Log in

View Full Version : Collective intelligence



Dr Mindbender
14th July 2008, 21:45
thought this was an important theory to bring up which validates the argument for (socialist) technocracy.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/93/931115Arc3062.html


11/15/93
CONTACT: Stanford University News Service (415) 723-2558 Collective intelligence: Ants and brain's neurons


STANFORD - An individual ant is not very bright, but ants in a colony, operating as a collective, do remarkable things.
A single neuron in the human brain can respond only to what the neurons connected to it are doing, but all of them together can be Immanuel Kant.
That resemblance is why Deborah M. Gordon, Stanford University assistant professor of biological sciences, studies ants.
"I'm interested in the kind of system where simple units together do behave in complicated ways," she said.
No one gives orders in an ant colony, yet each ant decides what to do next.
For instance, an ant may have several job descriptions. When the colony discovers a new source of food, an ant doing housekeeping duty may suddenly become a forager. Or if the colony's territory size expands or contracts, patroller ants change the shape of their reconnaissance pattern to conform to the new realities. Since no one is in charge of an ant colony - including the misnamed "queen," which is simply a breeder - how does each ant decide what to do?
This kind of undirected behavior is not unique to ants, Gordon said. How do birds flying in a flock know when to make a collective right turn? All anchovies and other schooling fish seem to turn in unison, yet no one fish is the leader.
Gordon studies harvester ants in Arizona and, both in the field and in her lab, the so-called Argentine ants that are ubiquitous to coastal California.
Argentine ants came to Louisiana in a sugar shipment in 1908. They were driven out of the Gulf states by the fire ant and invaded California, where they have displaced most of the native ant species. One of the things Gordon is studying is how they did so. No one has ever seen an ant war involving the Argentine species and the native species, so it's not clear whether they are quietly aggressive or just find ways of taking over food resources and territory.
The Argentine ants in her lab also are being studied to help her understand how they change behavior as the size of the space they are exploring varies.
"The ants are good at finding new places to live in and good at finding food," Gordon said. "We're interested in finding out how they do it."
Her ants are confined by Plexiglas walls and a nasty glue-like substance along the tops of the boards that keeps the ants inside. She moves the walls in and out to change the arena and videotapes the ants' movements. A computer tracks each ant from its image on the tape and reads its position so she has a diagram of the ants' activities.
The motions of the ants confirm the existence of a collective.
"A colony is analogous to a brain where there are lots of neurons, each of which can only do something very simple, but together the whole brain can think. None of the neurons can think ant, but the brain can think ant, though nothing in the brain told that neuron to think ant."
For instance, ants scout for food in a precise pattern. What happens when that pattern no longer fits the circumstances, such as when Gordon moves the walls?
"Ants communicate by chemicals," she said. "That's how they mostly perceive the world; they don't see very well. They use their antennae to smell. So to smell something, they have to get very close to it.
"The best possible way for ants to find everything - if you think of the colony as an individual that is trying to do this - is to have an ant everywhere all the time, because if it doesn't happen close to an ant, they're not going to know about it. Of course, there are not enough ants in the colony to do that, so somehow the ants have to move around in a pattern that allows them to cover space efficiently."
Keeping in mind that no one is in charge of a colony and that there is no central plan, how do the ants adjust their reconnaissance if their territory expands or shrinks?
"No ant told them, 'OK, guys, if the arena is 20 by 20. . . .' Somehow there has to be some rule that individual ants use in deciding to change the shape of their paths so they cover the areas effectively. I think that that rule is the rate in which they bump into each other."
The more crowded they are, the more often each ant will bump into another ant. If the area of their territory is expanded, the frequency of contact decreases. Perhaps, Gordon thinks, each ant has a threshold for normality and adjusts its path shape depending on how often the number of encounters exceeds or falls short of that threshold.
If the territory shrinks, the number of contacts increases and the ant alters its search pattern. If it expands, contact decreases and it alters the pattern a different way.
In the Arizona harvester ants, Gordon studies tasks besides patrolling. Each ant has a job.
"I divide the tasks into four: foraging, nest maintenance, midden [piling refuse, including husks of seeds] and patrolling - patrollers are the ones that come out first in the morning and look for food. The foragers go where the patrollers find food.
"The colony has about eight different foraging paths. Every day it uses several of them. The patrollers go out first on the trails and they attract each other when they find food. By the end of an hour's patrolling, most patrollers are on just a few trails. . . . All the foragers have to do is go where there are the most patrollers."
Each ant has its prescribed task, but the ants can switch tasks if the collective needs it. An ant on housekeeping duty will decide to forage. No one told it to do so and Gordon and other entomologists don't know how that happens.
"No ant can possibly know how much food everybody is collecting, how many foragers are needed," she said. "An ant has to have very simple rules that tell it, 'OK, switch and start foraging.' But an ant can't assess globally how much food the colony needs.
"I've done perturbation experiments in which I marked ants according to what task they're doing on a given day. The ants that were foraging for food were green, those that were cleaning the nest were blue and so on. Then I created some new situation in the environment; for example, I create a mess that the nest maintenance workers have to clean up or I'll put out extra food that attracts more foragers.
"It turns out that ants that were marked doing a certain task one day switch to do a different task when conditions change."
Of about 8,000 species of ants, only about 10 percent have been studied thus far. "It's hard to generalize anything about the behavior of ants," Gordon said. "Most of what we know about ants is true of a very, very small number of species compared to the number of species out there."



Now imagine the same theory applied to the human species.

ÑóẊîöʼn
14th July 2008, 21:55
Now imagine the same theory applied to the human species.

I advocate taking it further than that - rather than having a monospecies civilisation that pools its collective intelligence, I am of the opinion that a multiple sapient species civilisation modelled on a symbiotic cooperative ecosystem can achieve even greater things.

Biological life has been around for billions of years and occupies millions of niches - why not seek to emulate this superlatively successful strategy for civilisation?

Dr Mindbender
14th July 2008, 22:00
I advocate taking it further than that - rather than having a monospecies civilisation that pools its collective intelligence, I am of the opinion that a multiple sapient species civilisation modelled on a symbiotic cooperative ecosystem can achieve even greater things.

Biological life has been around for billions of years and occupies millions of niches - why not seek to emulate this superlatively successful strategy for civilisation?
'multiple sapience' is a new concept to me, can you explain it further? I am intrigued.

:confused:

ÑóẊîöʼn
14th July 2008, 22:27
'multiple sapience' is a new concept to me, can you explain it further? I am intrigued.

:confused:

Genetic engineering, Artificial Intelligence, biological uplifting and other emerging or hypothesised technologies could lead to the rise non-human sapient species. In such a scenario, maintaining a diverse but cohesive society could be achieved could be achieved by modelling it on Earthly biological life - basic sapient beings like you and me would be the "micro-organisms", with larger and more intelligent beings representing the higher animals - "plants" would be intelligent infrastructure, while "animals" would be powerful AI of some kind or another.

The thing to remember is that in such a civilisation, as in Earthly biology, the micro-organisms/basic sapients are just as important if not more so than the higher animals, and that most interactions between organisms are neutral or symbiotic rather than parasitical or aggressive.

Despite this huge potential for variety, there would still be some sort of cohesion. As Earthly life shares a common chemical basis, so would such a civilisation share a common culture, ethical system, set of customs and/or creed.

I must confess I have yet to fully formulate this idea, but it seems a promising way of dealing with the emergence of non-human intelligences in a non-antagonistic way that is beneficial to all parties.

ckaihatsu
12th August 2008, 23:27
Genetic engineering, Artificial Intelligence, biological uplifting and other emerging or hypothesised technologies could lead to the rise non-human sapient species.


Yeah, all of this begs the question of what 'nature' or 'natural' is. Are human beings natural? If so, then it's natural for us to re-shape the world, as is obviously in our ability to do so.

So then how should the world be re-shaped? The capitalist mode of production, by bringing masses of workers together in a single workplace, has done much already, but it is also about 150 years past its usefulness -- hence the world wars and continuing exploitation for ever-more needless finance capital.

Should dolphins be left to play in the ocean? Are gorillas best left to the trees? Should microchips continually be churned out only to be placed in isolated boxes and often left unrunning?



In such a scenario, maintaining a diverse but cohesive society could be achieved could be achieved by modelling it on Earthly biological life - basic sapient beings like you and me would be the "micro-organisms", with larger and more intelligent beings representing the higher animals - "plants" would be intelligent infrastructure, while "animals" would be powerful AI of some kind or another.


This is a computer neural net modeling scenario -- certainly we could simulate all of these artificial agents in a powerful-enough computer system, but what's always the point is: What's the point? We could always *not* do it, so why bother?



The thing to remember is that in such a civilisation, as in Earthly biology, the micro-organisms/basic sapients are just as important if not more so than the higher animals, and that most interactions between organisms are neutral or symbiotic rather than parasitical or aggressive.

Despite this huge potential for variety, there would still be some sort of cohesion. As Earthly life shares a common chemical basis, so would such a civilisation share a common culture, ethical system, set of customs and/or creed.

I must confess I have yet to fully formulate this idea, but it seems a promising way of dealing with the emergence of non-human intelligences in a non-antagonistic way that is beneficial to all parties.


I'd like to go off on a tangent here and suggest that our civilization, as it is, isn't really as connected as it could be. If I may break my own rule for a moment and sidestep the question of purpose, I'd like to point out that while I'm not suggesting forced labor for all sentient species, I am suggesting that we may begin to think of improving lines of inter-species communication. Perhaps one of the first goals would be to impress upon non-human species the reality of the existence of the entire globe. Could we spread "global consciousness" to more animals and have some way for humanity and animality to co-operate with that kind of scale in mind?


Chris





--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

ÑóẊîöʼn
13th August 2008, 18:23
Yeah, all of this begs the question of what 'nature' or 'natural' is.How so? A sapient being is a sapient being regardless of nominal origin, and thus deserving of certain rights.


Are human beings natural? If so, then it's natural for us to re-shape the world, as is obviously in our ability to do so. I don't know where you're going with this. The facts, that human beings are products of nature and reshape the world to their own purposes, are indisputable, and have enabled us to vastly increase our population and inhabit every continent on the planet.


So then how should the world be re-shaped? The capitalist mode of production, by bringing masses of workers together in a single workplace, has done much already, but it is also about 150 years past its usefulness -- hence the world wars and continuing exploitation for ever-more needless finance capital.

Should dolphins be left to play in the ocean? Are gorillas best left to the trees? Should microchips continually be churned out only to be placed in isolated boxes and often left unrunning?Answering the first two questions is part of what biological uplifting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Uplift) is about. The second question is a no, as it represents needless waste of energy, resources, and labour power.


This is a computer neural net modeling scenario -- certainly we could simulate all of these artificial agents in a powerful-enough computer system, but what's always the point is: What's the point? We could always *not* do it, so why bother?Because to do so would be to seek to emulate the most successful complex self-interacting and self-referencing system known to humanity - earthly life.

If we can create a form of society as remotely successful as biological life, then the future of sapience (if not humanity) can be measured in billions of years.


I'd like to go off on a tangent here and suggest that our civilization, as it is, isn't really as connected as it could be.That much is obvious, and is part of the reasoning behind my suggested model of society.


If I may break my own rule for a moment and sidestep the question of purpose, I'd like to point out that while I'm not suggesting forced labor for all sentient species, I am suggesting that we may begin to think of improving lines of inter-species communication.That is another justification for biological uplifting - inter-species communication would be greatly improved by the addition of intelligence to those lacking.


Perhaps one of the first goals would be to impress upon non-human species the reality of the existence of the entire globe. Could we spread "global consciousness" to more animals and have some way for humanity and animality to co-operate with that kind of scale in mind?That's the whole point behind uplifting - the creation of new sapient species through the enhancement of the intelligence of pre-existing species. See my biological uplifting (http://www.revleft.com/vb/biological-uplifting-t79831/index.html) thread in the Human Progress Group for more details, and also where I think I explained my idea in a much more clear manner:


The point is to create offshoots of the human species that fill niches that humans would find difficult if not impossible, with the long-term goal of preserving sapience through diversification - notice that while 99% of Earth's species are extinct, life itself is doing fantastic, with a truly enormous variety of species living in the widest variety of environments that the Earth has to offer.

I think that humans and transhumans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhuman), and by extension their sapient creations such as uplifts, Artificial Intelligences and so on, should seek to emulate this successful model that Nature puts forth, and also to expand upon it - to create intelligence where once there was none, to flourish beyond the traditional confines of natural life on this planet and beyond.

In short, I want sapient intelligence to be as ubiquitous throughout the universe as biological life is on the surface of the Earth. Uplifting is but one of the potential methods for achieving this.

Nature also has another lesson to teach us about diversity. Diversity is the end product of evolution, and the diversity of potential Transhumanity (which will include uplifts, AIs, etc among it's numbers as well as enhanced humans/posthumans) is the end product of intelligently directed evolution. Natural history, as well as human history, has taught us again and again that stagnation = death and extinction.

Biological uplifting, by creating a new sapient species to "carry the torch" of civilisation alongside humanity, as well as being the recievers of human genetic, cultural and intellectual heritage to which they will add their own, will help to ensure that sapience lasts in an indifferent universe.