Member 420
242 entries
1807648 views

 RSS
Project moderator:
Polytopia

Contributor to projects:
The great enhancement debate
The Total Library
Every act of rebellion expresses a nostalgia for innocence and an appeal to the essence of being. (Albert Camus)
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Wildcat’s favorites
    From Xarene
    Human Document...
    From Xaos
    It is not Gods that we...
    From TheLuxuryofProtest
    Deep Learning in the City...
    From Rourke
    The 3D Additivist Manifesto
    From syncopath
    Simplicity
    Recently commented on
    From Benjamin Ross Hayden
    AGOPHOBIA (2013) - Film
    From Wildcat
    Tilting at windmills or...
    From Wildcat
    The jest of Onann pt. 1(...
    From syncopath
    Simplicity
    From Wildcat
    Some nothings are like...
    Wildcat’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    The great enhancement debate
    What will happen when for the first time in ages different human species will inhabit the earth at the same time? The day may be upon us when people...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From Wildcat's personal cargo

    Considering a Polytopia - The notes
    Project: Polytopia
    Note the first: regarding Intelligence in CI

    As an initial view consider the idea that a Polytopia is a conceptual framework for eliciting intelligent emergent behavior.
    Educing an emergent intelligent behavior is the fundamental of a Polytopia.

    As an initial view consider the idea that a Polytopia can be regarded as the moving front of newly emergent collective robustness of intelligence strengthening distributed opportunities of creative activities.


    “The diversity of languages is not a diversity of signs and sounds, but a diversity of views of the world.”

    Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1820



    The personal:

    Allow me to start this essay with a very personal note, a moment of synchronicity that just happened.
    Whilst I was in the process of trying to wrap this essay into a coherent whole, I remembered that many years ago I had studied the works of the great Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna was very important to me as an introduction to the concept of emptiness or non-inherent existence, particularly because in his most important work the “Mūlamadhyamakakārikā” he tried (and without much success it appears) to deny the absolutist positions that so many cherish. In fact I will go as far as stating that the kind of epistemic critical reasoning that Nagarjuna brought to bear on the human thought processes is so deep that it may have escaped even the apparent ‘pure’ critical reason of Kant.
    The thoughts of Nagarjuna coalesced in my mind for many years and meshed with Wittgenstein’s and others to provide a view I hold, namely, that all views are interdependent and inherently ambiguous.
    Now, it so happened that yesterday I came across a fascinating picture that held my attention for an intense while, it came courtesy of flickr and the uninterrupted infoflow of the hyperconnected dataverse.



    The photo is titled:“1000 Buddhas are not enough” and made me shiver for an instant, for here was a photo and a title that represented a fundamental aspect of my perspective concerning the Polytopia project and its inter-subjective evolutionary correlated vision of the collective intelligence.

    What’s the connection?

    The correlation is uncomplicated, it points to the fact that many of the most complex and important ideas generated by the human mind across eons of thought have been high jacked into oversimplification and by extension absolutism.
    And though I am in principle in favor of simplicity of explication and presentation I stand firm against oversimplification, for oversimplification leads the mind into a belief of understanding, a belief which by its very power of apparent simplicity results in stagnation and monolithic thought.
    Witness the modern use of certain terms such as “ human capital” or “emotional resource “ or “attention economy”, all high jacked in the name of a non-existent mass media comprehension. I mention these because of my interest in collective intelligence and the manner by which I view the concepts of intelligence and collective.
    It goes without saying that I concur with the title of the picture, completely. A 1000 Buddhas, a million Buddhas or for that matter an infinity of Buddhas is not enough! In fact it is not Buddhas that we need.
    We need (if need is the appropriate term ) a comprehensive understanding of our collective intelligence, an application of said comprehension and a critical disassociation from our initial conditions as a species into a posthuman realization of our evolving potentials.

    Please bear with me, as this is a work in progress trying to elucidate the complexity of the transit reality we are passing through at present.




    "I’m drunk and you’re insane. Who’s going to lead us home?"
    Rumi

    Re-describing the conceptual presentation of collaborative intelligence in Polytopia as a playground of engagement.

    It is my view that Collective Intelligence (CI’), though widely used, is a concept that is, for lack of a better description, misunderstood and probably misapplied, primarily because of the inadequacy of the term intelligence.
    Intelligence is a very difficult concept to come to terms with, especially since our tendency to oversimplify language constructs pushes us towards a mode of monolithic thought, a regularity or normalization.
    In many ways the term intelligence is not unlike the term culture, both are very broad terms referring to an increasingly expanding field of research, exploration and development.
    In both cases the question of time need be inserted into the understanding of the concept for it to be coherent. Intelligence and culture are concepts that contain different levels of coherency, and to my eyes operate in a fashion that is similar to the fractal perspective. It is my view that intelligence is fundamentally Rhizomatic, and indeed so is culture, as is art.

    note: The context in which the following definitions will be presented is that of the collective mind.
    The collective mind context reflects the interaction of specific minds (individuals).
    The interaction of individual minds is assumed (for the purpose of this context) to be consistent across all platforms of human existence/behavior and all platforms of communication.
    In the context of the collective intelligence, an individual is assumed to be an agency, aware and conscious, intelligent and independent within the constraints of the material universe.



    Step 1- Intelligence (context of usage is the collective)

    Intelligence is generally defined as a capacity or capability, specifically intelligence is mostly regarded as the human talent to attain, through understanding, knowledge and models of the world and use them creatively to solve different problems and deal effectively with unforeseen state of affairs.
    Moreover Intelligence has been defined as “.. not a single, unitary ability, but rather a composite of several functions. The term denotes that combination of abilities required for survival and advancement within a particular culture.” A. Anastasi

    Or “…adjustment or adaptation of the individual to his total environment, or limited aspects thereof …the capacity to reorganize one’s behavior patterns so as to act more effectively and more appropriately in novel situations …the ability to learn …the extent to which a person is educable …the ability to carry on abstract thinking …the effective use of concepts and symbols in dealing with a problem to be solved …” W. Freeman
    (For an extensive list of definitions see here )



    “Intelligence is very much a two-edged sword, Captain-Doctor. It is useful only up to a point. It interferes with the business of living. Life, and intelligence, do not mix very well. They are not at all closely related, as you childishly assume.”
    (Alternate Minds: Excerpts from Sterling’s Swarm )


    I submit that intelligence in the context of a collective is neither a capability nor a capacity and also not an adaptive trait, but a recurrent unified flow and ordering of impressions of continuity in all things, a procedure for our repetitive re-orientation in the abstract space of potentialities.

    Intelligence might be said to be (a process within) an evolutionary path of increasing disentanglement of representations from the urgent senses, the enlargement of an ever more complex mind happening.

    Intelligence is essentially a term describing a reading of forms into meanings, a reading recognizing an entering into partnership with the world, a collaboration of conscious activity.
    Intelligence need be looked at as a process of inter-subjective cross-dimensional activity defining a framework with no particular direction.
    I understand that the above may seem somewhat obscure, allow me then an illustration.

    Imagine a dancer, flowing gracefully to the rhythm of an ephemeral ambient music, which you do not hear. Our dancer represents an exploratory motion in a space and a time, tracing potential moves, retreating, emerging again, swirling, and turning upon itself, gyrating to its own pulse. What the dancer is performing is actually a complex probing of potential paths of actuation, where the actuation is the motion itself. The motion in turn repositions the dancer in the space-time continuum, altering her perception of the flow. The repositioning in this regard can be seen as the redrawing of the inner map, the body in relation to its space-time orientation. If we were to take this visual representation and eliminate the core component (the dancer) and extend the paths of motion in a multidimensional space, we would now have a ‘ virtual map’ of the dancer’s orientation.
    This virtual map symbolizes the abstract application of intelligence at time T in space S.

    Intelligence can be said to be a process then, a continuous process of orientation and re-orientation, an iterative, recursive, restructuring of the very meaning it is applied to. Put differently, intelligence is the term applied to the reading of coordinates of implications when applied to a particular context. Moreover since intelligence is always in motion, by definition it will disturb the silhouette of the context in which and to which it is applied. That in fact is the meaning of open ended (ness), for by eliminating the conceptual rigidity of the context, intelligence (by its very motion), opens, as it were, the context to fresh paths of potentialities.




    From this perspective we may say that intelligence is the active ingredient in innovation and creativity, in whatever field of human endeavor it is applied.

    If we accept that intelligence is the process of orientation in the phase space of possibilities and the phase space we will now relate to is the field of potentialities of meanings (or semantics), we can now state the following:

    Intelligence is said to be the dynamic process of recursivity, by which the defined territory or context confinement is being smoothened and redefined/redescribed.

    The process of intelligence is both fractal (resonating across scales of contexts) and scalable (can be applied across scales and dimensions).

    Moreover, given that the process of intelligence implies a continuous and fluid motion, within a given but indefinite semantic space, intelligence can be defined as the engine of meaning creation and meaning application. In this case the comprehension and understanding resulting from the application of the process of intelligence will always occur later than the actual re-description (implying a delayed reaction between intelligence and comprehension-tbd).



    to be continued shortly


    5 comments
      Promote (14)
      
      Add to favorites (5)
    Synapses (7)
     
    Comments:


    collective matt     Wed, Jul 15, 2009  Permanent link
    Space Collective always draws me in with ideas— thoughts that seem to be just blossoming in my own mind. Only recently have I begun to delve deeply into the truths surrounded by Buddhism. A post like this resonates strongly within me, tying together my own thoughts of intelligence, fractals, Buddhism, non-duality.
    The word intelligence to me means a form of “here and now” static information. The word wisdom may carry more meaning in a timeless dynamic context. “The collective wisdom” sounds good. But aside from semantics, the words only form barriers when attempting to communicate something deeper than language. Indeed oversimplification destroys the inherent beauty and complexity of infinity.

    “The process of intelligence is both fractal (resonating across scales of contexts) and scalable (can be applied across scales and dimensions).”

    Thanks again wildcat.
    gamma     Sat, Jul 18, 2009  Permanent link
    Those are not Buddhas. It is the grand KiamiokaNDE experiment for detecting neutrinos.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande

    Neutrinos are the "cough" in "atoms are made of protons, neutrons, electrons and cough". They usually cough, because the particle is mysterious. It can pass through entire Earth without interaction - most do, but some hit tiny little Buddhas who burp for antineutrinos and wink for neutrinos.

    I like to live in the center of culture. (Currently in a city). I see cities giving opportunities for intelligence. I still need to graduate "Sex and the City" though. Most of the years, I spontaneously missed the series/concept, but I rediscovered the wit and problems on a reality tv I watched for a brief while. Intelligence is made of variety, good memory, and programmable neural networks. Intelligence shuffles fixed patterns and re-applies procedures on an ever emerging tree of information channels.




    Intelligence reminds me of bundles of fiber optic cables. Their ends are tricky, maybe like stars, maybe like cities or just streaming arrays of data, and our conversation is part of the bundle.


    (Kamioka is a city in Japan. KamiokaNDE is a photomultiplier catching tiny lights in clear, distilled water tank. http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/public/groups/t2k/super_kamiokande.html.  So very sorry.)

    veilde     Sun, Jul 19, 2009  Permanent link
    Thanks wildcat for a fresh and enriching perspective concerning intelligence.
    Yet the context of collective here above is not clear enough.

    Is it that intelligence by its own definition is an emergent property of a collective? With whom or with what does ‘intelligence’ "share" its collectiveness??

    'Collective', if I understood you clearly, does not necessarily mean collaboration with other humans, as I have thought before, but a re-orientation in the abstract space of potentialities, "evolutionary path", "an entering into partnership with the world, a collaboration of conscious activity".

    If "collectiveness", is a collaboration with the flow at play, within the context of the moment, can we relate to this intelligence as a particular case of meditation??”
    Wildcat     Mon, Jul 20, 2009  Permanent link
    veilde : "Is it that intelligence by its own definition is an emergent property of a collective?"

    yes and no, it is not so much that intelligence is an emergent property of a collective but that a collective of conscious aware intelligent entities fosters the space in which an intelligence can dance its exploratory flow. In this respect I am trying to disassociate the intelligence of the individual as a conceptual unique phenomenon from the intelligence of the collective which as I understand it belongs to a different class of events. (complex inter-subjective)


    veilde :"With whom or with what does ‘intelligence’ "share" its collectiveness??"

    here again I understand that intelligence on the collective level is not directly correlated to the concept of sharing. We as humans, individual humans, use the term share. Intelligence is not a sharing and does not share in and of itself (for that it would have been described as an independent entity- whatever that may mean). Intelligence on the collective level stands for a co-created/emergent event. In this sense, ‘intelligence’ in the term collective intelligence is less of a knowing state of the individual and more akin to a field that can be tapped into. In other words the individuals can tap into the intelligence of the collective, but the intelligence of the collective does not manifests its sharing unless the individual conscious aware mechanism taps into it.
    Put differently, since intelligence is both fractal and scalable , we my say that the event of intelligence appears differently and is thus subject to different rules according to the level in which it is being described. On the level of the collective then (and even here we may need define the extent of said collective in order to describe accurately how intelligence manifests) the intelligent event manifests as the correlated transformational /metamorphosis reality it stands for.

    Veilde:" 'Collective', if I understood you clearly, does not necessarily mean collaboration with other humans, as I have thought before, but a re-orientation in the abstract space of potentialities, "evolutionary path", "an entering into partnership with the world, a collaboration of conscious activity".

    If "collectiveness", is a collaboration with the flow at play, within the context of the moment, can we relate to this intelligence as a particular case of meditation??”"


    actually this is an interesting correlation I haven’t thought about, I am not certain what you mean by “collectiveness” (a property/ability/capability?) but if I take it to mean the property arising from “entering into partnership with the world” in an open ended, non rigid format, then yes it could be that the collective “feel” of the flow, is a particular case of meditation.
    That is fascinating proposition, for which I thank you much, for it implies that just as intelligence is fractal and multidimensional, so is meditation. Thus if we enter into a larger territory of experience, extended via other individuals, influencing the intelligent event, our conscious awareness transforms in the process. That our personal description of ourselves transforms via social interaction is obvious and well known, what may be new in this description however is the possible fact that being part of an intelligent event collective, changes/transforms our own exploratory powers of depth perception in a manner that we probably could not attain individually.
    It appears that when as individuals we take part in a larger intelligent event the correlated benefits to our sense of being, expand dramatically.
    I believe that a certain level of resonance within a given culture, especially as concerns the language used for description is necessary for that to happen. However if and when an initial agreement as to the semantics implied by our language is reached I think that yes, in this case intelligence as an event with no fixed point of origination or goal can be called meditation.
    My own experience in social networks of interests on many levels definitely correlates to this idea. Cross-fertilization is definitely the main benefit, but a deep sense of extension through others into the larger reality we inhabit but rarely perceive is definitely there as well. In this sense I understand the term meditation. (does that make sense to you?)
    Fast T     Mon, Jul 20, 2009  Permanent link
    "Moreover since intelligence is always in motion, by definition it will disturb the silhouette of the context in which and to which it is applied. That in fact is the meaning of open ended (ness), for by eliminating the conceptual rigidity of the context, intelligence (by its very motion), opens, as it were, the context to fresh paths of potentialities."

    This, to me says that intelligence, first and foremost is beautiful.

    "intelligence can be defined as the engine of meaning creation and meaning application."

    I think these descriptions are seated at the most convenient abstract level to start an intelligent discussion of intelligence.
    Earlier today, on Friendfeed Wildcat said in response to this comment:

    ’yes that was the intent, to lay out the foundation of distinction between intelligence on a personal level and intelligence on a collective level, I think they belong to two very different classes of semantic objects.’

    I turn to the ending paragraph of this post:
    "In this case the comprehension and understanding resulting from the application of the process of intelligence will always occur later than the actual re-description (implying a delayed reaction between intelligence and comprehension”.

    I wish to make a point that this (semantic) distinction sheds some very relevant light on the relation Intelligence - Application of intelligence in the comprehending unit, or individual.
    We humans have a relation with our intelligence, so to speak, where we don’t always fully bring into consideration the motion of intelligence and the changes in the environments (of our minds mainly) that influence its ebbing and flow. I think that the idea of ‘owning our intelligence’ which is associated with the process of application is one of the reasons for confusion about intelligence. I further believe that accommodating the notion of collective intelligence involves a release of the idea of ownership. For in order to indeed immerse in the flow of intelligence, the very disentanglement of representations from the urgent senses begins with an open attitude or better still, open or beautiful mind.
     
          Cancel