> I have been following the "Super-Brain" discussion and have begun
> to wonder about the control hierarchy that is implied. That is,
> as the Super-Brain forms, it will form values and goals, of its
> own. (note: "values" here refers to the definition of values previously
> discussed) For simplicity, I refer to the set of values, judgements based
> on these values, and goal directed behavior as "Will".
The super brain is but part of a super organism. At least this is the concept
in the metaman book. That this is not a trivial distinction is where
my own work has something to suggest.
> There seems to be a consensus that as next level of the control
> hierarchy, or the metasystem Super-Brain, will develop a Will
> that cannot be controlled, understood, or effectively influenced
> by lower levels (ie. Users in the Internet). The discussion so far
> has shown this to be a likely case. Good examples of
> this strict hierarchy come to mind immediately. The individual
> cells in your body, for example, cannot influence (to any measurable
> degree) you Will even though they make up a great deal of your
> overall system.
We have been working with the postulate that the nervous system is a
specialized version of the more general chemical communication between cells.
The synapse localizes the chemical step and the system relys on the all-
or-none axon signal for long distance communication. Perelson and
coworkers have already gone far with Jerne's ideas about the immune
system as a cognative network. We are doing the same withthe
endocrine, paracrine and autocrine aspects of chemical communication
between cells. The problem with your discussion of "Will" as I see it
is that you start with a more general idea applicable to these other
cases in some part at least, but then you quicky equate it with our
notion of our own will, which muddies things in my mind(no pun intended).
Possibly the human will is a special case?
>
> 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?
I suspect that if our awareness and will are but special cases of a much
more general phenomenon, so is our notion of Metasystem limited by
focusing on ourselves as THE model.
>
> 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).
The superorganism is more than a super brain. The internet is but a small
part, not the central part. It may be of great importance in spite of this.
Our awareness of what is acually going on may, in fact, be not much better
than the cells in our body relative to the whole body.
>
> If we can control the formation of Will, then the question then
> returns again: Who should decide upon the Metasystem Will? How?
>
We use these same ideas in studying ecological networks with some success.
We humans belive we are in a position to use our wisdom in neffective ways.
I just learned that as a result of cuting phosphate levels in soaps and fertiliz
ers,
we may have endangered Lake Erie. It seems that we really know very
little. It also seems that our repertoire of responses to incoming
signals is far richer than the other systems I mention due to perceived
awareness and understanding. Is our repertoire of EFFECTIVE responses
proportionately greater? I am advocating more humility and caution.
Sometimes we appear to be almost arrogant about our role in all this.
Best wishes, Don Mikulecky