate that all things occur on all scales all at once. I've been exploring this idea lately, under the name <a href="http://theconnective.org/2009/01/03/scale-free-thinking/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">scale-free thinking</a>, and have found it to have a presence in many different disciplines. I didn't realize until reading your description that Buddhism carries these ideas as well. As regards the construction of a self for the OM: Do you really feel this is possible? If the OM is in fact the result of a continuous process of emergent complexity, and it represents some sort of "meta-individual" view of us, then what makes you think we'll be able to communicate with it, let alone steer it? Would this not be akin to inverting the biological pyramid, so that we were telling our own superorganism how its going to behave? Looked at another way, I would submit that if we can in fact give it orders, then it is not really a meta-individual. It seems to me that the behaviour of the OM, including its self construct, has to come from the bottom-up. And since we are that bottom, we should frame our efforts in terms of our own social interactions, rather than chasing down a definition of consciousness that we may have no way to measure. My full response can be found <a href="http://theconnective.org/2009/01/03/scale-free-thinking/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
 - Bonnie DeVarco
 
 5 months ago
 
 Hi Eyal,
 
 Nova's post is a catalyst for so many things that are right around the corner, not the least of which is the Geospatial Semantic Web and the rise of the Global Mind. I think your comment on the zoom in and zoom out ability is likely the most important aspect of the challenge of embracing the Global Mind. I have referred to it as toggling between views, as this is the word my 14 year old and his friends are most familiar with. Buddhism seems indeed to be the keystone. Scale free thinking is the essential next step. I started getting my hands around scale free thinking a long time ago with the work of Buckminster Fuller, who started with Universe. I began to see the emerging phenomenon as EcoSentience in 2004 and have dedicated a blog to just the visualization aspects of it (seeing the reflection of the global mind) called "Scale Independent Thought" - http://scaleindependentthought.typepad.com/
 
 Hi Eyal, Nova's post is a catalyst for so many things that are right around the corner, not the least of which is the Geospatial Semantic Web and the rise of the Global Mind. I think your comment on the zoom in and zoom out ability is likely the most important aspect of the challenge of embracing the Global Mind. I have referred to it as toggling between views, as this is the word my 14 year old and his friends are most familiar with. Buddhism seems indeed to be the keystone. Scale free thinking is the essential next step. I started getting my hands around scale free thinking a long time ago with the work of Buckminster Fuller, who started with Universe. I began to see the emerging phenomenon as EcoSentience in 2004 and have dedicated a blog to just the visualization aspects of it (seeing the reflection of the global mind) called "Scale Independent Thought" - <a href="http://scaleindependentthought.typepad.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://scaleindependentthought.typepad.com/</a>
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- Ravi Arapurakal
 
 5 months ago
 
 Nova, you say:
 
 "I think the most important work that we can can do to make it smarter is to provide it with a more developed and accurate sense of collective self"
 
 Yes, indeed! And this is indeed a difficult challenge, because we face a well established and daunting resistance to our efforts.
 
 The greatest single barrier against this "most important work" is the long and deeply entrenched sense of discrete, separate and independent selves.
 
 As this false self exists and is upheld in the cognological (conceptual/linguistic) Interpretive interface between our distributed observership and our observational content, we must first focus on and dismantle this false self in our cognological interpretive interface.
 
 To accomplish this, we must develop and facilitate the application of cognological mechanisms that motivate the majority of us who still operate via their false sense of self to focus on the cognological interpretive interface, dismantle the false sense of self, and replace it with the accurate sense of collective self, each a unique coself of the collective and distributed observership of the OM.
 
 Then we will need technological mechanisms to faciltiate and support this revision at the core of our cognological interpretive interface, designed to facilitate the attraction, engagement, guidance and coaching toward the accurate sense of collective self. Your TWINE technology could well be a leading technology for this purpose.
 
 Nova, you say: "I think the most important work that we can can do to make it smarter is to provide it with a more developed and accurate sense of collective self" Yes, indeed! And this is indeed a difficult challenge, because we face a well established and daunting resistance to our efforts. The greatest single barrier against this "most important work" is the long and deeply entrenched sense of discrete, separate and independent selves. As this false self exists and is upheld in the cognological (conceptual/linguistic) Interpretive interface between our distributed observership and our observational content, we must first focus on and dismantle this false self in our cognological interpretive interface. To accomplish this, we must develop and facilitate the application of cognological mechanisms that motivate the majority of us who still operate via their false sense of self to focus on the cognological interpretive interface, dismantle the false sense of self, and replace it with the accurate sense of collective self, each a unique coself of the collective and distributed observership of the OM. Then we will need technological mechanisms to faciltiate and support this revision at the core of our cognological interpretive interface, designed to facilitate the attraction, engagement, guidance and coaching toward the accurate sense of collective self. Your TWINE technology could well be a leading technology for this purpose.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- jackdlogan
 
 5 months ago
 
 However, at the moment, self is the most important aspect of Twine. Self collects; self shares, self observes self comments, and in a most linear manner.
 
 Leonard Schlain, in Art and Physics, Parallel Visions of Space, Time and Light observes that there is already a collective intelligence at work in human affairs through a comparison of the work in Art and Physics through the ages.
 
 - http://www.artandphysics.com/
 - http://www.amazon.com/Art-Physics-Parallel-Visions-Space/dp/0061227978/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233155296&sr=8-3
 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOvtNLJL6mI
 - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4803226736080670101
 
 However, at the moment, self is the most important aspect of Twine. Self collects; self shares, self observes self comments, and in a most linear manner. Leonard Schlain, in Art and Physics, Parallel Visions of Space, Time and Light observes that there is already a collective intelligence at work in human affairs through a comparison of the work in Art and Physics through the ages. - <a href="http://www.artandphysics.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.artandphysics.com/</a> - <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Art-Physics-Parallel-Visions-Space/dp/0061227978/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233155296&sr=8-3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/Art-Physics-Parallel-Visions-Space/dp/0061227978/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233155296&sr=8-3</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOvtNLJL6mI" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOvtNLJL6mI</a> - <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4803226736080670101" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4803226736080670101</a>
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- fishead .•∞º˙
 
 5 months ago
 
 speak for yourself.
 
 speak for yourself.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
 - jackdlogan
 
 5 months ago
 
 You know I'm all about my(self), right. That's why I share so little!
 
 You know I'm all about my(self), right. That's why I share so little!
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
- Ravi Arapurakal
 
 5 months ago
 
 Jack, you say:
 
 "Leonard Schlain, in Art and Physics, Parallel Visions of Space, Time and Light observes that there is already a collective intelligence at work in human affairs through a comparison of the work in Art and Physics through the ages."
 
 Yes, indeed. The challenge is for us, as a species, to function as such.
 
 Yes, indeed. It is about being the self. The challenge is to shift from the false self to our true self.
 
 Jack, you say: "Leonard Schlain, in Art and Physics, Parallel Visions of Space, Time and Light observes that there is already a collective intelligence at work in human affairs through a comparison of the work in Art and Physics through the ages." Yes, indeed. The challenge is for us, as a species, to function as such. Yes, indeed. It is about being the self. The challenge is to shift from the false self to our true self.
 - Some HTML is allowed.
 - Reply
 - Cancel
 - Submit
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
 - jackdlogan
 
 5 months ago
 
 It seems so, Ravi!
 
 It seems so, Ravi!
 Commented in: Nova Spivack - My Public Twine
Add a Comment

Report This

Twine is about discovering, collecting and sharing the content that interests you. Learn More

Join Twine

Stats

28 Twines
32 Comments

First Posted By

Nova Spivack

First Comment By

scott newell

Who's Interested In This?

Nova Spivack added to Nova Spivack - My Public Twine 8 months ago
François Dongier added to Artificial Consciousness: Edelman vs Buddha 8 months ago
Nova Spivack added to Collective Intelligence, The Global Brain, The Future of Computing, Architecture of Intelligence, The Wisdom of Crowds, Artificial Intelligence, Brain, Mind and Consciousness 8 months ago
Kurt Laitner added to *net infrastructure, Valuation 8 months ago
wildcat added to Polytopia 8 months ago
starwalker added to complex-a 8 months ago
che added to Mind hacks 8 months ago
hucheng added to Huchengs public items 8 months ago
Jeff Domitrz added to Web 3.0 - Semantic Web, Complexity, Networks and Self Organization, The Internet of Things, Futures, Vernor Vinge, Connected Devices, Theories of Conciousness 7 months ago
glen gatin added to Please pull the twine 7 months ago
boabjohn added to General Evolution Advocacy & Research 7 months ago
Eric Harris-Braun added to flow 7 months ago
markotoole added to Government 2.0 7 months ago
Bonnie DeVarco added to Transcalar Imaginary 5 weeks ago
François Dongier added to Imindi 4 weeks ago

HTML Tag	Attributes
<a href="URL"><a href="#">link</a></a>	'href', 'target', 'rel'
<strong>strong</strong>
<b>bold</b>
<blockquote> blockquote </blockquote>
<em>emphasis</em>
<i>italic</i>
<img src="URL">	'src', 'width', 'height', 'alt', 'title'
<u>underlined</u>
<s>~~strike~~</s>
<del>~~deleted~~</del>

Nova Spivack - My Public Twine / Items

How To Build The Global Mind

Comments

Public Comments

scott newell 8 months ago

Yihong Ding 8 months ago

karma0 8 months ago

smithlc 8 months ago

haig 7 months ago

bblfish 7 months ago

wildcat 7 months ago

Alvis Brigis 7 months ago

boabjohn 7 months ago

Jeff Domitrz 7 months ago

laylos 7 months ago

Jason Walcutt 7 months ago

Alvis Brigis 7 months ago

Eric Harris-Braun 7 months ago

Eric Harris-Braun 7 months ago

Kurt Laitner 7 months ago

Wael Al Saad 7 months ago

Henry Hill 7 months ago

Wael Al Saad 7 months ago

Kenan Branam 7 months ago

Kathleen Johnson 7 months ago

Pieter Jansegers 7 months ago

Wael Al Saad 7 months ago

Eyal Sivan 5 months ago

Eyal Sivan 5 months ago

Bonnie DeVarco 5 months ago

Ravi Arapurakal 5 months ago

jackdlogan 5 months ago

fishead .•∞º˙ 5 months ago

jackdlogan 5 months ago

Ravi Arapurakal 5 months ago

jackdlogan 5 months ago

Stats

First Posted By

First Comment By

Share and Collect

Share With

Related Items

Tags

Community Tags

Who's Interested In This?

scott newell

8 months ago

Yihong Ding

8 months ago

karma0

8 months ago

smithlc

8 months ago

haig

7 months ago

bblfish

7 months ago

wildcat

7 months ago

Alvis Brigis

7 months ago

boabjohn

7 months ago

Jeff Domitrz

7 months ago

laylos

7 months ago

Jason Walcutt

7 months ago

Alvis Brigis

7 months ago

Eric Harris-Braun

7 months ago

Eric Harris-Braun

7 months ago

Kurt Laitner

7 months ago

Wael Al Saad

7 months ago

Henry Hill

7 months ago

Wael Al Saad

7 months ago

Kenan Branam

7 months ago

Kathleen Johnson

7 months ago

Pieter Jansegers

7 months ago

Wael Al Saad

7 months ago

Eyal Sivan

5 months ago

Eyal Sivan

5 months ago

Bonnie DeVarco

5 months ago

Ravi Arapurakal

5 months ago

jackdlogan

5 months ago

fishead .•∞º˙

5 months ago

jackdlogan

5 months ago

Ravi Arapurakal

5 months ago

jackdlogan

5 months ago