The Edge.org question for 2010 is How is the Internet Changing the Way We Think? The site has lots of interesting answers including quite a bit doom and gloom about how we’re distracting ourselves to death, penned by smart people like Clay Shirky, Danny Hillis, and Dan Dennett. But I was particularly intrigued by a couple passages from the response of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.
Like many of the other respondents, Dawkins has observed a dumbing down of the individual as a result of the lower quality of media we’re exposed to, and the information firehouse that seems to be preventing us from focusing too hard or too long on anything that requires deep thought. But at the same time, Dawkins (and other respondents) see room for optimism. As Dawkins put it:
But I want to leave negativity and nay saying and end with some speculative — perhaps more positive — observations. The unplanned worldwide unification that the Web is achieving (a science-fiction enthusiast might discern the embryonic stirrings of a new life form) mirrors the evolution of the nervous system in multicellular animals. …
I am reminded of an insight that comes from Fred Hoyle’s science fiction novel, The Black Cloud. The cloud is a superhuman interstellar traveller, whose ‘nervous system’ consists of units that communicate with each other by radio — orders of magnitude faster than our puttering nerve impulses.
But in what sense is the cloud to be seen as a single individual rather than a society? The answer is that interconnectedness that is sufficiently fast blurs the distinction. A human society would effectively become one individual if we could read each other’s thoughts through direct, high speed, brain-to-brain radio transmission. Something like that may eventually meld the various units that constitute the Internet.
I agree with Dawkins and many of the other experts who give their opinion to the Edge.org question. The jury is still out on just how the Internet is impacting the thinking of individuals. It gives us the opportunity to be aware of so much more than has ever been possible. But whether this will translate into knowledge individuals can employ to lead better lives isn’t yet certain.
What is indisputable is that the Internet is affording opportunities for collective intelligence, and coordinated action on a scale that has never before been possible. But is less certain is whether we will find ways to effectively nurture and harness this collective energy. That seems to be what Web 2.0 is all about. At the moment, we appear to be going through the equivalent of a Cambrian Explosion of projects & startups trying to capitalize on web-enabled collaborative systems. There are literally hundreds of big and small apps trying to leverage Twitter alone.
As Jeff Stibel (@Stibel) suggests in his new book Wired for Thought (which I highly recommend), we are likely to soon see a period of mass extinction of social media startups as the novelty of this new form of collaboration and communication wears off. Such a die off will resemble the massive pruning of connections that occurs in the human brain to eliminate redundant and unhelpful connections during childhood. The human brain’s synaptic down selection during maturation is astonishing and quite draconian, going from about 10 quadrillion connections in a three year-old to a mere 100 trillion by adulthood, which means than only 1 in 100 synapses survive (source: Edelman’s book Neural Darwinism).
Hopefully the fittest & most useful (as opposed to the most amusing) will survive, and the result will be a set of sites and services that will facilitate true collective intelligence and collaborative action to move humanity forward, pulling we overstimulated and distracted individuals along with it.

4 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 10, 2010 at 12:08 am
Dan Stocker
I wonder if Dawkins’ statement is only applicable to systems resembling a neural network. The Global Consciousness Project for instance satisfies the “speed of interconnectedness” condition: coherence in the noosphere instantaneously shows up as coherence in the thermal noise of Random Event Generators scattered all over the world. In a sense we read each other’s thoughts and translate the similarity of our thoughts and emotions into quantum level phenomena.
What sort of experiment should we conduct with what results to justify that the GCP is a conscious autonomous entity?
January 31, 2010 at 6:44 am
Maurice H Rich
Just a comment/query on the paragraph -
“Like many of the other respondents, Dawkins has observed a dumbing down of the individual as a result of the lower quality of media we’re exposed to, and the information firehouse that seems to be preventing us from focusing too hard or too long on anything that requires deep thought.”
I’m guessing that this is a bit of a generalisation which could possibly be true but is certainly debatable.
I’ve noted on various forums that contentious items under debate or discussion seem to leverage quite intelligent research & discussions among growing groups of individuals. I agree that there seems to be this lacklustre utilisation of Google to research much but among these groups, they seem to be aware that all that is on the Net & indeed Google is subject to questioning & verification before it can be utilised with any authority & confidence in the media/info & its quality.
Likewise these groups tend to carefully follow multiple discussion threads & chains of thought quite coherently & with quite intelligent thought & consideration.
Mind you many of us are indeed aware that Dawkins the Biologist has some strong agendas beyond his Biology expertise.
January 31, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Dean Pomerleau
Dan,
I’ve read about the Global Consciousness Project. Fascinating stuff, but I’m not sure I buy it. Even if the cognitive or emotional state of people around the would could some how influence tiny, apparently random events, I’m not convinced this would necessarily be an indication of global consciousness. It might just be an epiphenomena of mass, uncoordinated and independent activity.
Consider the following analogy.
Some people claim that on Superbowl Sunday, the act of everyone flushing the toilet simultaneously at halftime wreaks havoc on the US water and sewage system. This appears to be an urban legend, but even if it were true, what would it show? Not that we are influencing each other, or telegraphing information through our toiletry behavior. Instead it would simply show some other factor (in this case, a compelling Superbowl game keeping us glued to our seats until halftime) was influencing everyone to behave in the same way.
You don’t need to look to random event generators to see evidence of global influence, or global coordination of thought. Look at the outpouring of support for the tragedy in Haiti, and on the negative side, look at the mounting evidence that human activity is warming the planet.
The internet and globalization generally are making it so that events in one part of the world can have big and nearly instantaneous influence across the entire globe.
But the questions remains whether the infrastructure that enables global influence can be harnessed to beneficial ends, or will it remain at best a mere curiosity, and at worst a massive drain on our planet’s resources.
–Dean
January 8, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Antonin Tuynman
Topic: proposed TweetAnalyser
Hi Dean,
Very interesting site you have, partly overlapping and mostly going beyond my own insights. As regards global brains such as the web (or beehive) functioning as an individual in the future, what I believe will always be missing is a steering conscious mechanism. It may behave as a conscious entity but it will rather function like the subconscious processes of the brain.
I disagree with most AI adepts that consciousness will emerge from a brain like structure. But i do believe it is useful to program structures that mimic consciousness to get concerted, timed and “willed” actions. What is needed is a program that can abstract rules and patterns from popular tweets. A TweetAnalyser so to say that yields emergent patterns.