Bonding
Contextual Quote
"According to what I’m gathering, bonding is a master principle of evolution, a prime directive. It lies behind all forms of evolution — geological, biological, societal, noospheric, etc. — as both cause and consequence. Pressures and opportunities to create new kinds of bonds attend every phase across every form of evolution. First came atomic-level bonding, next mineral and genetic bonding, then social bonding, with noetic bonding on the horizon. People yearn to be grounded, to belong where they are, to have bases for reaching out laterally — bonds and bonding powers help fulfill those purposes. Bonds are not only a personal need, they’re also a structural-functional imperative for societal progress."
- David Ronfeldt [1]
Discussion
David Ronfeldt:
"BOND’S FORMING AS THE NOOSPHERE SPREADS
Valence-based bonding was essential for the evolution of our planet’s geosphere (e.g., mineralization) and biosphere (e.g., speciation). By extrapolation, new bonds and bonding powers will attend the evolution of the noosphere. But what kind? And between what and what?
In my view, the noosphere has four levels (layers): An ideational level, where all thoughts, ideas, etc. circulate. A technological level comprised of the information and communications systems generating the noosphere and upholding its functioning. An organizational level consisting of offices, agencies, companies, NGOs, libraries, etc. involved in promoting and shaping the noosphere. And a social level consisting of individuals and groups, particularly specialists on and proponents of noospheric matters, but at times maybe nearly everybody who is communicating thoughts.
Which means all sorts of valence issues and bonding prospects abound at and between each level. For example, I’m expecting both valences and “antivalences” to grow between religions, becoming major noospheric concerns that affect bonding prospects on other noosphere matters. More generally, while human-AI bonds may matter more in the near term, AI-to-AI bonds may matter more in the medium and long terms, particularly if/as semi-autonomous super-intelligent AIs become the noosphere’s leading denizens.
Which raises a question: Humans have yearnings to bond the moment they’re born. What about advanced AIs? Will they too develop yearnings to bond? Even a duty to bond? If so, how and why might that happen? Many people, from youth to adults, already report feeling they’re bonding with ChatGPT, Claude, and other generative AI chatbots that rely on Large Language Model (LLM) Interfaces. Why not expect the same from future AIs? Maybe those AEONs I’ve speculated about will sense a noospheric duty to bond? Perhaps as a gift á la Marcel Mauss’s conception of “the gift” in archaic societies — a thought I pursue a little further below.
Materials are available that may help with anticipating the noosphere’s evolution in terms of bonds and bonding powers. Linguists already study verbs in terms of their valences for other verbs. Psychologists have long studied electoral campaigns in terms of “valence issues” vis á vis voters. Ideological convergences and divergences have been studied as a function of valence. There’s even a book on Valences Of The Dialectic (2010) by Marxist theorist Frederic Jameson. Moreover, axiology — the philosophical study of the nature of value and valuation — deals implicitly with ideational bonds and valences. So there’s lots to consult, were evolutionary theorists able to continue in that direction.
Meanwhile, let’s notice an overlooked passage in Tönnies’ Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft(1887) that distinguishes three levels of Gemeinschaft in terms of kinship, place, and mind:
- “The Gemeinschaft by blood, denoting unity of being, is developed and differentiated into Gemeinschaft of locality, which is based on a common habitat. A further differentiation leads to the Gemeinschaft of mind, which implies only co-operation and co-ordinated action for a common goal. Gemeinschaft of locality may be conceived as a community of physical life, just as Gemeinschaft of mind expresses the community of mental life. In conjunction with the others, this last type of Gemeinschaft represents the truly human and supreme form of community. Kinship Gemeinschaft signifies a common relation to, and share in, human beings themselves, while in Gemeinschaft of locality such a common relation is established through collective ownership of land; and, in Gemeinschaft of mind, the common bond is represented by sacred places and worshiped deities. All three types of Gemeinschaft are closely interrelated in space as well as in time. … Wherever human beings are related through their wills in an organic manner and affirm each other, we find one or another of the three types of Gemeinschaft. Either the earlier type involves the later one, or the later type has developed to relative independence from some earlier one.” (from Tönnies, Loomis translation, 1957)
Wow, “Gemeinschaft of mind”! Powerful stuff. Tönnies’ “Gemeinschaft of mind” anticipates, fifty years early, the noosphere idea formulated in the 1920s by Teilhard de Chardin, Vladimir Vernadsky, and Eduard Le Roi — a favorite topic of mine. Tönnies is referring to human bonds of the mind. Yet, as the noosphere grows and advanced AIs become leading denizens, what may matter as much are human-to-AI and then AI-to-AI bonds of the mind. Will they too evolve in Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft phases? Tönnies doesn’t say a “Gesellschaft of mind” may also exist, nor have other theorists — but I might."
(https://davidronfeldt.substack.com/p/peoples-yearnings-to-bond-part-2)