Mike Tintner wrote > No, the collective brain is actually a somewhat distinctive idea.
Just a way of looking at social support networks. Even social philosophers centuries ago had similar ideas--they were lacking our technical understanding and used analogies from biology (organicism) instead. > more like "interdependently functioning" with society As I said it's long known to economists and sociologists. There's even an African proverb pointing at this: "It takes a village to raise a child." System researcher investigate those interdependencies since decades. > Did you watch the talk? No flash here. I just answer on what you're writing. > The evidence of the idea's newness is precisely the discussions of > superAGI's and AGI futures by the groups here We talked about the social dimensions some times. It's not the most important topic around here, but that doesn't mean we're all ignorant. In case you haven't noticed I'm not building an AGI, I'm interested in the stuff around, e.g., tests, implementation strategies etc. by the means of social simulation. > Your last question is also an example of cocooned-AGI thinking? "Which > brains?" The only real AGI brains are those of living systems A for Artificial. Living systems don't qualify for A. My question was about certain attributes of brains (whether natural or artificial). Societies are constrained by their members' capacities. A higher individual capacity can lead to different dependencies and new ways groups and societies are working. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
