REFLECTIONS
on the Global Brain

24 June 2000

---

I took the opportunity of your msg, H____, to re-read the article about Heylighen and Bollen.[attached below]

Those of our friends who are involved with the Global Brain can't be considered all that bad. They must feel accurate in what they understand and then, what they do. SO, I conjecture this: that at the core of their beliefs is an unspoken trust in the 'goodness' of the universe. Systems and organisms strive for coordination and organization and improved interactions .. with such activities being beneficial in the long run.  So isn't that what they are involved with doing?   Then why would they bother to waste time considering that their activities are problematic ... the way many of us suggest and point out?

They trust their experieinces and their experieinces tell them that Absolute Darwinism is the 'best path', a venerable Tao.

Full integration, let the most-active survive and the least-active die .. (quoting in paraphrase Heylighen/Bollen's exact words about information on the internet, inside the Global Brain).

I don't think there is anything that we, as the super-ego (for lack of a better term at the moment), can do to deflect this process. It is in the hands of the Minds who control the planet's energy and financial resources.  And, the not with standing the ability of the gaian system to stretch and maintain itself on its own during this process, the momentum of this process cannot be stopped. And, I am not so sure we would want to stop it, only be absolutely productive in being involved with the design process - have a guaranteed say in what the somatic future will look like and behave as. WHICH .. we do NOT have a guarantee about at this moment in time.

It is not that we do not trust our inventive friends, simply that they are enthused by materialistic successes and don't want to consider or be tempred by any cautionary negative feedback.

They want bigger and better engines to drive faster and go more places. We simply want to make sure that the vehicle has a good set of brakepads, steering wheels, clean windshields and the desire to go at a VARIETY of
speeds. For them, the vehicle is the goal. For us, the vehicle is a tool.

Question: Have any of you successfully dealt with re-directing a teenager totally fixated on something they feel they want and must absolutely have? That is our challenge here.

The problem is, if one teenager fails in the scheme of things, the species still survives. We don't have that luxury. If this 'teenager' fails ... the species may die. And we take many others down with us .. (acknowledging that many have already been sacrificed in the quest).

Compounding this is the fact that those successfully in 'control' today already replaced the previous generations of civilization developers .. who were even LESS MINDFUL of the degradation infliction actions they did.

SO the crew 'online' right now could in fact feel justified for doing alot of GOOD things .. and are probably annoyed with our unceasing sense of PERFECTIONISM.

To quote from the article by Michael Brooks :

"On the Principia Cybernetica Web, algorithms will reinforce popular links by displaying them prominently on the page, while rarely used links will diminish and die. It's the first step on the road to the global brain."

They don't have a clue that that is a disastrous methodology. And if they implement that 'purification' technique, they aren't getting rid of extraneous problematic 'noise' .. they are constructing an anti-organic, anti life-affirming state of existence ...NOT emulating one at the next level of organization.

Systems survive which encourage and applaud DIVERSITY and alternative options for dealing with future events.

Actually, let me clarify that. Sharks and cockroachs are million-years "survivors" particularly because they hunkered down into a niche and are absolutely stagnant. Even the Saurians only played with form rather than true TRANSform.

But that's not the path we recognize as having the best value.. or as being the one we are on.  We know that exploration of skills and TRANSFORMATIVE evolution is the preferred path. If an IDEA 'dies' .. even one not
particularly popular or healthy, who knows what is lost in the long run? That borderline ideas should be the thematic leader of the whole, may not be wise, but to have a culture with only ONE view of reality is absolutely
disastrous.

I invite everyone to go to Ceptual Institute What's New and read the several new May/June Essays and Conversings (particularly some of the June ones).   Science Religion .. Future.   Revered Images.

It seems to me that we are not the makers, builders, or implementers of civilization. We are the doctors and health monitors. Constantly evaluating if the Gaian Mind -- which now includes homosapiens .. homoglobalis -- is appropriate to the developing Global Brain. It's our task to make sure it isn't psychotic or pathological or mean spirited or self-destructive.

Right now the designers and builders of the techno-global metabolism are on an adrenaline rush of enthusiasm and don't have much patience for listening to us. Compounded is the reality that local cultures all around the planet are trying to make a voice for themselves in the face of a massive onslaught of social homogenization that is about to wash over them and eradicate their existence. Intense revolutions and cultural struggles are everywhere. That is their method of ranting against the sweeping storm. Fighting dis-enfranchisement (no voice in control of their own lives). Fighting eradication and oblivion (loss of identity).

Our method has to be more effective. Because we have to cherish ALL these lives and concerns ... they are valuable in and of themselves ... and as seeds for the future. And so we have to GET THE EAR AND ATTENTION of the builders of the 'next-metabolism'. They see themselves - this world - only as 'the brain'.
We see WHOLE BODY.

Imagine if you will a Perfect Brain. Now imagine that brain sitting in the midst of .... NOTHING. No information coming into it. No information or energy to be connected to or interact with .. experience or value or establish Meaning with.

The Global Brain is valueless, meaningless, purposeless unless the WHOLE OF THE BODY survives .. provides new and varied stimulae and enacts in return. Exploring, growing, changing ... creating.

An unstimulated brain, sucking on its own resources, becomes like a prisoner in an isolation cell ...

The beauty of the universe isn't "Efficiency" ... its "Opportunity". There is no more important message we can drive home into the deep human psyche than that. Especially into the awareness of the info-civilization builders.

June , 2000

= = = = = = = = = = = =

Millennium wrote:

Am Fri, 23 June 2000 schrieb Steve Kurtz:


Well, here's where I differ in opinion with Heylighen. Perhaps .001% of  those WITH COMPUTERS could grasp Principia Cybernetica subjects. Any smart system run by the behavior of 'us' types risks missing input and therefor values from the vast majority of humans. And talk about dis-empowerment & dematerialization!!

I've been anti global (& gaia) brain stuff since I first read about it.  No beginning, no first cause, no teleology; infinite multiverses more 'believable' IMO. Self-organizing is constrained by energy/matter/space/time.
>
> Steve
>
>
> > From: "Rennie, Steve [HES]" <S.Rennie@lmu.ac.uk>
> > Subject: FW: [evol-psych] Global brain
> > To: "'Futures'" <futures@mailbase.ac.uk>
> >
> > "I found this and I thought of you"
> > Stephen Rennie, Leeds Metropolitan University
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Pitchford [SMTP:ian.pitchford@scientist.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 7:41 PM
> > To: evolutionary-psychology@egroups.com
> > Subject: [evol-psych] Global brain
> >
> > FOR RELEASE: 21 JUNE 2000 AT 14:00 ET US
> >  http://www.newscientist.com

> > Global brain
> > "THE LONGER I work on it, the more I become convinced that this will be
> > reality very soon-much sooner than most people might think."

> > Francis Heylighen, an artificial intelligence researcher at the Free University of
> > Brussels, is talking about the "global brain". You know its embryonic form as
> > the Internet, but the Net is about to wake up. "It will gradually get more and
> > more intelligent," Heylighen says. Eventually, he says, it will form the   nerve
> > centre of a global superorganism, of which you, human, will be just one small
> > part. The question is: should we welcome the global brain or fear it? Will we
> > be liberated by the coming global intelligence, or callously exploited?

> > The global brain will grow, Heylighen claims, out of attempts to manage   the
> > huge quantities of information being deposited on the Net. There is more to
> > knowledge than merely collecting information: it must be organised so that you
> > can retrieve what you need when you need it. Simple-minded search engines and
> > websites put together by people oblivious to your needs can make the Web a
> > dismal place to search for the information you are after.

> > The Distributed Knowledge Systems (DKS) project at the Los Alamos National
> > Laboratory in New Mexico is changing all that. Johan Bollen, a former student
> > of Heylighen's, has built a Web server called the Principia Cybernetica Web
> > that can continually rebuild the links between its pages to adapt them to
> > users' needs. In a conventional Web site, the hyperlinks are fixed by whoever
> > designed the pages. Bollen's server is smarter than that: it puts in new
> > hyperlinks whenever it thinks they'll open up a path that surfers are likely
> > to use, and closes down old links that fall into disuse. The result is a
> > dynamic system of strengthening and weakening links between different pages.

> > These ever-shifting hyperlinks bear a remarkable resemblance to connections
> > that grow and fade in a human brain. If one neuron in the brain is activated
> > shortly after another neuron, the synapse connecting the two gets stronger. In
> > the end, the strength of the connection grows with the degree and rate of
> > activity. On the Principia Cybernetica Web, algorithms will reinforce popular
> > links by displaying them prominently on the page, while rarely used links will
> > diminish and die. It's the first step on the road to the global brain.

> > Smart cookies
> > While the implications of Bollen's Web server are far reaching, its mechanism
> > is simple enough. It identifies individual users by downloading little strings
> > of data called cookies to their computer's hard drive. At the same time it
> > keeps records of each user's routes through the site. When you log on, the
> > server inspects your cookies to see whether you've visited it before. If it
> > recognises you, it recommends pages you might want to see. It also adjusts its
> > structure-the pattern of hyperlinks-to best suit you and all the other users
> > who happen to be logged on. As well as strengthening and weakening links, it
> > creates new links using a process Heylighen calls "transivity". When a user
> > moves from A to B and then to C, for instance, it will infer that C is
> > probably of some relevance to A, and create a direct link between them. In
> > other words, it finds shortcuts.

> > Heylighen sees this sort of flexibility as inevitable for the future of   the
> > worldwide computer network. "There's not much work left to do: we have data
> > and we have the algorithms ready," he says. And it won't just be individual
> > servers that adapt and change in this way. "I can't see any reason why they
> > couldn't be implemented on the Web as a whole," says Heylighen.

> > "Transivity will lead to continuous reorganising of the Web, making it ever
> > more efficient," Heylighen says. Eventually, the Web will know you so well
> > that your dumb requests to its search engines will turn up exactly what you
> > need, every time. "Whatever problem people have, any kind of question to which
> > they want an answer, it will all become easier because the Web will
> > self-organise and adapt to what people expect of it," says Heylighen.
> > And it could be happening within just five years, he predicts. All the
> > technology is here already-the main stumbling block is the difficulty of
> > convincing the powers behind the Internet to adopt the common protocols that
> > will be needed.

> > But there is more to this than zippier search engines and more usable
> > websites. Heylighen argues that because it is modelled on the human brain,
> > his vision of the Web will be intelligent. Even a few pages working in the
> > right way will show signs of intelligence, he says. Who knows what sort of
> > mind would emerge from the whole Web?

> > It won't just be people following hyperlinks and simple search engines that
> > reorganise the Web. Small autonomous programs or "agents" will also act as
> > mediators. In addition, if an agent finds something that seems to match what
> > you are looking for, it will add a suggested link to the page you're reading.
> > "It will come to some kind of conclusion," Heylighen says. "That's a thought."
> > In other words, by making connections between concepts that did not previously
> > exist, the brain will begin to think.

> > As the activity of the Web agents alters the connections, an agent researching
> > a question similar to one it has already encountered will be able to "recall"
> > the information more easily. Heylighen believes that, through this "Web on
> > Web" activity, collective thoughts of the whole brain may eventually come into
> > existence.

> > But perhaps that isn't even necessary to achieve intelligence. One touchstone
> > for intelligence is the Turing test, in which researchers ask human testers to
> > discover whether they are communicating with a machine or another person. If
> > the tester can't tell the difference, the machine is deemed intelligent.   Some
> > machines are already making the grade in specific contexts. "We are finding
> > successful Turing tests within a certain situation," says Norman Johnson, who
> > leads the Symbiotic Intelligence Project at Los Alamos. "Take it out of that
> > situation and it fails miserably, but within the right context you can't tell
> > the difference." The global brain's intelligence could come from an assembly
> > of limited intelligences, each with their own special area of expertise.

> > That, Johnson says, would be exactly equivalent to human intelligence. "Humans
> > can act intelligently within many contexts," he says. "But if you put all those
> > abilities into one person they probably wouldn't be able to function."

> > That's why we have society, Johnson says: to mesh those
> > intelligences together, creating a powerful sum. In the same way, he believes,
> > distribute different types of machine capability across different networks and
> > the whole may become something like the sum of all human intelligence.
> > It is hard to find a researcher who doesn't think that the global brain is a
> > possibility. But do we really want it? The scientists are aiming to create a
> > vast mind that goes beyond anything we could understand or control-opening a
> > door that most of us might prefer to keep firmly shut. Heylighen acknowledges
> > this little image problem. He sees his global brain as the centre of what he
> > calls the global superorganism. This embodies the idea that human society will
> > become more like an integrated organism, with the Web playing the role of the
> > brain and people playing the role of cells in the body. "The brain itself does
> > not seem to be very controversial, but the superorganism certainly is,"
> > Heylighen admits.

> > Artificial intelligence researcher and writer Ben Goertzel of IntelliGenesis
> > Corporation, New York, believes that humans will be a secondary part of this
> > organism,  perhaps a dispensable one. It's not a very comfortable self image
> > for a species used to considering itself the pinn acle of creation.
> > The global brain's self-adapting intelligence could quickly surpass our
> > ability to understand it. Or perhaps it already has. According to Daniel
> > Dennett, director of the Centre for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University in
> > Medford, Massachusetts, "the global communication network is already capable
> > of complex behaviour that defies the efforts of human experts to comprehend".
> > And what you can't understand, he adds, you can't control. "We have already
> > made ourselves so dependent on the network that we cannot afford not to
> > provide it with the energy and maintenance it needs," he warns.

> > It could all start so innocently. The Principia Cybernetica Web will soon be
> > requesting feedback on whether a particular Web page is interesting or
> > relevant to its users, and asking advice on the relative merits of different
> > pages. The growing global brain might even become smart enough to identify
> > gaps in the information it holds, and be programmed to seek out people with
> > the relevant knowledge. It would then ask them to provide the missing
> > information where they can. Heylighen goes as far as suggesting that there
> > could be penalties-like disconnection or restricted access-for not playing
> > along. After all, if you're going to benefit from the global brain, you have a
> > duty to help others who are searching for information.

> > Digital dictator
> > All these innovations combined on a global scale would create a network with
> > complex behaviours that we can't yet conceive of. Would it create Utopia,
> > dystopia or something altogether new? Dennett is certain of one thing: "If we
> > don't want to be dictated to, we will have to be very careful about
> > controlling our dependence, and its evolution," he warns.

> > Cliff Joslyn, head of the Los Alamos DKS team, appears unconcerned by such
> > worries. Experimenting with autonomous agent systems "carries risks and
> > surprises" he admits. "The trick will be to first understand from a scientific
> > perspective how such systems behave, and then construct bounds within which
> > such interactions can be safely contained," says Joslyn.

> > If you're getting scared now, and thinking of unplugging your modem, take
> > care. You may be about to join the information underclass. "Not to use an
> > intelligent Web will be a little like the people that refuse to use cars or
> > telephones," Heylighen says. "There have always been people who live outside
> > the bounds of society's rules: tramps, hermits, eccentrics. But these people
> > have a much more difficult life."

> > Heylighen insists that ordinary people have nothing to lose by being part of
> > the global brain. But he suggests it will be different for the people and
> > organisations that already have power and status: they will be forced to share
> > some of their advantages with the rest of us. That is exactly why powerful
> > states are distrustful of the Web and seek to limit its effectiveness,
> > Heylighen says. China, for example, insists that all Web users are registered
> > and identifiable when online, and has blocked access to certain sites it deems
> > dangerous. Johnson takes a similar line to Heylighen. "If the global mind does
> > come online there are a lot of power structures that won't be particularly
> > happy about it," he says.

> > Johnson's view of the intelligent Web is subtly different from Heylighen's
> > troubling vision of a global superorganism. He sees it as an extension of
> > society. "Our premise is that systems can be much more intelligent than
> > individuals," he says. "You can have a very diverse group solving problems
> > much better than an expert: that's why we have society and social insects."

> > Developing symbiotic intelligence, says Johnson, will be a positive step for
> > our society: the experience and wisdom of any individual need never be lost
> > again. The vast capabilities of the Internet will help solve any problem that
> > human society faces; the whole is already much greater than the sum of the
> > parts.

> > Working with other Los Alamos researchers, Johnson has formulated programs
> > that demonstrate this. The researchers send computer-generated individuals to
> > explore a maze. Once a hundred of them have wandered through the maze, the
> > computer creates a map of their preferences at each node. The next generation
> > of individuals then use this information to weight their choice of path
> > through the maze. On average, uninformed individuals take 34 steps to escape
> > the maze; the second, informed, generation takes an average of only 12. As the
> > number of individuals in the collective increases, the solution gets better
> > and better.

> > Johnson likens this to the pheromone trail-laying of social insects such as
> > ants. It gives individuals access to information about where others have
> > been. Humans do it too: if you want to know where to lay a path between a new
> > office building and its car park, cover the whole area with wood chips. Paths
> > appear in the chips as each individual solves their own problem, and others
> > can choose whether to use this solution. Within a short time a collective
> > solution-a few well-used paths-emerges.

> > bought this book also bought . . ." lists. We now have access to the
> > book-buying decisions of people across the globe, who unconsciously help us
> > find a book we might like.

> > Now it's time to take this principle and integrate the Internet fully into the
> > way human society works, Johnson believes. A worldwide network of people using
> > interconnected computers should open up a kind of "collective memory" to add
> > on to our individual brain power. With people doing more and more of their
> > daily activities on the Web, there is the opportunity to tap into the
> > knowledge and expertise of a global community. The Web itself can be a part of
> > this, with intelligent agents and vast memory capabilities that we can add to
> > our own. Eventually there will be little distinction between people,
> > computers and wires-everything combines to create one vast symbiotic
> > intelligence.

> > At least in Johnson's picture we are important components of the global
> > superorganism, but even so, how many people will relish the prospect of being
> > assimilated in this way? Are we really doomed to become the Borg?
> > Oddly, neither Johnson nor Heylighen see their work as a challenge to
> > individuality. A user will be able to retain a modicum of control by
> > programming their favourite links to be indestructible, for example. Both
> > researchers believe that the global brain will only improve our lot: we'll be
> > within a larger social organism, and enabled by new technology.

> > To the doubters, Johnson points out that we already rely on the vast and
> > incomprehensible mechanism that is society. Ask an ant how it finds food, and
> > it won't be able to tell you. Ask most people how their television works and
> > they are unlikely to give you more than the basics. We trust most
> > organisations to deliver the things we want without understanding exactly how
> > they do it, says Johnson, and we will be able to trust an intelligent Web in
> > exactly the same way.

> > That might be a naive view: many people believe that the mechanisms of society
> > can't always be trusted to work for the greater good over the wishes of
> > powerful individuals. If, as it seems, the global brain is our inevitable
> > future, and we can't turn it off, our only option might be to blend into the
> > crowd. After all, if you're not exceptionally rich, powerful or clever, the
> > global brain shouldn't need to disturb you. Back up your files, act dumb and
> > keep your head down. There is a growing intelligence out there, and it knows
> > your e-mail address.

> > Author: Michael Brooks
> > New Scientist issue: 24th June 2000
> > PLEASE MENTION NEW SCIENTIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS STORY AND, IF
> > PUBLISHING ONLINE, PLEASE CARRY A HYPERLINK TO: http://www.newscientist.com

June , 2000

---

§  §  §  §  §  §  §

Ceptual Institute's In-sites

---

What's new and Where to find it

---