CCK09: Connectivism -> Global Brain -> Singularity?

	Connectivism -> Global Brain -> Singularity? by James Neill - Wednesday, 23 September 2009, 08:25 AM
	What do think - is it this where its heading? Connectivism -> Global Brain -> Singularity? By Global Brain, I am thinking of Peter Russell's conceptualisation: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6983074709191796496# (I recommend this highly - already dated, but cool) By Singularity, I mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity Reply

Nah.

Too much diversity, openness, autonomy, and connectivity for singularity to emerge.

Show parent | Reply

	Re: Connectivism -> Global Brain -> Singularity? by minh mcCloy - Saturday, 26 September 2009, 05:41 PM
	But a singularity would bud off & there would be an event horizon & we'd back over here reveling in our open autonomous diverse connectivity. No connections with/to a singularity. Hey L whatz a connection like you doing in a thread like this? Show parent \| Reply

The thread seemed to be suffering from a little weak tie-ness! big grin

Just trying to strengthen its connection. Good point on the singularity lack of connection. In a connected world, a singularity cannot happen. I think Downes called this an echo-chamber in the elluminate session.

Perhaps the rhizomatic knowledge machine is a better analogy? Maybe bishops weed is a good metaphor for connectivism?

The good thing is we can continue to revel....

Show parent | Reply

Good question. I read in the reactions that "in a connected world a singularity cannot happen" and also that autonomy, openness prevent singularity to emerge.

I understand those reactions, but let's just try to wonder whether this is so self-evident. Maybe there is more to say about singularity and connectivism...

Especially if a network is considered as a connection not only between human beings (networks themselves) but also between humans, computers, services, other objects etc and if we consider that there can be intelligence in the network, it could be worthwhile to wonder what happens if the current acceleration of innovation continues.

Is it that unthinkable that networks as networks take informed decisions? That we ourselves as humans become more and more hybrids - composed out of the biological substrata of our evolution and out of other devices, enabling us to be part of even wider networks?

Such networks and synthetic networked humans could very well develop even more "advanced" generations of synthetic beings...

I do know it sounds somehow crazy and science fiction, but is this not what is happening now already - look around and just realize how synthetic we are now already - being connected all the time, experimenting with augmented reality, having parts of our bodies replaced by "artificial" components which are being monitored constantly...

The next step being that synthetic processes in such networks decide that an upgrade is necessary or at least useful, develops the upgrade and implements it - maybe just giving the possibility to opt-out - a bit like software updates, but this time the software would be intimately connected to "what we are".

Show parent | Reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)

Would the 'Borg Collective' or 'Hive Mind' be an example of the singularity? Reminds me of Ants (not the theory, rather the critter).

Show parent | Reply

Yes, that seems to be a rather straightforward association. But we don't have to wait for the singularity for experiencing the Hive Mind...

Yes, the Borg could be an example of a singularity gone bad. More interesting however could be the exercise to imagine a singularity which facilitates diversity, openness and creativity.

In other words, I don't think singularity implies necessarily the Hive Mind. The evolution towards singularity could very well enhance rhizomatic thinking. Ray Kurzweil in The Singularity is Near does mention the classical objections against singularity, but also has some interesting answers...

Show parent | Reply

>...imagine a singularity which facilitates diversity, openness and creativity.

I guess autonomy, by the definition of singularity, wouldn't be applicable?

Show parent | Reply

What is "the definition" of singularity? In the sense Kurzweil uses the word, it is about reverse engineering the human brain so that we'll be able to apply the parallel, self-organizing, chaotic algorithms of human intelligence to enormous powerful computational substrates. More concrete: this intelligence will be in a position to improve its own design, hardware and software, in a rapidly accelerating iterative process (quoting the Epilogue of his book The Singularity is Near).

It seems obvious that if such a disruptive change would occur (I have no idea how realistic this scenario is), we'd better think hard about how to deal with such developments.

As usual with technology, it can either enslave human beings or it can give them more power, more autonomy, for instance more control over our bodies, eradicating diseases, enabling us to live (much) longer, process more information, use more creative possibilities.

Show parent | Reply

	Re: Connectivism -> Global Brain -> Singularity? by L Tsu - Sunday, 27 September 2009, 06:15 PM
	I often wondered if there was an element of sci-fi within connectivism..... Show parent \| Reply

Singularity? I say let's build 'er! As I advance in age, I certainly appreciate the magic of replacement joints etc! Those machine parts are magnificent!

One question though: Will there be a queen in the hive?

Show parent | Reply

	Re: Connectivism -> Global Brain -> Singularity? by minh mcCloy - Sunday, 27 September 2009, 05:59 PM
	I say I want to be software. Download the consciousness, back me up all over the solar system & then I'll have sometime to think about all the things that are thinkable. Mega-connectivity; absolute autonomy; lots of diversity & openness too. Here's Greg Egan's take on the notion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora_(novel) Show parent \| Reply

Hi Roland,

I agree with you that there is intelligence in the network, especially with the developments of Artificial Intelligence.

In addition to augmented reality, artificial intelligence, among other things, deals with:

Create artifacts that behave wisely, both individually and in groups, some of which may be useful, especially in 3D environments like Second Life, to help the user or student to resolve some basic questions.
Create specific programs that help companies and institutions to making decisions through data mining - handling large volumes of data.

However, do not share his idea of hybridity. I think the tools are certainly more powerful but they are only tools and tomorrow this will be considered obsoletes because are created others new, but humans remain.

Therefore, the singularity is in us, not on the network or the tools.

Show parent | Reply

	Re: Connectivism -> Global Brain -> Singularity? by James Neill - Sunday, 27 September 2009, 06:40 AM
	Image source: http://jblyth.com/blog_images/images_13/jack-kirby-fantastic-four-51.jpg Show parent \| Reply

	Re: Connectivism -> Global Brain -> Singularity? by minh mcCloy - Sunday, 27 September 2009, 06:01 PM
	Ah James love it!! Thank you Show parent \| Reply

Principles of connectivism

Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
Capacity to know more is more critical than what is currently known
Nurturing and maintaining connections is needed to facilitate continual learning.
Ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.
Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of all connectivist learning activities.
Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision.
So let´s say that we´ll end up as a global or singular brain?

Show parent | Reply

@Graciela, I think certain technological conditions have to become reality first, like the evolution of nanotechnology, biotech, and information technology enabling synthetic beings to enhance their capabilities at an accelerating rate.

Will "we" end up as a singular brain? I'm not sure what "we" means in that context: I guess beings who are synthetic, composed of the product of biological evolution and of self-enhanced artificial components (with powerful computers which fit into blood cells, for instance). Maybe part of humanity will opt out of this development, or will not get in because of poverty and inequality.

I guess - thinking 50 or 100 years from now - that those beings will have very easy access to learning networks, stores of knowledge, but let's hope there will be diversity, that they'll have their own individual dreams and contexts, and that they will not be assimilated in a Borg-like collectivist entity.

It's not that I am convinced all this will come true. There are major issues here: how is artificial intelligence developing? I am not too impressed looking at computer translations for instance. What about self-awareness and consciousness?

But I do think these scenarios are interesting enough to think them over and to figure out what the challenges are.

Show parent | Reply

Connectivism and Connective Knowledge '09

You are here