> The great difference between this example and the Super-Brain that
> could form is a matter of awareness. I believe that the strict
> separation between system/metasystem begins to break down when the
> lower levels become aware of the metasystem. We are certainly aware
> of the Internet, and the possibilities of a Metasystem of which we
> might one day become a part. Does this awareness enable us to effect
> the final outcome of the Super-Brain, can we mold its Will? And if
> so is it truly a Metasystem?
In the Metaman book, the internet would be but a small component of the
super organism. To make a badly thought out analogy with human
evolution, the internet might be a primitive for of cortical function.
> Awareness and understanding are very different things. Perhaps if
> we understand (now that we are aware) the Metasystem, we will be able
> to control its formation (Notice there is a difference between
> controlling the formation of the Metasystem, and controlling the
> Metasystem once it is in place).
>
> If we can control the formation of Will, then the question then
> returns again: Who should decide upon the Metasystem Will? How?
>
We also apply these concepts to ecosystems, which are even more
complex, with some success. That's a long story, but it helps focus
on our tendency to see human cognition as the only model for such
things. I would speculate that our fuzzy awareness of what is going
on right now is not all that much better than the cellular systems
or ecosystems altered states as a result of changes in the pattern of
signals they are experiencing. Hopefully, our repertoire of responses
are far more rich, but is our repertoire of EFFECTIVE responses also
proportionally richer? (We may have already contolled phosphate
in our soap and fertilizer too much and thereby threatened the
future of Lake Erie, for example!) I am hoping to encourage
both humility and caution, as it seems that we know VERY little.
Best wishes, Don Mikulecky