Member 420
242 entries
1849196 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.
    “The deterritorialization of the self is the essential feature that marks human entry into cyberspace. In the universe of infinite connection and possibility the only possible ontology is magical; reality as that which is invoked, the world conformant to will. The techniques of magical will, quintessentially linguistic, require a conscious mastery of the relationship between word and world. At the end of history comes the Word. “


    Ritual and the Virtual
    Mark Pesce



    “Contain yourself!
    “I can’t! I am bifurcating into everywhere!”
    “Well, let yourself flow as fluid silk down the throat of time”


    (From “Spheres of Glowing Minds” –coming up soon)

    The point of course is that for a commitment to be taken seriously, it need passionately introduce into our minds an array of possibilities and diversifications that for all practical purposes allow a multidimensional representation of our nature, a multiplicity.

    Let us start with a movie:
    Akiresu To Kame (Achilles and the Tortoise (アキレスと亀):
    An array of possibilities

    {image 1}

    If you’ve never watched Takeshi Kitano : Achilles and the Tortoise (アキレスと亀 Akiresu to Kame) you are missing on a fabulous piece of visual poetry, an exploration by an artist (played eventually by TK himself) on the nature of art and the nature of an artist. (let it be said that I am biased and a great fan and admirer of Takeshi Kitano)
    Many will not like this movie and I am not even sure what TK desired to portray in this cinematic representation of an artists claim to fame. wealth and audience acceptance.
    However, the reason I am mentioning this film that I watched few days ago is directly correlated to the idea of intelligence and the search for a total re-orientation of intelligence within an evolving playfield (in this case Art), our cultural cyberspace.
    I see in this movie a motion that depicts in visual poetry the seeking individual and his capacity (and willingness) to undergo extreme self-inflicted circumstances for the purpose of what may rightly be called the de-territorialization of the self.




    Actually if we are to follow the protagonist of this adventure what we will find there is a total de-contextualization of the concept of art in which imitation and copying are enmeshed into an inextricable continuum of trial and error with no positive conclusion (apparently so). The artist, Machisu, does not recognize his own uniqueness and in an ironic twist of self-perception the very fact that his uniqueness is unrecognized allows him to experiment with all possible styles (Rothko and Miro, Dubbufet and Kokoska and so on) of painting. In a funny sense I believe that what TK is portraying is the very fact that an artist that lacks essentiality (in the sense of a unique nature) paradoxically is able to explore and express a phase space of possibilities otherwise not achievable.

    {image 2}

    In a certain (and not so funny) sense Achilles and the Tortoise represents an adventure of non-discovery (socially and financially apparently a failure) but seen through the lens of intelligent exploration the oscillating paradox becomes clearer and clearer. It appears that what happens to the mind in question is an endless voyage, at each intersection becoming more extreme, finally not even able to self-destruct and relinquishing the path/goal. But to my eyes the artist in this case has correlated his non-discovery (of his so-called unique essentiality) to a process of a much greater discovery, namely, that he does not have an essentiality as such but is able to contain all essentialities.
    The idea of connecting all forms of exploration both inner and outer into a coherent whole is not new, but the manner in which we may describe at present the multi-phased approach is changing. And this film definitely does induce in the critical observer a fresh approach to the concept of de-territorialization. What I saw in this film is a representation of a commitment to multiple essentialities.

    {image 3}

    Commitment to multiple essentialities

    The idea of multiple essentialities implies a fundamental approach to life in which no pre-programmed model or a conceptualization of a model is already present in the mind of the committed. In fact given our multi-modal manner of beingness based on an evolutionary and open-ended approach to the exploration of our minds we may correlate the idea of commitment to multiple essentialities to the idea of variation and diversification in the process of evolution. Moreover if we are to relinquish, as Deleuze suggested, the perception of tree-like hierarchical structures in favor of the rhizome conception we may finally get rid of the idea that one essentiality covers all of our needs, both as individuals and as a culture.

    This kind of perceptual approach is not for the faint of heart, neither is it for the non-courageous, far be it from the moment of emptiness to be re-absorbed into consensual everyday like conscious awareness. In fact we may need go as far as saying that to reach a state that we rightly can call a state of independence we need relinquish completely the idea of one essentiality and embrace the conceptual borderline of instability (found on the edges). This is an exceptional state of mind, an accomplishment of the first magnitude. For the exceptional accomplishment of independence and self-openness is a process of multiplying essentialities requiring the acceptance of the evolved state of affairs of the world (that of multiplicity).

    {image 4}

    Freedom, liberation and independence can be said to be found on the edge, on the borderline of experimentation in which our minds explore the diversity of our perceptual existence.
    The perceptual richness encountered in cyberspace in fact allow our minds a new degree of freedom (implying pleasure) in which we are de-territorializing ourselves.
    It is a pleasure unlike any other to partake in the cyber hyperstream of multiple realities, a cyber experimentation in which we become the artists by mingling with the art itself, not knowing what the program is all about, for there is no set program.

    By being committed to multiple essentialities we claim a claim, a very special kind of claim:
    We claim that we do not adhere to a unique pre-programmed view of the world and ourselves in it. We claim however that we are committed to the very sense of the flow of exploration, dynamic, all-inclusive and endlessly open.
    The Polytopian stance which I espouse, denies the weight and authority of the past, allows the significance of the moment and implies a critical reading of the state of affairs of our conscious aware inherent multiplicity (a multiplicity of knowledge, intelligence, emotions and feelings).
    The hyperconnected reality of cyberspace conjugated with our inner virtualized multiplicity will eventually generate a re-orientation of our perceptual cyber-existential desires.
    The future of our multiple states is thus a great unknown, but it promises to be interesting in many many unanticipated ways.

    Inventing the future requires giving up control. No one with a compelling purpose and a great vision knows how it will be achieved. One has to be willing to follow an unknown path, allowing the road to take you where it will. Surprise, serendipity, uncertainty and the unexpected are guaranteed on the way to the future.


    George Land




      Promote (13)
      
      Add to favorites (5)
    Synapses (4)
     
    The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving. Saves on introductions and goodbyes. The ride does not require an explanation, just occupants.

    Boat Man, Waking Life


    Fluid Intelligence is Sexy

    In a recent conversation with a very good friend, a person which until recently was not hyperconnected, he said:” what I have found so tantalizing since I started connecting and being exposed to all this (apparently infinite) flow of information is that my old convictions are being destabilized one by one. It’s as if I am being taken on a ride, a particular program that aims to transform me into something else. I am at present totally uncertain as to the old views I once held, moreover, I find that I like it and I want more of it. It’s a breath of fresh air blowing with very high intensity into my mind, propelling me into directions I never thought of.”

    I think that what my friend reflected upon is a sensation carried by many and is very difficult to articulate, for even though the scope and amount of information available to us is disturbing many cherished beliefs and long held assumptions, at base this sensation is pleasurable, hence we want more of it.

    There’s a lot of talk recently about the disruptive effect of modern technologies on our mind states, on our conceptualizations, on our minds and brains, on our very nature indeed. More than any disruption the Internet is held as the main culprit in making us modernly stupid and indifferent.

    Witness what the Times Online has to say about this:

    “Every day, just to keep up to date, that grey lump between your ears has to shovel ever bigger piles of infotainment — tottering jumbles of global-warming updates, web gossip, refugee crises, e-mails, fashion alerts, Twitters and advertisements. Now research suggests that we may have reached an historic point in human evolution, where the digital world we have created has begun to outpace our neurons’ processing abilities.”


    (Warning: brain overload-Scientists fear that a digital flood of 24-hour rolling news and infotainment is putting our primitive grey matter under such stress that we can no longer think wisely or empathize with others)

    It goes without saying that I do not agree with the main theme of this article namely that:

    “The faster the tech, the slower the speed of thought . . . the more accelerated the culture, the slower the rate of social change . . . the quicker the digital composition, the slower the political reflection: accelerating digital effects are neutralized by decelerating special human effects.”

    (From the same article quoting Arthur and Marilouise Kroker in their 1997 book Digital Delirium) .

    Au contraire, it is my view that we are entering, and actually are already in, a deterritorialized age of transformation, an age unlike any other in that the speed and overload of information is transforming us, and yes destabilizing us, disrupting us in such a fashion as to allow a new kind of mind to emerge, the hyperconnected mind.
    The problem, as I see it, is that most if not all of this new research and studies take the base benchmark to be the monolithicNeolithic mind as their foundational approach.
    Of course it is true that hyperconnectivity overwhelms us, disturbs us and disrupts us, but I see this as a good thing, a very high good indeed, and it is good in more ways than one. It is good primarily because it is high time we relinquish the idea that we are one (as individuals) and have the same “Telos” as a collective. It is good because we have evolved to be a fluid intelligence, an intelligence for which disruption is not a bug but a feature. The modern hyperconnected mind is thus a reflection of our innate mind fluidity. Disrupting our age-old Neolithic traditional fictions is nothing less than a total conceptual revolution and the hyperstream of infodata is the main conduit by which this conceptual revolution happens.

    It so happens that Hyperconnectivity leads to fluid intelligence.

    “Fluid intelligence is the ability to find meaning in confusion and solve new problems. It is the ability to draw inferences and understand the relationships of various concepts, independent of acquired knowledge”
    (wiki)

    By allowing the disruptive power of the hyperconnected reality to enter our mind flows, we are actually allowing ourselves to be changed and challenged, modified and altered, we are factually evolving a new kind of mind, an intellect that can actually solve problems and “find meaning in confusion”.
    The hyperflow of information is destroying the idea that we are the same, that our brains are the same or that culture is the same as it was yesterday. What is happening is that we are shifting our inner virtuality, our mind conceptualizations, from a centric point of view to a multiplied encultured reality, a hyperconnected reality. A reality that is as fresh as it is exciting, as challenging as it is transformative; no longer are we to believe that we are alone, or that issues that are ‘far’ are of no interest to us. We are at present in a transitional period of rapid advancement, an era of supreme importance in the history of humanity, a phase in our concatenated evolution in which new forms of literacy are being invented, new methods of inter-subjective enhancement are at play and we evolve because of it.

    I believe that fluid intelligence is the hallmark of our present era, an intelligence that is fundamentally autopoietic and multidimensional; moreover I think that same intelligence is in the process of adaptation, adapting itself to accommodate information overload not as a negative so called ‘distraction’ but as an attention enhancer, an explorative measure of our intellects. The rising of fluid intelligence is the new pleasure we take in being hyperconnected fierce individuals, it correlates information and social life, data and sensation, and allows us the self-guided evolutionary strategy we collectively seek.



    “When the centaur of classical metaphysics is mated with the cheetah of actor-network theory, their offspring is not some hellish monstrosity, but a thoroughbred colt able to carry us for half a century and more."


    (Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Metaphysics Graham Harman(pdf)


    Externalizing our Inner Virtuality

    Meaning, the great mystery studied by semantics is being revolutionized as we speak, it is being revolutionized by neuroscience and philosophy, but outside the academic circles, in our hyperconnected slipstream the very transient nature of meaning is being amplified.
    Meaning was never fixed and never an absolute notwithstanding the belief of some. However, our meaning creating apparatus, our minds, are hard at work at present creating meaning from the practically infinite availability of infodata. The meaning we are currently implying is born in a continuous and uninterrupted flow of sense impressions, a never-ending bombardment of relevancy and irrelevancy.
    As some would have it this vastness of availability (called distraction) countermands our capacity for depth, for attention and for empathy.

    “Our society right now is filled with lovely distractions — we have so much portable escapism and mediated fantasy — but that’s just one issue. The other is interruption — multitasking, the fragmentation of thought and time. We’re living in highly interrupted ways. Studies show that information workers now switch tasks an average of every three minutes throughout the day. Of course that’s what we have to do to live in this complicated world.”


    Maggie Jackson at Wired - Digital Overload Is Frying Our Brains

    or

    “Seeking. You can't stop doing it. Sometimes it feels as if the basic drives for food, sex, and sleep have been overridden by a new need for endless nuggets of electronic information.”


    Seeking- How the brain hard-wires us to love Google, Twitter, and texting. And why that's dangerous (Slate).

    Notwithstanding the latest plethora of articles, studies and research on the topic of attention and multitasking (see the list at bottom) implying a deterioration of attention, literacy and wisdom, I remain convinced that the apparent fragmentation we are witnessing (including the lowering of performance in certain tests and test subjects) is part of a larger narrative. The larger picture we need to look at without fear is the evolution of our civilization and our minds, a narrative of our times in which we are actually changing the very modes of comprehension and meaning extraction and creation.
    For though it is probably true for some that hyperconnectivity and multitasking are lowering their capability of concentration and in-depth analysis it is also highly probable that for others (myself included) the proliferation of tasks and interruptions are a boon and actually increase our capability of attentiveness and focus. Moreover, it is also probable that our brains are being rewired so as to accentuate the advantage of multiple and simultaneous realities interplaying in our minds.
    It is obvious that the actual shift that is demanded of us so as to join gracefully the InfoTech revolution and the infoflow in particular is a mind shift, a perceptual change of paradigm.
    The perceptual shift we need perform is one of descriptive virtualization, or a re-description of our reflexive nature; by consciously extending the reach of our mind state we may be able to hasten the plasticity of our virtual contextualization.

    “Therefore our question is simply, given an environment in which events happen faster, objects move more quickly, peripheral processing is placed at a premium, and the number of items that need to be kept track of far exceeds the circumstances experienced in normal life, is it possible to extend the normal processing power of the human nervous system?”


    The Cognitive Neuroscience of Video Games
    C. Shawn Green and Daphne Bavelier (pdf)



    I am not a neuroscientist but a writer, and I haven’t taken part in the Stanford experiment and thus have no clue as to how I would perform on the kind of tests they have carried out.

    What I do know however is that my mind has changed noticeably in the last few years, due in large part to my Internet multitasking.
    In the last few days I had the opportunity to see a 3D fractal image, read about life extension new therapies, explored the writings of W.S.Burroughs, learned that placebos are getting more effective and also listened to the amazing presentation of Bruce Sterling about augmented reality, I understood how we try to keep our beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary. I also listened to my favorite group nowadays (Archive) and wrote a few mails, communicated via twitter and friendfeed (liking some, disliking others opening some links for later read). I have in front of me more than fifty tabs opened in four different browsers, I listen to music, I am reading a few pdf’s and simultaneously writing these words, I am practically swimming in an ocean of information and I love it.

    Few years ago I wouldn’t have been able to do that, and though I am an avid reader I could not possibly have read at the same time so many books, simultaneously also writing and having meaningful, productive and occasionally creative conversations.
    I have become more intelligent, clearer, more focused, faster and more appreciative of others. In fact I am more than pleased with my multitasking, multithreaded polylogue on practically every level of my existence.
    But more than that I carry the (very subjective) feeling that I have developed a new filtering system concerning relevancy and irrelevancy, I am now able to discard or admit at a glance, if something is worthy of note to me or not, if it pertains to my (very extensive) list of interests or not.
    Furthermore, I have a more than reasonable and highly efficient (for my own purposes of course) capability to access the reliability and trustworthiness of a source of information.

    To some of us multitaskers the new world of hyperconnectivity is a boon. The benefit multitaskers find in hyperconnectivity is nothing less than astonishing. We are developing a radical shift in our literacy, a mind-changing paradigm of ingesting, digesting and critically appraising information, in ways that until not long ago were simply not available.

    We need a good narrative for that, so here is one



    A standalone object, no matter how well designed, has limited potential for new weirdness. A connected object, one that is a node in a network that interacts in some way with other nodes, can give birth to a hundred unique relationships that it never could do while unconnected. Out of this tangle of possible links come myriad new niches for innovations and interactions.


    Kevin Kelly


    The Hyperconnected narrative

    We need start by re-appraising the context of our worldviews, re-assessing our fundamental prejudices and conceptual virtualization. Narratives is what we are made of, our states of mind are narratives, stories within stories, and notwithstanding the very real and factual neural correlates of these states, the fact remains that we virtually live in and within, and as, the story that we tell.
    The story that we are, and the narrative we are evolving.

    The story that we told (and were told), until not long ago implied limitations and scarcity, separation and hierarchy, given realities and normalizing factors. In that old story we were at best, an atomized unit of individuality struggling to rise out of the dreary and monotonic daily life into a semblance of presumed well-being, a myth no longer in force and though memetically still vital, showing signs of decay and deterioration.

    The monolithic thought procedure of old has lost credibility precisely because via the advent of the net (this week celebrating its 40th anniversary-link) we became hyperconnected beings, a phenomenon that puts literally everything in a new context.

    The new context is the paradigmatic shift in perception both of self and of others, and more importantly yet a shift in perception of interactive subjectivity or intersubjectivity. The paradigmatic shift is fully correlated to the practically infinite flow of information, the infoflow.
    Moreover, the very act of being hyperconnected in an infoflow is delineating a new contour to the narrative of our times; the story of our current minds is the story of our newly arising correlative meaning creation, the enmeshing of all in all and to all, all the time.
    Is it disruptive? Of course!
    But why?

    It is disruptive because it is erasing the boundaries of old, the now obsolete confines between the real and the virtual, between the authentic and that which supposedly is not. The paradigmatic shift is disruptive because it heralds a new story, the story of superabundance, and the superabundance starts with the wealth of information at our immediate accessibility.

    This changes us.

    The paradigmatic shift we are experiencing is changing the way we are wired. Our virtuality, our mind, once thought to be a unitary whole, now accepted as a self-organizing dynamic system is adapting to the hyperconnected reality. We are in fact projecting our own virtual conceptualizations unto the world just as the world is projecting itself into our minds. This enmeshing of realities, admittedly in its infancy, is the subject matter of our current human theme.
    Enmeshing of realities can be said to be the process of smoothening the contextual contour of our self-description. It enlarges us, making our minds more flexible, more critical and more relevant.
    In the process we are becoming both more robust as well as more able to deal with an increasingly large number of impressions, capable of dealing with huge amounts of data, incorporating it into our worldviews.

    In other words the narrative of our hyperconnected state of affairs is one of enmeshed realities. And enmeshed realities, intertwining states of mind and virtualities are heralding a new kind of freedom, the freedom embedded in hyperconnectivity. This is not a freedom to do (though eventually it will translate into such) but a freedom to change our minds.
    In an enmeshed reality, the dynamics of intersubjectivity allows us to flow uninterrupted into a combined interactive intelligence, a hyper-intelligence that combines autonomous critical thinking within a larger framework of co-adaptive consensual adhocracies.
    The more hyperconnected we are the more externalized our inner representations; the more these inner representations are enmeshed the more flexible and pliable our contextual worldview; more hyperconnectivity equal more augmentation and amplification to our self-reflexivity, more capacity and by implication more intelligence.

    The hyperconnected mind redefines the ethos of its own flow space, in the process developing a fresh form of empathy. This form of intelligent empathy denies the rigidity of the Neolithic mind system, and translates itself into an integrated flow space of coherence.
    The dynamism of the hyperconnected flow space, seen through the lens of collectiveness embeds a variability of goals and manners of being extended in space and in time.
    It is this very variability of multiple realities enmeshed as a coherent whole that re-describes the theme of being a hyperconnected mind.

    Finally

    It is my view that the ever-increasing speed of the hyper-stream of information has given (and is continuously giving) rise to a new form of mindfulness. A variety of mindfulness unlike any we knew, a fresh state of mind that finds its wisdom and cognitive efficiency in direct insights that are predominantly invisible but nevertheless inform our actions and influence our understandings.
    Moreover, I see the modern formless hypermind evolving in front of our eyes as the precursor of a posthuman mind that is not only better at ‘everything’ but eventually will adapt old and outdated philosophical and cognitive concepts into fresh modes of being.
    These new modes of being will in turn revolutionize the very meaning of being human, the nature of our emotional lives and the manner of our intentionality.
    Our conscious awareness will eventually become a form of mentation that is as far from the Neolithic mindset as warp speed is from walking.

    We are evolving- this is good.



    You are waiting for the revolution? Let it be! My own began a long time ago! When you are ready (god, what an endless wait!) I won’t mind going with you for a while. But when you stop, I shall continue on my way toward the great and sublime conquest of the nothing!


    Towards the creative nothing
    Renzo Novatore


    notes:

    Of onions: because our minds are multilayered and multidimensional
    Of infocologies (information ecologies): because the information in our hyperconnected reality is ambient and all pervasive, creating infospheres streaming into each other.


    images in text via Anthony Mattox, new media art design
      Promote (23)
      
      Add to favorites (16)
    Synapses (8)
     
    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

      Promote (14)
      
      Add to favorites (5)
    Synapses (7)
     
          Cancel