Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!uunet!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netnews
From: mcnerney@ix.netcom.com (Gerald McNerney)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Internet and Consciousness - a Synthesis
Date: 18 Feb 1995 18:13:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 97
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3i5dbe$26e@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ix-pl1-11.ix.netcom.com

I posted the following three questions to alt.consciousness a couple of
weeks ago:

1) Is the internet capable of attaining consciousness?
2) If the internet becomes conscious, would we be able to tell?
3) Should we take whatever steps we think would help internet become
conscious?

I received quite a few responses to these questions.  Most of the
responses were thoughtful and constructive, and have given me additional
insight.  Some were pretty funny.  Now, it's my turn, I would like to
give my answers to the questions for others to review and criticize.

First question.  I do think that an extensive telecommunications network
that has access to large quantities of information, and also has people
communicating with each other will be capable of some form of
consciousness.  My original analogy was okay, but a little misleading.
I compared the neural network in our brain with the internet.  In the
brain, neurons communicate with each other forming a constant flow of
information.  In Internet, people on their PC's or whatever are
communication with other individual users and with groups of users.
This comparison can be misinterpreted to mean that the PC's or computers
are analogous to neurons.  Not exactly.  The computers and electronics
are more like the axons and dendrites or even synapses.  Admittedly,
these are parts of the neurons, but the cell bodies, which include the
cell nucleus and DNA are the real forces behind the activity.  Likewise,
the people are the real forces behind internet activity.  It's people's
ideas that give life to the system.  The vast quantities of information,
just add richness to the equation.

At this level, the analogy breaks down.  The neuron system in a human
brain comprise a vastly more complex network than the internet.
However, each neuron is capable of only a limited number of responses.
In the human/internet system, there are a smaller number of humans, but
each human is comprised of billions of neurons and is therefore capable
of a very wide range of responses.  Therefore, this system does have a
depth that even the brain can not match.  It is basically a hierarchical
system.

Another reason I believe that the internet is capable of attaining
consciousness is because of the geist.  I am an Hegelian in the sense
that I believe that there is far more spirit at work in the world than
that of individual humans.  Each grouping of people, be it a family, a
nation, or the human race as a whole has it's collective spirit.  The
internet is simple an enhancement of this spirit.  It may be the first
opportunity for the spirit of the human race to become self-actualized.

There have been other threads which mirror this spirit idea.  Other's
have reported coincidental thought patterns that have they have observed
in their computer networks which sounds much like the geist to me.

Then there is the issues of reproduction and self maintenance.  I will
deal with the issue of self maintenance in the answer to the second
question.  As far a reproduction is concerned, the internet is a baby.
When humans form colonies on the moon or in other non-terrestrial
locations, you can bet that the internet, or a successor of it will be
reproduced.

Let's move on the second question.  Could we tell if the internet became
self-conscious?  This is probably the most difficult question.  If the
internet is or becomes conscious, it will be on a different order than
our own consciousness. It may be far more primitive, although I doubt
it.  It will, at first, be similar to a human that is in a coma, unable
to do much for itself.  Even in a conscious state, we can not
communicate with individual neurons of even subgroups of neurons in any
meaningful way.  In fact, it would completely change our type of
consciousness if we could.  What would be the result of our attaining
the ability to consciously control our memory forming processes?  It
would be an immense change.

All I can say, it that we have to be open minded in considering this
question.  Don't look for or expect consciousness from internet in the
way that we experience it.

The last question is my favorite.  Suppose that internet is capable of
attaining consciousness.  What should we do about it?  Should we try to
make it come about and take steps to make it happen and enhance it, or
try to impede or stop it?

My answer is unequivocal.  We should make it happen.  Consider the
potential advantages and disadvantages.  The potential advantage is that
it will bring our human race to it's next level.  It would provide an
unimagined wealth of understanding to our situation, and move us forward
away from this 20th century of genocide.

The potential downside of such an advance as a self-conscious and active
internet is that we humans would become mere cogs in a wider process,
and in so doing, loose our freedom and individuality.  Perhaps.  But it
would not be in the interest of a self-conscious network to eliminate or
terrorize its people-ons.  The best way for a intelligent network to
advance is to allow its people-ons the most possible freedom to
contribute to the system.  I see this objection as a fear of the
unknown.  However, wouldn't it be better to be a part of something
great?

Well, I've said enough.  Let's hear what you all think.-Jerry McNerney



----------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!info!hall9040
From: hall9040@mach1.wlu.ca (Paul Hallman u)
Subject: Re: Internet and Consciousness - a Synthesis
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
References: <3i5dbe$26e@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: 
Nntp-Posting-Host: mach1.wlu.ca
Sender: news@info.uucp (news management)
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 19:50:38 GMT
Lines: 31

Gerald McNerney (mcnerney@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: are analogous to neurons.  Not exactly.  The computers and electronics
: are more like the axons and dendrites or even synapses.  Admittedly,
: these are parts of the neurons, but the cell bodies, which include the
: cell nucleus and DNA are the real forces behind the activity.  Likewise,
: the people are the real forces behind internet activity.  It's people's
: ideas that give life to the system.  The vast quantities of information,
: just add richness to the equation.
:
: At this level, the analogy breaks down.  The neuron system in a human

Does It?  I am very new to this newsgroup, but it seems you might be
gently touching on a Universal Consciousness analogy---the Universal
Consiousness is the sum result of the acivity of all people, and the
pathways or communication of information between all people occurs on a
paranormal level.  Now I understand that the concept of Universal
Conciousness is abstract and cannot be said to exsist or not at this
time, but the analogy holds.  All the people who are the forces behind
internet activity communicating along electronic "dendrites" could very
well be a physical and tangible embodiment of Universal Consiousness
concepts.

: Another reason I believe that the internet is capable of attaining
: consciousness is because of the geist.  I am an Hegelian in the sense
: that I believe that there is far more spirit at work in the world than
: that of individual humans.  Each grouping of people, be it a family, a
: nation, or the human race as a whole has it's collective spirit.  The
: internet is simple an enhancement of this spirit.  It may be the first
: opportunity for the spirit of the human race to become self-actualized.

Yes--I believe this is what I am talking about.


----------------------------

Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!lionel.inhouse.compuserve.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.rain.org!picard.sbcc.cc.ca.us!r1post
From: r1post@picard.sbcc.cc.ca.us (Arnold    Post)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Internet and Consciousness - a Synthesis
Date: 18 Feb 1995 21:11:29 GMT
Organization: Santa Barbara City College
Lines: 2
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3i5nq1$d5t@news.rain.org>
References: <3i5dbe$26e@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: r1post@picard.sbcc.cc.ca.us (Arnold    Post)
NNTP-Posting-Host: picard.sbcc.cc.ca.us
X-Newsreader: dxrn 6.18-16


From what I have read on the internet I think it is still pretty unconscious:)


----------------------------

Path: news.production.compuserve.com!news.production.compuserve.com!news.inhouse.compuserve.com!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!crl6.crl.com!not-for-mail
From: dbennett@crl.com (Andrea Chen)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,alt.cyberspace
Subject: Re: Internet and Consciousness - a Synthesis
Date: 19 Feb 1995 13:49:25 -0800
Organization: CRL Dialup Internet Access
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <3i8ed5$j2k@crl6.crl.com>
References: <3i5dbe$26e@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl6.crl.com
Xref: news.production.compuserve.com alt.consciousness:5737 alt.cyberspace:3537

mcnerney@ix.netcom.com (Gerald McNerney) writes:


>At this level, the analogy breaks down.  The neuron system in a human
>brain comprise a vastly more complex network than the internet.
>However, each neuron is capable of only a limited number of responses.
>In the human/internet system, there are a smaller number of humans, but
>each human is comprised of billions of neurons and is therefore capable
>of a very wide range of responses.  Therefore, this system does have a
>depth that even the brain can not match.  It is basically a hierarchical
>system.

I must strongly disagree with the last statement.  It is a "heteroarchial"
system (a mathematical network as opposed to a tree).  Organizationally
the rules of hierarchy indicate a rigid information flow and control
structure. In a heteroarchy subset a can be a member of both superset
x and y. In addition a can "contain" b which ends up containing x and
y.  As in our telephone system (or I-net) there also tend to be multiple
paths for messages. A heteroarchy can be modeled as multiple hierarchies
and most "real world" communication structures have elements of this
(the formal table of organization augmented by the "grapevine" is an
example). Another feature of social linkings and brains (apparently)
is that links can be cut and new links instigated leading to a dynamic
structure of organization (Xerox Parc was at one time (at least a
decade ago) exploring a concept of software organization called
"structureless programming" (in my opionion a poor choice of words)
which attempted to incorporate such features).

In terms of "social consciousness" (of which I-net consciousness is
a subset which also has the capacity to alter the superset by
developing new styles and links which feed into other mediums),
the academic insistence on perceiving "hierarchy" as somehow the
ultimate and most powerful system is a bit puzzling.  Godel and
others ripped apart Russels model (Mathematica Principia), the
more complex form has been a part of "cybernetics" (and its
descendants) for nearly half a century and yet we still hold
to a model of the universe similar to the "chain of being" which
dominated the middle ages.  Philosophically,  the heteroarchy
takes us to an ontology similar to William James "pluralism".

          - ac -