Category:Intelligence

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The significant problems we face can not be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them

- Einstein [1]


This section is dedicated to monitoring P2P-influenced concepts and practices related to Collective Intelligence, Knowledge Management, epistemology, etc...


At this state we only ported a limited number of items from our related section on P2P Learning, i.e. the relevant entries from A to H.


Introduction

Please compare the characteristics of Holomidal Collective Intelligence with those of Pyramidal Collective Intelligence

Short Quotes

Rule Number One is to pay attention. Rule Number Two might be: Attention is a limited resource, so pay attention to where you pay attention.

- Howard Rheingold [2]


"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

  • Arthur Schopenhauer

Long Quotes

Systems thinking has a certain simplicity and elegance to it — basically, a shift from seeing the world as a machine to understanding it as a network… To deal with nonlinear systems requires a change of perspective from objects to relationships, from measuring to mapping, and this is why visual thinking becomes important.”

~ Fritjof Capra [3]


"Co-intelligence is the capacity to call forth the wisdom and resources of the whole and its members to enhance the longterm vitality of the whole and its members." Collectively, a community has more - and more diverse - information, perspective, and resources than any individual has. A wise community, a wise leader, and a wise democracy will use that rich diversity creatively and interactively. The diversity will then be mutually enhancing rather than mutually problematic. The appropriate role of the state is to create enabling conditions for that to happen at all levels and in all sectors and facets of society.


- Tom Atlee [4]

The systematic extensions of my brain is the brain of my friends. No matter how good tagging systems and wikis I have, they are neither sustainable nor scalable, when facing the tsunami of complexity waves coming at us faster and faster. The coming chaos is evolution trick’s to push us out from the comfortable but illusory thinking of the individual being the basic cognitive unit. IMHO, it’s the collective.

- George Por


Experience has long been considered the best teacher of knowledge. Since we cannot experience everything, other people’s experiences, and hence other people, become the surrogate, of knowledge. I store my knowledge in my friends is an axiom for collecting knowledge through collecting people.

- Karen Stephenson [5] [6]


To survive and thrive, human systems *need* a not just a network view, but a multi-dimensional, multi-scaled view and definition of systems. this will help us see how many, many people can operate and multiply many forms of wealth within systems that previously seemed easily depletable. Peer networks are vital to creating the multi-dimensional maps and models and views that will allow all of us to see the cornacopia of options that now exist, provided we can shift out focus from exploitation and control, to existential symbiosis with everything that is around us, on as many scales as possible.

- Sam Rose


"From a very early age, we are taught to break apart problems, to fragment the world. This apparently makes complex tasks and subjects more manageable, but we pay a hidden, enormous price. We can no longer see the consequences of our actions; we lose our intrinisic sense of connection to a larger whole. When we then try to ‘see the big picture,’ we try to reassemble the fragments in our minds, to list and organize all the pieces. But, as physicist David Bohm says, the task is futile–similar to trying to reassemble the fragments of a broken mirror to see a true reflection. Thus, after a while we give up trying to see the whole altogether."

- Peter Senge [7]


“For a man to change the basic beliefs that determine his perception — his epistemological premises — he must first become aware that reality is not necessarily as he believes it to be. Sometimes the dissonance between reality and false beliefs reaches a point when it becomes impossible to avoid the awareness that the world no longer makes sense. Only then is it possible for the mind to consider radically different ideas and perceptions.”

- G. Bateson [8]


Richard Tarnas on Participatory Knowing

"“In this view, the essential reality of nature is not separate, self-contained, and complete in itself, so that the human mind can examine it “objectively” and register it from without. Rather, nature’s unfolding truth emerges only with the active participation of the human mind. Nature’s reality is not merely phenomenal, nor is it independent and objective; rather, it is something that comes into being through the very act of human cognition. Nature becomes intelligible to itself through the human mind. In this perspective, nature pervades everything, and the human mind in all its fullness is itself an expression of nature’s essential being.”

— Richard Tarnas, 1996, p.434 [9]


We Need to Repair the bridge between rationality and meta-rationality

David Chapman:

"Kegan describes three stages of adult development (numbered 3, 4, and 5). We could call them pre-rational, rational, and meta-rational. These stages are distinctive, internally consistent, relatively-well-functioning modes for organizing one’s thinking, one’s self, and one’s relationships. They might be described as “islands of psychological stability.” To progress from one island to the next, you must cross a heaving sea of psychological confusion, in which the previous mode no longer seems functional, but you cannot yet operate in the next mode reliably. These stage transitions are emotionally and cognitively difficult, and typically take several years, during which one may think, feel, and act inconsistently.

Ideally, a society and culture provides “bridges” of support from one stage to the next. To some extent, ours does. However, Kegan pointed out that we have allowed the bridge from stage 3 to 4 to fall into disrepair. We are not adequately teaching young adults how to be rational, systematic, or modern. This is the central theme of his In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life.

This problem seems to have only gotten worse in the two decades since he wrote that. That is what makes me fear civilizational collapse. Keeping modern institutions operating requires cognitively modern, rational operators. We may be destroying the conditions necessary to produce them." (https://meaningness.com/metablog/stem-fluidity-bridge?)

See also: Post-Modernism Has Destroyed the Bridge to Rationality


The Next Civil War will be one over Collective Intelligence

"The conflict of the 21st Century is about forming a Collective Intelligence that can outwit and out innovate all of its competitors. The central challenge is to innovate a way of collaborating and cohering individuals that maximally deploys their individual perspectives, capabilities, understandings and insights with each-other. Right now, the Trump Insurgency has the edge. It has discovered some key ways to tap into the power of decentralized collective intelligence and this is its principal advantage. While it is definitely not a mature version of a decentralized collective intelligence, it is substantially more so than any collective intelligence with which it is competing and unless and until a more effective decentralized collective intelligence enters the field, this advantage is enough."

- Jordan Greenhall [10]


Individuals can't think non-linearly, only collectives can

"By yourself, you can’t think non-linearly. This isn’t your fault. Individual human beings can’t think non-linearly. Only “collective intelligences,” those agents of “inter-subjective consciousness” can. To put it more simply, we implement and do things as individuals. We innovate as tribes. And the world we live in today — the world of the 21st Century — is a world of continuous innovation. In this environment, for the first time ever in history, the ability to innovate is decisively superior to the ability to deploy power."

- Jordan Greenhall [11]


Meta-theory as humanity’s vocabulary of self-transformation

"[With] self-consciousness comes the possibility of transforming ourselves by adopting new vocabularies, redescribing, and so reconstructing our selves and discursive institutions. While all of us are in some sense consumers of such new vocabularies, it is the special calling of some to produce them. And among those producers some take the construction of unique, potentially transformative vocabularies as the project by commitment to which they understand and define themselves. Among that group, some seek to produce those new vocabularies precisely by trying to understated the phenomena of sapience, normativity, conceptuality, reason, freedom, expression, self-consciousness, self-constitution, and historical transformation by subversive, empowering vocabularies. Those are the philosophers. They are charged neither with simply understanding human nature (human history), nor with simply changing it, but with changing it by understanding it."

—Robert B. Brandom (2009, p. 150) [12]


Raimon Panikkar on the Relation between Mythos and Logos

“Mythos and logos go together, but their relationship is neither dialectic nor mythic; it is rather a mutually constitutive relationship. If it were logical, the spirit would be drowned in the logos. Were it mythical, the logos would be reduced to the spirit. Put another way, there is no logos without mythos – of which the logos is language – and there is no mythos without logos – of which the myth is the foundation … Only the pratîtyasamutpâda, the radical relativity of all that is, can maintain the harmony without domination between the mythos and the logos” (Intellectual autobiography”).

The reunion between mythos and logos is one that must also take place between subjectivity and objectivity, between the heart and mind, between rational thought and the spirit that flies free. This reunion is necessary so as to avoid falling either into the ancient submission to myth or into the submission of myth to logos, namely, falling into the present day logo-monism: “Reality is not given to us as logos, but rather offers itself to us as mythos, as that horizon against which we place our own idea of the world… Our world is given to us in mythos, and that world, equally ours, is discovered by the logos” (Pensamiento científico y pensamiento cristiano, Madrid 1994). Panikkar describes this double faceted reality as follows:

“Myth is not the object of discourse, but the expression of a kind of sui generis awareness. Myth and knowledge go together... A living myth does not leave room for interpretation, inasmuch as there is no need for an intermediary. The hermeneutic of a myth is in no way myth, but rather its logos … The myth is transparent like light, and the mythic story is only the form, the covering with which the myth finds itself expressed, concealed, illuminated. This does not at all mean we have to disregard, much less belittle, the value of thinking and ignore the realm and inviolable rights of the logos. I simply mean that man cannot be reduced to the logos, nor can awareness be reduced to reflexive consciousness” (Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics).

The theme of myth and its place in relation to religion and human thinking in general has greatly occupied Panikkar and has given rise to the publication of numerous works of his. He himself came to say, “It is necessary to rediscover the place and function of myth in human life and to situate rationality in the total human context.” (Blessed Simplicity).

An open dialogue between myth and logos is the foundation of his dialogical dialogue as the force for opening oneself to the other and respectfully entering into his reality."

- Raimon Panikkar [13]


Hegel on Philosophy as Knowledge

'The study of philosophy is as much hindered by clever argumentative method as it is by the settled position which will not engage in it, which instead bases itself on accepted truths, the possessor of which does not feel the need to re-examine them but rather to take them as fundamental, assert them and judge all things by means of them. It is in this regard especially important to make philosophizing again into a serious business. In all the sciences and arts, in all skills and crafts, the firm conviction prevails that, in order to master them, one must spend a considerable amount of effort in learning and in practice. On the other hand, as far as philosophy goes, it seems that there is a prejudice that predominates, namely that although not everyone with eyes and fingers, who acquires leather and last, is fit for making shoes, everybody nevertheless immediately knows how to philosophize and how to evaluate philosophy, simply because the standard for doing so sits in their natural reason – as if they do not likewise possess the standard for making shoes in their own feet. – It seems as if the lack of any knowledgeability or of study is what makes philosophy, and that as soon as one begins to acquire such, philosophy itself ceases. It is usually taken as a kind of formal, contentless knowing, but, what is missed by such an insight, is what is in the content of any kind of knowledge and scientific truth, namely that they deserve these names only when philosophy has been involved in their production; these other sciences may try and proceed by means of clever argumentation without philosophy when they will, but without it they are unable to have any life, spirit or truth in themselves.'

- Hegel (The Phenomenology of Spirit, Preface, GW 46)

Framework

1.


Dave Snowden has proposed the Cynefin framework for identifying the best match between knowledge styles and reality:

"It has five domains, characterised by the relationship between cause and effect. The first four domains are:

  • Simple, in which the relationship between cause and effect is obvious to all, the approach is to Sense - Categorise - Respond and we can apply best practice.
  • Complicated, in which the relationship between cause and effect requires analysis or some other form of investigation and/or the application of expert knowledge, the approach is to Sense - Analyze - Respond and we can apply good practice.
  • Complex, in which the relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance, the approach is to Probe - Sense - Respond and we can sense emergent practice.
  • Chaotic, in which there is no relationship between cause and effect at systems level, the approach is to Act - Sense - Respond and we can discover novel practice.

The fifth domain is Disorder, which is the state of not knowing what type of causality exists, in which state people will revert to the comfort zone in making a decision." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin)

See the video: Shawn Callahan on the Cynefin Framework


2.

Framework from George Dyson in Darwin Among The Machines, summarized by Kevin Kelly [14]:

  • One species, many minds: The official future. We interbreed among our genetic improvements and keep our individuality distinct, and our species identity intact.
  • One species, one mind: Through electronic mediation, we join together to create a superorganism. A suprahuman.
  • Many species, many minds: Ultimate diversity. Humans fork in their evolution to create new breeds. Some may even join machines in cyborgian partnerships.
  • Many species, one mind: We fork in biology but unite in the noosphere. Millions of species share the same mind.


3.

Henry Jenkins:

"We can argue that there are a range of different models of collective intelligence shaping the digital realm at the present time. We might distinguish broadly between three different models:

1) An aggregative model which assumes that we can collect data based on the autonomous and anonymous decisions of “the crowd” and use it to gain insights into their collective behavior. This is the model which shapes Digg and to some degree, YouTube.

2) a curatorial model where grassroots intermediaries seek to represent their various constituencies and bring together information that they think is valuable. This is the model which shapes the blogosphere.

3) a deliberative model where many different voices come together, define problems, vet information, and find solutions which would be impossible for any individual to achieve. This is the model shaping Wikipedia or even more powerfully alternate universe games. Of the three, the deliberative model offers the most democratic potentials, especially when it is tempered by ethical and political commitments to diversity. This is the model which Pierre Levy describes in his book, Collective Intelligence. Levy’s account stresses the affirmative value placed on diversity in such a culture. The more diverse the community, the broader range of possible information and insights can inform the deliberative process." (http://henryjenkins.org/2009/11/reflections_on_cultural_politi_1.html)


Related Wiki Sections

Key Resources

Stages of consciousness development according to Integral Theorists:


See also:

  1. The Social Brain Hypothesis, (2016: no longer at www.liv.ac.uk/evolpsyc/Evol_Anthrop_6.pdf ) essay where Robin Dunbar explains the cognitive limitations of his Dunbar Number
  2. The Social Brain Hypothesis and Human Evolution, Robin Dunbar
  3. Book: Collective Intelligence: Creating a Prosperous at Peace. Ed. by Mark Tovey.


Key Articles

  • New Grounds for a Re-Union Between Science and Spirituality. By ERVIN LASZLO. World Futures The Journal of General Evolution 62 (1-2 / January-March 2006):3-5 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233513934_New_Grounds_for_a_Re-Union_Between_Science_and_Spirituality]: "Science is recovering its basic mission of making sense of the world. As a search for meaning it is similar to spirituality. The difference between science and spirituality is not in the end they seek, but in the way they seek it. Science uses rational thinking in analyzing and interpreting what experience and experiment discloses, whereas spirituality combines experience with the immediacy of an intuition that speaks to a reality that underlies the world conveyed by the senses."


See also:

  1. Emergence of a Global Brain‎. Francis Heylighen
  2. Science of Collective Intelligence‎. Norman L Johnson
  3. Civic Intelligence and the Public Sphere‎. Douglas Schuler
  4. Co-intelligence, Collective Intelligence, and Conscious Evolution. Tom Atlee‎
  5. Kingsley Dennis on The Great Acceleration: The Astounding Growth in the Psychological Evolution of the Human Self.
  6. Moving from Binary to Ternary Thinking. John Michael Greer
  7. Collective Sense-Making as Negotiated Agreement. Harold Jarche
  8. The Evolution of Cognition. William L. Benzon and David G. Hays. [16]



Thomas Malone:

  1. Harnessing Crowds: Mapping the Genome of Collective Intelligence. By Thomas Malone, Robert Laubacher, and Chrysanthos Dellarocas. [17]
  2. What is Collective Intelligence? Thomas Malone


George Por:

See also:

  1. Evolutionary Worldview Rising, Integral Leadership Review, http://www.integralleadershipreview.com/archives-2010/2010-06/2010-06-notes-por.php
  2. Collective Intelligence and Collective Leadership: Twin Paths to Beyond Chaos, University of Amsterdam, http://sprouts.aisnet.org/8-2/
  3. Connecting Our Conversations for Becoming Wiser Together, Kosmos Journal, http://www.community-intelligence.com/?q=node/104
  4. Collective Intelligence as a Field of Multi-disciplinary Study and Practice, Evolutionary Nexus, http://www.evolutionarynexus.org/node/606
  5. Designing for the Emergence of a Global-scale Collective Intelligence, The First Global Brain Workshop, http://www.community-intelligence.com/?q=node/106
  6. Nurturing Systemic Wisdom through Knowledge Ecology, The Systems Thinker, http://www.community-intelligence.com/?q=node/98
  7. Quest for Collective Intelligence, Community Building: Renewing Spirit and Learning in Business, http://www.visionnest.com/btbc/cb/chapters/quest.htm


Howard Rheingold:


Nova Spivack:

  1. Towards Healthy Virtual Selves for Collective Groups; From the recommended essay: How to Build the Global Mind
  2. Harnessing the Collective Intelligence of the Web‎.


John Stewart:

  1. The evolution of consciousness, rooted in complexity and cognitive sciences. See Stewart, J. E. (2007) The future evolution of consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 14, No. 8, Pp. 58-92.
  2. Evolutionary Manifesto ; book: Evolution's Arrow

Key Books

  1. David Pitt & Paul R. Samson (eds.),‎ The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader: Global Environment, Society and Change (1998) download
  1. George Dyson. Darwin Among the Machines: The Evolution Of Global Intelligence: wonderful history of the network mind
  2. Otto Laske. Manual of Dialectical Thought Forms.
  3. COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Creating a Prosperous World at Peace. Ed. by Mark Tovey. This book contains key essays from all major figures in the field. Full online version [18]
  4. Handbook of Collective Intelligence By Thomas W. Malone et al.: This Handbook provides a survey of the field of collective intelligence, summarizing what is known, providing references to sources for further information, and suggesting possibilities for future research.
  5. Global brain as mechanism for global commons, see: Global Brain and Universal History: PhD Thesis: Global Brain Singularity:. Universal history, future evolution and humanity's dialectical horizon. By Cadell N. Last. Vrije Universiteit Brussel Faculty of Arts and Philosophy, Doctoral School of Human Sciences. [19]

Key Tags

  1. Collective Intelligence
  2. P2P Learning
  3. P2P Epistemology

Pages in category "Intelligence"

The following 200 pages are in this category, out of 859 total.

(previous page) (next page)

A

C

(previous page) (next page)