Practices and Processes for boosting CI

When we collaborate using the currently available tools, we are able to share meaning and develop themes, resulting in a record of the interactions which then requires processing in order to extract the valuable data which emerged from the conversation.

Given that our topic is boosting CI, it seems that we could develop a set of process protocols to apply to this stream of valuable resource information. I guess as it stands, we each have our ‘pet’ methodology, which would result in variable results, and not all parties to any given conversation have the time to devote to comparative analysis of the harvest.

Also, the harvested information is a valuable resource as part of an evolving collective ‘meme-stream’ (to coin a phrase) so we want to be able to access and include it in the evolving discourse in a way that becomes ‘standard’ with a view to automation of the process for optimal benefit to the overall process.

So, we need to develop methods of information harvesting and storage that are able to co-evolve with the contributions and constantly improving insights of the collaborators. Ultimately we need to be able to provide this information to the semantic web so it can process and refine it as a collaborative partner to us (which is what it is set to become).

Given this, the information we co-create needs to be rendered into language that the web can use. A process that enables this ‘translation’ is what we can develop as the next logical step on our journey of collective intelligence.

One suggestion is to convert text based transcripts of conversations into mind maps, which can then be adapted into semantacally integrated ontologies. This does represent a lot of work,the details of which we have yet to establish, however the results could very well pave the way to sane sentient AI, so the potential benefits are enormous.

This suggestion from a friend:

Imagine that we as a group are conversing via text chat. At the same time
there is a natural language analyser picking out key concepts (or we
can do this manually).

Note: all previous conversations have already been harvested and from
this an ontology has been distilled. Thus when the analyser picks out a
concept there is a window showing the network of ideas surrounding that
concept – where it fits within the élan universe of discourse and what
relations it has with other concepts. Woven into this semantic scaffold
are comments, observations, links and all manner of data that may be
associated with each concept.

This is an example of real-time mapping of the memesphere of a
conversation space. The map can be interacted with, edited, and
augmented with meta-data as part of the conversation. It provides an
interface into the collective knowledge space.

This entry was posted in CI & Communities of Practice, Methodologies associated with CI and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Practices and Processes for boosting CI

  1. Anna Betz says:

    Anna Betz
    this would be truly amazing!
    Glistening Deepwater 
    its what we are currently evolving in our quest to provide a platform for evolutionary collective intelligence sister, exciting stuff!
    Flemming Funch 
    Hm, I’m wondering whether we sort of have it upside down. I mean, the idea that if our conversations and our ideas get captured really well and given a better representation, then we’d have so of collective intelligence.
    One could easily say that because we don’t have (enough) collective intelligence, most of what we say is really scattered and disconnected and incoherent. Having it carefully catalogued doesn’t make it a whole lot better.
    Which brings out my point that CI has more to do with perception and connection than with data per se. It is an analog whole, rather than a really big pile of digital stuff.
    So, if we could have conversations and propose ideas WHILE clearly perceiving everybody else and their ideas, then we might really be getting somewhere.
    Glistening Deepwater 
    would this entail developing a skill base? and if so, how can we define the learning path to the required state of coherence for this flow to emerge?
    Flemming Funch 
    I suspect it requires going beyond the human minds, although I can’t say exactly how. Human minds tend to trade in disjointed abstractions. At least the conscious parts of our minds do, whereas the sub/super conscious parts are plugged into holographic wholeness somehow. And I think for coherence to emerge, we need to slip untouched through the mental minefield first. Which is an odd puzzle to solve while we’re trying to think ourselves into collective intelligence. A zen thing. One can’t quite think oneself there, I suspect.
    the intelligence of the collective involve only human minds or is the web somehow integral to the process? if so how do we connect our skills and abilities with it?
    Glistening Deepwater 
    thanks man, this is a gem of an insight ?
    Anna Betz 
    Interesting viewpoint – if I understood it correctly: sub and superconscious sensing inherent wholeness whereas our human everyday minds trade in disjointed abstractions.
    David Bohm is interesting in the context of thinking oneself into holographic wholeness and understanding physical reality by uniting Science with Metaphysics – accepting a dynamic unity of reality – to describe it from only one substance existing. 
    As everything in Reality is in One single Source, we need to communciate differently and continuously question our underlying assumptions which are not wholistic. We don’t use (don’t yet have) a language which at all times embodies the interconnection of all things with one another. It would need to be a language which humanists as well as religious people could use – i,e it would need to transcend all of them.
    We don’t just need to think ourselves into Collective Intelligence but embody it by using language and metaphors (as simple as possible) which are understood by everyone while making at the same time the inherent Oneness clear without doubt.
    Flemming Funch 
    Bohm provides some key pieces of the puzzle, I think. Implicit/explicit order, the holographic universe, and the dialogue process.
    Our challenge, I think, is to become conversant with the intelligence in the wholeness, to harness it, without spoiling it in the process, by slicing it into too small pieces that we can put labels on. Yes, we need a better language to talk about it. Or another approach. E.g. feeling rather than thinking.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s