QuickTopic free message boards logo

The document below has a numbered blue "comment dot" () following selected items. Click a blue dot to add your comment regarding that item. A glasses icon () indicates existing comments on an item; click it to see them. Click the buttons above to navigate between views.

You can add a general comment here:
 Add a general commentAdd a general comment
Show comments in-line

SEAFING DIVERSITY Add your comment on this item1

 

            Laurence J. Victor - nuet - 8/25/2008 Add your comment on this item2

            early draft

             

            This doc is related to another QuickDoc:

            SEMS: ONE FEATURE OF COLAB SCAFFOLDING Add your comment on this item3

            http://www.quicktopic.com/42/D/uNqGFwSL9Ee.html

             

             

            DIVERSITY RECONSIDERED. Add your comment on this item4

             

            Variations of traits of individuals in a species population is a fundamental of biological evolution. Diversity is Universal, in complementarity with Oneness or Unity. Add your comment on this item5

             

            Science has grossly poor information about the diversity of humans. We have not yet begun to identify the most relevant variables, let alone map distributions and correlations.  Age, gender, physical measurements, skin color, IQ and results on various standardized tests and profiles, languages spoken, educational achievements, work history, health statistics, economic statistics, family history, social webs, sources of information, notable productions and creations, etc. -- is far from being a adequate list of variables for sufficient distinction in knowing what each person might need for optimal living. We might include a complete DNA mapping and a complete record of moment-to-moment activity from conception on. Knowing what to look for, this data might be processed for useful groupings - but this would be excessive. New variables such as cognitive styles, imagery modes, brain scan data -- and various measures of differences in performance to tasks deemed relevant for recommending the optimal environment for each person. Add your comment on this item6

             

            We may have begun to sequence the human genome, but we really have little knowledge who we (humankind) are in our diversity. We even tend to suppress this diversity by speaking of norms as if they represented the vast majority with differences from norms viewed as (potentially harmful) deviations.  I cringe every time I hear a politician speak of The American People.  Indeed, thinking of averages and norms, instead of distributions (which can be clearly comprehended by most using quality graphics - after some instruction), creates a highly simplistic and distorted constructed world, in the context of which our decisions often cause great difficulty. Much of science, itself, has fallen into this trap. In psychological and sociological research, the standard paradigm views diversity as a variable to be eliminated by experimental design. Add your comment on this item7

             

            I am definitely not proposing a system so intrusive and controlling that each person, as a result of continued surveillance, would be but a cog in a mechanism.  On the other hand, we can admit that our social and cultural systems provide a very poor fit for improving the life of each person. Might it be possible that a little more information about our diversity and a means for social processes to account for that diversity may enable us to create sustainable and peaceful societies. In analogy, as the biological viability and health of our bodies depends on the considerable diversity of cell types so might our diversity as individuals contribute to the creation of viable human societies. Add your comment on this item8

             



--- QuickTopic page break ---

             

            WHO CAN VOTE? Add your comment on this item9

             

            The democratic ideal is not that every living person has equal say (or vote) on all matters. Every society that utilizes input from some of its members, draws a line between those who can participate in governance and those who are excluded. Embryos before birth are not, themselves, consulted; nor are very young children. Indeed, it is necessary to "manipulate" young children to enhance their survival and thrival' children are far from "free". "Criminals" and the "insane" (whatever the criteria) are usually excluded. In different societies at different times, whole classes of persons were excluded from participation in governance - Blacks, Native Americans, and Women in the USA -- and children up to some age in the teens. Add your comment on this item10

             

            I am aware that there are alternative processes for group decisions that don't involve voting. Decision-making by persons is different when deciders know of the impact decisions will make on others, as well as impacting future decisions. Optimum transparency and confidence in one's freedom to express one's views without fear of reprisal is also important. The process of decision making is much more complex than occasionally "batch" voting, especially when the "vote count" can be manipulated. This section is only concerned about who can participate in decisions and how their contributions can be "weighted". Add your comment on this item11

             

            Sometimes the line is drawn between who is considered "human" and who are "less than human" and thus open to exploitation.  There is probably some "psychological" states for in-group and out-group association that supports enforcing the line of discrimination. Add your comment on this item12

             

            This is an issue diligently avoided by even those most active in working for more participatory democracy.  Should there be a uniform age limit for participation, or should developmental maturity and knowledge be used to determine the cut in the diversity distribution for age?  Should humans, while growing up be given social responsibilities commensurate with their competencies (not age).View comments on this item Add your comment on this item13

             

            I once viewed a film of a tribe of nomads who moved their livestock over a high mountain range, and back, for the different seasons.  The film featured the tribal chief's six year old daughter who had responsibility during the trek for the care of her four year old brother and two goats. Add your comment on this item14

             

            There are transitional periods in a person's development where their brains undergo massive reorganization, such as during puberty, when their behavior can be quite chaotic, even temporarily pathological (to adult standards).  So-called "primitive" cultures developed elaborate initiation rituals to assist their young men and women through this important transition.  Developed societies have abandoned assisting youth during this transition. The issue here is whether "rights" might be restricted during periods when a person is incapable of functioning appropriately (of course, the youth will question "what is appropriate"). Add your comment on this item15

             

            Stan Grof   is concerned with a common state of personal transition he calls "Spiritual Emergency"; which often occurs when a person is undergoing a very significant re-organization of their worldviews and values.  Often "psychotic" behavior and ideation accompany these "healthy" transitions. Grof was concerned that mental health professionals, unfamiliar with this situation, would prescribe medications or treatment that blocked the emergence. Grof organized a Spiritual Emergence Network (SEN) of persons who were aware of this issue and were prepared to consult with traditional mental health professionals should some of their patients give indication of being in a Spiritual Emergency.  I was part of the SEN for awhile; I don't know whether it still exists.  SEN is an example of a seafing network.View comments on this item Add your comment on this item16

             

            Another sticky issue is whether persons should have governance participation rights on issues they either know nothing about, and/or are incapable of learning enough to make a competent decision, and/or are fixed in their opinion and closed to learning more?  I simply volunteer not to vote for persons or issues I am not sufficiently informed to make a quality choice.  Of course, the issue is WHO should have the ability and right to make these exclusionary decisions. This difficulty is no excuse not to face the issue.  I believe there are systems that will facilitate resolving this issue - but I doubt that they would be comprehended or approved by any contemporary decision-making body.  Yet, they could be an aspect of a new, emergent social system.  This is not to say that developing criteria would be easy. Add your comment on this item17

             

            Who can participate and are there differential rights for members is an issue for every stage of societal emergence, not just at the final stage. Add your comment on this item18

             

            Related to the above issue is the great diversity of cognitive competencies to comprehend complex issues.  As problematic as the IQ measure is, persons who score low are quite deficient in many critical competencies.  In one of my employments I administered IQ tests to adolescents. It shocked me to discover what persons with "average", 100 IQ COULD NOT DO.  Over half the population have serious handicaps in comprehending complex issues - which include most of the issues facing humankind today. Add your comment on this item19

             

            Persons with low IQ, or having other cognitive defects, can be good and productive (even creative) persons, who can live fulfilling lives.  However, if they could be propagandized and organized to support dominator systems, participatory democracy become fragile.  I am concerned that is the situation today, in 2008.View comments on this item Add your comment on this item20

             

            Beyond the IQ and traditional cognitive style differences, there are the significant models of adult stage development and transitions. See Robert Kegan's Subject/Object model and interview process in his "The Evolving Self" (1982) and the developers of "Spiral Dynamics" (Graves, Beck, Cowan). Adults at the lower stages of development are incapable of making appropriate decisions on certain types of issues. Rough measures of the distribution of stages in the population hints that only a small percent of the human population are, today, at the higher stages of development. New mass media control systems may work to freeze persons in their lower stages, keeping them manipulable by elites. Add your comment on this item21

             

            Many in the human population have been stunted during development by poverty, disease, pollution, abuse, war trauma, etc. Most of these people are probably locked into the lower stage developmental levels, and with other handicaps may find it very difficult acquiring the cognitive competencies to make decisions on complex issues. Add your comment on this item22

             

            There are many who at different periods suffer shocks to their systems are for a period are not competent. Add your comment on this item23

             

            Of course, there are many issues - mostly local - that many people can participate in, and hopefully could comprehend and accept that there are some domains where they are not competent.  In the next section I will address the fact that WE ALL have limitations that should exclude us from participatory decision making in some domains. Add your comment on this item24



--- QuickTopic page break ---

 

 

            WE ARE ALL DEFICIENT. Add your comment on this item25

             

            Consider a list of all human competencies. How many might there be? For each competency consider the range of performance, from total inability to perform, to novice, stages of learning, to levels of mastery.  The Olympics (2008 in China is continuing as I write) highlights a very small set of human competencies in moving the body, and the medal winners' skills are far, far beyond with a beginner could do. Such vast differences from novice to master are found in most competencies. The performance of masters can be greatly improved, from new training techniques to the use of tools. Technology continues to expand the field of human competencies, sometimes opening up a new domain of competencies never before performed, or where the performance level was very limited. Add your comment on this item26

              Add your comment on this item27

            Consider a profile grid of all competencies with their respective levels of performance.  Mark yourself on the grid: for each competency choose a level. My personal profile would show competencies above novice (or unknown, probably low) for a very small percent of the list.  Now ask, if you were to put all effort in learning new competencies and raising your level of performance in others, how much greater would you profile be in, say 40 years?  Mine would be much greater than it is now, but it still would be but a very small part of what was my open potential (given the time and facility). Add your comment on this item28

             

            One more consideration. Check those competencies you believe you could not achieve high levels of performance, no matter how hard you tried.  A person without a visual cortex would have many competencies excluded.  Sometimes substitute competencies may suffice; but the fact is that we are all limited in our lifetime to develop only a very small percent of our potential competencies. Add your comment on this item29

             

            I exclude here far out fantasies of having DNA, brain, or whole body transplants with robotic enhancements including direct brain access to super computers. And this coupled with extreme longevity.  We must accept that for the near future we, individual human beings, are each limited; and not only limited, but actually disabled or handicapped in many ways. Add your comment on this item30

             

            Accepting this reality can be liberating. We cannot be expected to do everything. I don't feel bad because I can't read every book I would like to read, meet every person I would like to meet, visit every place I would like to visit, etc. Add your comment on this item31

 



--- QuickTopic page break ---

 

            HOLISTIC PERFECTION OF INDIVIDUALS IS A FALSE IDEAL. Add your comment on this item32

             

            Our limitations and disabilities do not imply a loss. We are a whole, a weaving of our talents and our disabilities. Like many sculptures, we gain of uniqueness from the balance between what we are and what we are not. Add your comment on this item33

            What does the above imply for those who seek perfection?  What do they mean by "perfection"?  Perfection, implying no room for improvement, would probably be what they would mean.  Many self improvement or self transformation philosophies and practices seem to imply a goal state that is near to perfection - at least there are no higher states available beyond the goal state. Many persons embark on such a quest, often trying a variety of practices, some achieving a state of apparent satisfaction (as observed by others). Add your comment on this item34

             

            In cultures where suffering is endemic, many practices exist to help persons either live with their suffering or teach themselves not to experience suffering, even though their external life situation doesn't change.  Unfortunately, these cultures believe that suffering is necessary, even an important training exercise for an after-life, where there is no suffering.  The virtual elimination of all suffering in biological living is not an option in these cultures. Add your comment on this item35

             

            Speculations on Utopian Living usually calls for citizens to have rather ideal personal traits. They have no severe limitations. They are usually consistent and stable, even predictable (which may work against creativity). They experience emotions but don't permit emotions to dominate their behavior or mind; they care and empathize, they want to help (when needed) and are open to being helped (when needed). They have developed a balance between "self-control" and "flow", they are open minded, rational when applicable, and relate well with others. They oppose unnecessary violence and try not to offend others, when possible. They have developed mindfulness, attend competently to their holistic health, and participate constructively and responsibly in those social systems in which they are members. They can be creative, enjoy play , love children and others, and respect Nature. They are "good people". Add your comment on this item36

             

            Do "good people" exist?  I speculate that many do, with their competency profiles for the above trains between novice and still learning; few are masters for any competency.  I consider myself one of this emergent population -- although I expect that some "good people" have existed throughout human history.  The sad fact is that most people are lacking in some of these traits; they may be "good people" only part of the time. Some would claim to approve of this ideal, but admit that they are far from achieving it.  Unfortunately, a sizable number of humans may disagree with these traits. Add your comment on this item37

             

            As Philip Zimbardo demonstrates in his recent book: "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil", our predispositions (such as the list of traits for "good people") are only one factor in "who we are" at any moment.  Our social situations may severely warp manifest behavior far from the idealized predisposition. Zimbardo emphasizes that our social systems reinforce the social situations, often trapping persons in behaviors far from what their predispositions would suggest. Add your comment on this item38

             

            My experience (and I expect it is your experience also) is that "good people" often have great difficulty getting along - being "good people" with respect to each other. This is mostly the case when the (Zimbardo) situation is one of disagreement or conflict, when they often cease being "good people" for awhile. Many worthy causes attract "good people", who because of their unrecognized individual differences don't really comprehend each other which leads to a mix of two consequences: Add your comment on this item39

 

                              1) In trying to avoid conflict, the "good people" maintain their good behavior but must avoid most relevant issues to avoid conflict. Little gets done. Add your comment on this item40

             

                              2) Factions develop, each committed to their ideology, and the situation decays into conflict. Little gets done. Add your comment on this item41

             

            The situation gets more and more impossible as the numbers of persons grows, along with an increase of different competency profiles and different ideologies. Differences within a common ideology can often be resolved. Differences between ideologies cannot be resolved without third party intervention, which is often not successful. Add your comment on this item42

             

            Thus, throughout human history the "good people" have been unable to self-organize to take appropriate action against repressors (who discover "good people" can often be manipulated and exploited). Even when actions of resistance or revolution are successful (usually incomplete), the "good people" are unable to come to any significant agreement for collective action in creating a viable and sustainable society, and those who are not "good people" soon are able to organize (because they are willing to exploit and deceive, use violence and control to get their way - ignoring collateral damage. Add your comment on this item43

             

            Sometimes, to win, the "good people" must adopt techniques of their opponents - which is corrupting and if they win they will usually slide into a new, but still oppressive regime - turning on many of their supporters in the revolution. Add your comment on this item44



--- QuickTopic page break ---

 

 

            SEAFING NETS COMPENSATE INDIVIDUAL LIMITATIONS. Add your comment on this item45

             

            Might it be that the primary reason humankind is in our current Crisis of Crises, is that "good people" are far from as "good" they think they are. Not only do they lose their "goodness" when the situation get rough, their superior arrogance (of being "good") masks the essential improvement they, themselves, must make. They may talk about openness, cooperation, empathy -- about their willingness to learn and develop -- and most believe what they say. They are unaware of their many limitations and disabilities - as well as many competencies they could yet develop. But, the Ideology of Individualism  (personal freedom from all constraints), and the Self-Made-Person (who really doesn't need help) ideal,  today common among "good people",  keeps them from learning-to-learn how to collaborate, learn, organize at competencies far beyond what they conventionally practice (and usually view as the "best").  They often reject practices employed by their oppressors because of "guilt by association". Add your comment on this item46

             

            Rulers of the World, Champions of the New World Order: Global Corporatism with Faux Democracy (Friendly Fascism) achieved their "state" by learning how to coordinate in space and time the actions of millions of persons, mostly without the use of brute force (although subtle fear and the potential of violence is usually present for the "have-nots" in the society).  Brute force rarely leads to quality performance, just as torture seldom lead to truth telling.  Early humans had creative visions, some which required many thousands of slaves to labor, suffer, and die to enable the construction of the envisioned masterpiece. In this process some humans learned how to manage labor, acquire resources, provide security, and provide the material needs of the population involved in such massive projects. Competent "good people" found it easy to side with the rulers, be enabled to exercise their talents, and partake of the "good live" of the "haves" -- and to avoid being one of the "have-nots".  The dominators have had millennia to improve upon the tools of civilization, which has accelerated greatly with advancing technology.  Such systems of production would need to expand their territory and population of laborers - and it was often easier to acquire resources by pillage. So war become the standard game.  The current version is a humdinger. That dominator systems eventually collapse doesn't imply that they are not successful in their intentions in the early stages. Add your comment on this item47

             

            The top-down, attempted control, system has its own version of seafing. When a corporate project runs into difficulty they have the finances to seek help, which often is in the form of seafing.  The accelerating expansion of technology may, in part, be due to an informal seafing network in the technological domains. Add your comment on this item48

             

            Is there an alternative? Must we go though another cycle of war and destruction, especially as this may be end of the era of civilization. Contemporary chaos prohibits reliable forecasts - other than the sense that the changes will be REALLY BIG.  But, not necessarily negative - although that is the most popular speculation. Add your comment on this item49

             

            Is there a way to coordinate the actions of millions of people - without violating the tenets of "good people" - to collectively perform the essentials for human survival/thrival -- including healing the biosphere, uplifting everyone from poverty (of both body and mind), eliminating mass violence, furthering friendly relationships and all the other ideas we "good people" may think of?  Note, this is not asking whether persons can approve the tenets of "good people",  but whether when people do share such tenets they will be able to organize for the coordination of actions sufficient to make a global population viable and sustainable. We don't want to do all that the Global Corporatist System does, but to depend on isolated, self-sufficient communities will not suffice and many local issues contribute to global problems, so global coordination is not really an option.  There were no golden days we can dream to return to. Add your comment on this item50

             

            Remember that we all have great potential to develop talents, while at the same time being limited and disabled. We cannot achieve anything of merit collectively with only a minimum of mutual aide. Add your comment on this item51

             

            "Mutual Aide" was the counterpoint to Darwin's "Species Competition" by Peter Kropotkin (outlined in a book of that name in 1902) and remains a theme in evolutionary biology, although deliberately censored by business in defense of "Social Darwinism".   Most people are unaware that the application of mutual aide concepts to social evolution was called "Anarchism" - a term viscously destroyed by capitalists by branding anarchism as terrorism; anarchism was far more feared by capitalists than communism. Anarchism proposed social organization without rulers, but not with chaos – with the order of life (a “new” perspective in the “join evolution” or “deep ecology” movements).   Add your comment on this item52

             

            Mutual Aide was the key trait of early humans (and many other animals) that secured the survival of the tribe. Individuals would likely die if the cohesion of the tribe was destroyed.  Tribes were small enough that most persons knew when others were in need, and would provide the aide.  Humans still offer mutual aide for those whom they know and value; but it is often actively avoided avoided when populations increase. Yet, we witness the flood of individual contributions to victims of natural disasters - the sense of mutual aide continues.  Are there ways to spread mutual aide to everyone in need ?  And more, can humans help each other to bootstrap the uplift of everyone out of poverty, ignorance, and danger?  I propose that there is: seafing networks. Add your comment on this item53

             

            Seafing labels a process of helping a system (person or team) gaining needed competencies and resources, but without literally doing for the system what the system needs to learn to do itself.  The acronym SEAF is composed of four terms (selected from a much larger set of terms) to label this type of assistance or helping: Support, Enable, Augment, Facilitate.  There are subtle distinctions between these four, which I won't go into now.  I prefer to use "seaf" as a normal verb, a new word with a special meaning, and not as an acronym. Add your comment on this item54

             

            There are many examples of seafing practiced today.  Examples: Add your comment on this item55

             

            Are teachers seafers? Are parents seafers? When are bosses seafers? When are medical professionals seafers? When are children seafers? Add your comment on this item56

            Are business consultants seafers? Add your comment on this item57

            What is the contemporary state of seafing in cyberspace? Add your comment on this item58

             

            Although seafers don't do the work for those seafed, they can seaf them in acquiring partners, outsourcing, or delegating tasks. The line between assisting and seafing many not always be sharp.  Some assistance may be needed in the course of an extended seaf. Add your comment on this item59

             

            Seafing is a complex competency, where continuing education is required.  In many ways, seafing is but another of the skill complexes that human can learn. Add your comment on this item60

             

            A mature, well organized Seafing Network could involve human participation or similar magnitude to that of all human participation in pursuing projects of personal interest or socially relevant production. In crude terms, persons may labor as much seafing as ordinary working. But not, half seafers, half workers; but each person giving half-time to working and half-time to seafing. The reality would not be so simple. Add your comment on this item61

             

            Shoshana Zuboff and James Maxmim propose a limited version of seafing in their 2002 book: The Support Economy.  It would take some time for a seafing network to penetrate existing societies and cultures. Some difficulty will come from the Ideology of Individualism; some from a fear of engaging with others they know little about. Many will fear becoming controlled by their seaf team. And, competency in seafing and of the seafing network, at the beginning, will not be as adequate as we would like. I wrote a review of The Support Economy, titled The SEAF Society, where I initially proposed the concept of seafing. Add your comment on this item62

             

            Even if humans would have no disabilities they would be limited by being unable to do all that is in their potential to do; and a seafing network would be advantageous. Add your comment on this item63

             

            What may be unique and of high importance for this complex insight, is that we must shift our focus on "meaningful life" from the person to the organic collective of persons.  With an appropriate seafing network, persons far less competent that the ideal, would be far more reesee in their participation. Add your comment on this item64

 



--- QuickTopic page break ---

 

            COLLECTIVE CATALYTIC SYSTEMS Add your comment on this item65

             

            Of very special significance for seafing networks is their potential to accelerate significantly social systems emergence and to greatly enhance their sustained viability. Add your comment on this item66

             

            I started this essay-doc with the intention to introduce the concept of this final section. Although the sections that came before are significant in their own right, and contain some potentially useful insights, they were composed to prepare you, the reader, with context for better comprehending this insight. Add your comment on this item67

             

            Yet, I feel I want to bring closure to this doc and develop the intended content of this section in a separate doc. However, I will attempt a brief summary. Add your comment on this item68

             

            Most people will admit that their lives are not very effective, or reesee. There is always too much to do, and to find more time to create a system for others to help you can become a lifetime project of its own.  Unless you are very wealthy or a CEO in command of an army of workers you must do much yourself where it would be much better to be part of a quality team dedicated to doing what you want to do.  For each project I attempt, my efforts are very inefficient.  There are many new tools and techniques I could learn, but this also takes time, no efficient process exists to optimize learning, it would be better to learn with others when we plan to collaborate in using the new tools and techniques. Add your comment on this item69

             

            I might dream of having a personal seafing team.  For "exchange" in the seafing network, I would devote some of my time and effort working in seafing teams for others, as those in my seafing team will also have seafing teams.  Some seafing teams, meta-teams, seaf seafing teams and seaf all aspects of the whole seafing network.  Persons on my seafing team may change, for different situations or preference of seafers as to which seafing teams they will be part of. A powerful database hold all relevant data about seafers and the needs of those wanting seafed -- called "seafees" (including seafers). Seafing teams will often consult with the seafing network for their seafing tasks they need help with. A seafing team can get to know the person seafed quite well, to the point of often intuiting their needs. Seafing teams have systems to monitor the seafee and processes this data for reesee use by the seafing team. Over time a great amount of semi-automation will be used. "Semi" because human members of seafing teams my be personally involved with other seafing team members and the seafee. Add your comment on this item70

             

            As mentioned above, seafers generally don't perform actions the seafee wants performed. The seafee may be seafed to perform those tasks more reesee. The seafee may be seafed in setting up a PRSOS process to attract partners, volunteers, work/study apprentices, or employees (an exchange of services). Add your comment on this item71

             

            A seafing team, with the approval of the seafee, may seaf the prioritizing of projects and tasks, seaf the provision of some personal training for the seafee, or suggest some complementary or alternative projects the seafee might consider. As seafers, those in seafing teams may learn of other work that the seafee might find it useful to know about. Add your comment on this item72

             

            As seafees are also seafers, they will grow in comprehension and appreciation of the service seafers provide. Add your comment on this item73

             

            How much more reesee would the collective activities of a population of mutual seafers be, not only in their seafing but in their work being seafed? In simple time-on-task, seafing should improve efficiency by half, possibly much more. Gains in reesee activity will result from better priority setting and better planning for tasks. The effects of seafing should be accumulative.  After a period of time, the reesee of the group may be astonishing -- yet the people will not appear moving any faster (with the exception of a few tasks), and may appear more relaxed, having more fun, and more confident. Add your comment on this item74

             

            The analogy for this is the systems involving enzymes in molecular biology.  Most molecular transformations [a set of molecules "A", over time will result in a set of molecules "B"], that occur within our cells do so a widely different speeds. For the set of final needed molecules to be produced only by reactions of the initial molecules usually takes far too long for the process to be useful.  However, when the initial set of molecules contains some other molecules, called enzymes, the reaction may go orders of magnitude faster, yielding the final set of needed molecules and the enzymes, not changed, ready to be part of the next catalytic action. Add your comment on this item75

             

            Stuart Kauffman, scientist and recent author of "Reinventing the Sacred" proposes (pp 51-54  & type in “autocatalytic”) a "theory of the emergence of collectively auto catalytic sets" of molecules that self-organized to become the first viable biological cell. In such an auto catalytic set, every molecule participates both as a catalyst for other reactions in the set, as well as being a participant in a reaction catalyzed by other molecules of the set. Kauffman's theory remains speculative, as a coherent theory for the origins of cellular life. But auto catalytic sets of molecules do exist and we would not be here if not for enzymes seafing thing to happen in the molecular world at speeds so they collectively might meta-organize, or emerge from a collection of reactions to a viable, sustainable biological cell.  One advantage of speed of reaction, is that the product of one reaction may decay or be destroyed before other reactions could occur.  To have ALL TOGETHER all the requisite molecules to permit emergence would require a threshold minimum reaction speed. Catalysis can provide this additional speed. Add your comment on this item76

             

            There is a wide range of differences from molecules self-organizing and emerging as viable biological cells, and human persons self-organizing and emerging as viable global social system.  But, there also are many suggestive similarities in the analogy.  Mutual aide is not new to humankind, and in its distorted form it has enabled human civilization to achieve what it has achieved - which is a great achievement - is spite of the many difficulties. Add your comment on this item77

             

            Seafing is a process well suited to scientific and engineering R&D.  Most R&D could be done online. Some could be supported by the established scientific disciplines (should this be desired); but it could be a venture independent of any establishments.  Seafing, even in its most primitive form, should be an essential thread in our early self-organizing towards STAR and EaseMen. Add your comment on this item78

 



--- QuickTopic page break ---

 

            COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE Add your comment on this item79

             

            There is some similarity between this seafing network proposal and the new movement towards "Collective Intelligence". Add your comment on this item80

             

            I am connected to many of the supporters of this concept. Add your comment on this item81

             

            I view seafing networks as a "simple mechanism" in concept, with great potential:  a procedure for effecting the flow of human interactivity that may (and should) contribute to the emergence of a more reesee "collective intelligence".  The seafing network doesn't depend on any metaphysical or psychic linkages (e.g. re: quantum entanglement) to succeed. The evidence for such linkages is highly suggestive, but weak - and the phenomena (at this time) has little utility. The success of a seafing network and a more general colab scaffolding for the emergence of a NU Humanity, may open the gates and permit these linkages to be more powerful. Add your comment on this item82

             

            However, we need to consider the "environmental impact" of strong telepathy and other "psychic" processes.  They may be suppressed for a reason. Add your comment on this item83

             

            I also have reservations on applying swarming phenomena on relevant human decision activity. It may "summarize" many surface social phenomena, possibly more tapping into some of our evolutionary early mammalian connectivity than a harbinger for the future. The components of a swarm have limited individual intelligence; indeed, higher individual intelligence probably masks swarming. Add your comment on this item84

             

            On the study of group decisions, given as exemplars of "collective intelligence", we may study the impact of mutual aide within the group; whether they have a primitive seafing network. Add your comment on this item85

 

            May it be that the suppression of Mutual Aide, or simply the difficulty of sustaining Mutual Aide in heterogenous populations, defaulted to dominator mode and the impoverisment  of “Collective Intelligence”? Add your comment on this item86