12 replies to this topic

[A941]

Have read and seen interesting experiments about crowd inteligence, it seems that large enough masses are able to make very good guesses and choose the best decission.
Could we do smoething to make that "crowd inteligence" work for us through different means?

[churchill]

Have read and seen interesting experiments about crowd inteligence, it seems that large enough masses are able to make very good guesses and choose the best decission.
Could we do smoething to make that "crowd inteligence" work for us through different means?

Really? Can you post some of these experiments. Because I tend to believe that the larger the crowd the dumber people get and the less they think.

[Droplet]

A crowd however dumb could be useful in that if groups of people already support this cause, there is a herd for more people to follow already.

[churchill]

A crowd however dumb could be useful in that if groups of people already support this cause, there is a herd for more people to follow already.

I agree that one of the ways that significant life extension will occur is if a significant percentage of the population believes in it. I was specifically talking about when you have a large group of people together, they tend to switch of their brains to conform to the rest of the group.

[niner]

A crowd however dumb could be useful in that if groups of people already support this cause, there is a herd for more people to follow already.

I agree that one of the ways that significant life extension will occur is if a significant percentage of the population believes in it. I was specifically talking about when you have a large group of people together, they tend to switch of their brains to conform to the rest of the group.

I wonder if that mob-stupidity effect is different on the internet? Communicating through text is less emotional, more thoughtful.

Droplet, the trouble with a dumb crowd is that they could just as easily support the wrong thing as the right thing. Maybe more easily. Right now, we have a crowd of 7 billion people who think that aging and death are inevitable and immutable, so it's pointless to try to change it. We could show them that aging is not immutable (e.g. the Baati c60 rat experiment), which might get them to consider that it's not inevitable, and there's a point to trying to fix it.

[Marios Kyriazis]

A basic principle states that large numbers of agents (in this case, people) if left alone, tend to self-organise and form higher structures. This means that this higher structure becomes more intelligent. In our case we can guide the process by injecting the right memes at regular intervals, such as the one mentioned by niner. this will make our message spread and affect others, who will then spread it etc etc

[A941]

Interesting!
I wonder if the internet has become some sort of super-organism with the real people (users) as its neurons (or brain parts/centers) and senses?
Could it be that we already have created some sort of "cybernetic" AI, made of man and machine maybe aware since some time ago?
Could we make a test and see if it is aware and maybe use it to start the singularity much earlier?

If we look at the net it resembles a real brain, we have input (senses, all kinds of em) and output (tons of it), memory storage (even short time and long time), specialized centers where information is processed and so on.

Now, if we take one step back, I mean if we blur our view of the net and dont look at single output like a posting of User X or a photo of User Y, if we look at the mean-line of output of tens of thousands of posts, could it be possible to see what that giant brain is thinking?
According to that "theory" of mine we also should be able to "force" output by simply flooding the net with input like questions etc. and then again see what lies in the middle.

What do you think about that?
Any suggestions to act according to that?

[corb]

I wonder if that mob-stupidity effect is different on the internet? Communicating through text is less emotional, more thoughtful.

I like to think so.
But then I go to a website like 4chan, reddit and facebook and that sentiment gets blown into pieces.

Mob mentality is not about the mass of people per se.
It's about the anonymity the mob gives you. You won't get the same effect in a group of people that know each other. In fact the complete opposite effect will be observed, you'd hardly be able to get two people to agree on anything in a random group of acquainted people.

Could it be that we already have created some sort of "cybernetic" AI, made of man and machine maybe aware since some time ago?

It's aware. And it wants more porn.

Edited by corb, 26 November 2012 - 02:09 AM.

[Droplet]

I wonder if that mob-stupidity effect is different on the internet? Communicating through text is less emotional, more thoughtful.

Droplet, the trouble with a dumb crowd is that they could just as easily support the wrong thing as the right thing. Maybe more easily. Right now, we have a crowd of 7 billion people who think that aging and death are inevitable and immutable, so it's pointless to try to change it. We could show them that aging is not immutable (e.g. the Baati c60 rat experiment), which might get them to consider that it's not inevitable, and there's a point to trying to fix it.

Very true. The whole crowd thing is why I think it would be superb to get a famous person that society perhaps looks up to supporting this cause. The dumb crowd seem to follow celebs very easily. Any brave volunteers want to volunteer to go on some dumb reality TV show like Big Brother and mention they're a life extensionist?

[Marios Kyriazis]

Interesting!
I wonder if the internet has become some sort of super-organism with the real people (users) as its neurons (or brain parts/centers) and senses?
Could it be that we already have created some sort of "cybernetic" AI, made of man and machine maybe aware since some time ago?
Could we make a test and see if it is aware and maybe use it to start the singularity much earlier?

If we look at the net it resembles a real brain, we have input (senses, all kinds of em) and output (tons of it), memory storage (even short time and long time), specialized centers where information is processed and so on.

Now, if we take one step back, I mean if we blur our view of the net and dont look at single output like a posting of User X or a photo of User Y, if we look at the mean-line of output of tens of thousands of posts, could it be possible to see what that giant brain is thinking?
According to that "theory" of mine we also should be able to "force" output by simply flooding the net with input like questions etc. and then again see what lies in the middle.

What do you think about that?
Any suggestions to act according to that?

To force output as you said, it is not enough to flood the net with input. It has to be the right kind of input.

The concepts you discuss here have been described more formally by Prof Francis Heylighen: http://hplusmagazine...g-global-brain/ and by others in our group (the Evolution, Complexity and Cognition group at the University of Brussels), also by the newly formed Global Brain Institute. It is something worth learning more about.

[A941]

Thanks for the link, they think of it more or less the same way i do.

To force output as you said, it is not enough to flood the net with input. It has to be the right kind of input.

Yes right, but i also think that it has to be done in the right order of magnitude.
I think it has to be a "huge" stimulation, but i may be wrong, to find out how large it has to be someone* should conduct experiments.


*Someone who has more experience with neurology.

[Mind]

I wonder if that mob-stupidity effect is different on the internet? Communicating through text is less emotional, more thoughtful.

I like to think so.
But then I go to a website like 4chan, reddit and facebook and that sentiment gets blown into pieces.

Mob mentality is not about the mass of people per se.
It's about the anonymity the mob gives you. You won't get the same effect in a group of people that know each other. In fact the complete opposite effect will be observed, you'd hardly be able to get two people to agree on anything in a random group of acquainted people.

Could it be that we already have created some sort of "cybernetic" AI, made of man and machine maybe aware since some time ago?

It's aware. And it wants more porn.

OMG. I had to vote your post up for humor and accuracy. The people who have something to contribute have found Longecity and other niches to do something positive. The vast majority of the Internet reflects mob mentality and triviality....and I think the traffic numbers objectively support this theme.

[A941]

I dont think it is that bad, maybe we should look at the net with Dr.Freud and see it as composition of Id, Ego and Super-Ego.
Yes, the Id may be mainly occupied with pornography, but the other parts are also very active.