From: J. Maxwell Legg (income@ihug.co.nz)
Date: Sat Sep 05 1998 - 00:26:29 MDT
Hara Ra wrote:
> Bryan Moss wrote:
>
> >In the second example A and B's communication is
> >filtered (or moderated) to become a useful part of
> >the neural net. In the first example the two would
> >have to come to some sort of agreement. In the
> >second example the decision making process happens
> >in the neural net, which is a product of A and B's
> >interaction. With a larger network of people,
> >communication between the two would join a neural
> >net built from the interactions between millions
> >of people and a far more complex decision making
> >process would take place.
> >
>
> I'm a bit cynical here - this sounds like electronic communism to me...
Eh? Russian communism was in the end exposed as a set of seven private
corporations running slaves on the gold standard and headquartered in
Sweden, however your cynicism is noted.
The above sort of data fusion has no central authority. This type of
leveraging of the infosphere is already seen as an inevitable omnisensorial
military command. The military realize by 2025 there can no longer be any
centralized response. What, I say, needs to happen is for the population to
structure their response via a global neural net so that it too will be
absorbed and noticed by the military as the people's conscience thus
neutralizing the military; - not dissipated and pissed up against the wall
as currently happens to our collective electronic voice.
Over time I think such a system can be very quick to react with something
like an instinctive response when something out of the blue occurs but
otherwise the neural nets will stabilize not become a demarchy.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:32 MST