Conscience check (on the collective conscious): "Information Technology vs Human Consciousness"

In the midst of thinking about the possible technologies - augmented reality viewing devices, web2.0, mobile sensing, mapping of people's preferences and displaying content that is relevant to individualistic preferences (one of the key concepts behind the Remapping LA project), I receive an e-mail from my architecture project supervisor on the NUS side, Tay Kheng Soon. It's a sobering thought, and on re-reading his arguments, certainly leads one to re-evaluate the assumptions that one would make of individuals as a collective group - in particular, our tendency to lump individuals into a collective culture, a collective generalisation.

THINKING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN Information Technology AND HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS - Tay Kheng Soon

29/12/06

"The principal aspect of IT exemplified in the Internet is interconnectivity. Even though the human brain is massively networked in terms of its neural structure, yet the human mind is socialised to think in discrete patterns within a near-sighted ontology. Herein is the fundamental conflict.

Is there a situation wherein the conflict can be resolved? Can massive numbers of humans acting discretely and separately become an intelligent neural network? What will this involve if it is possible?

Assuming there is a means to distribute data collection and also gather the results, there is a further need to process the data, that is, to make it intelligible. The results are then fed back to the participating human multitude. Would this iterative circulation and further recirculation of results affect subsequent data collection and formulation of inputs and outputs continuously?

What can be the value of this? Well, for one, it will build a consensus as to what reality is. But would this really reflect reality or will it merely confirm a collectively selected perception?

What if, in the system design, deliberate minoritarian data streams are injected into the majoritarian data stream? What would result? Would it mean that the minoritarian data streams be merely absorbed and diluted or can it be made to cause splits in the flow and branches to form. Is it possible then that a networked matrix of alternative flows can come about whereby different sets of operations are set off concurrently positing "what if" propositions that will then interrupt the majoritarian flow to such an extent that new propositions come about.

Will it then be possible to harvest such results for further initiatives to begin? Where does actuality come in? The decision to actualise, it seems to me is a political one, one that is a social act which could come about due to exhaustion and or conviction. Such an act of collective decision, in such a system, could be justifiable. Then the consequences of actualisation is understood as a shared responsibility for better or for worse."

In their book Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire, sequel to their seminal Empire, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri contend that the phenomenon of networked (and networking) people, seen as diverse individuals, bears potential in overthrowing "Empire", thereby establishing true democracy.

("Empire" here, as defined by Negri and Hardt - and warped by my own understanding of their writing - is the "new form of sovereignty", that which replaces the defunct Classical Imperialism, and is defined by the blend of consumerism, technologies, global multi-national corporations and so on which drive global economics today.)

Yet, Multitude starts off with focusing on the masses within this empire, and ends off with the realisation that the multitude is, in fact, defined by its diversity, rather than its commonalities. The challenge of the multitude is "for the social multiplicity to manage to communicate and act in common while remaining internally different."

It is indeed a reality check for me - it's oh so easy to get caught up in the technologies, the design and the snazziness. This leads to one failing to evaluate oneself and realise that these technologies tend to serve the multitude as a collective, rather than as a highly-diverse entity. TV companies, news networks, advertising agencies etc have had agendas (political or otherwise) for the longest time, and have distributed content almost solely based on their agendas. Maybe it is indeed good that the content planned for the Remapping LA project is intended to be open source, so this problem is somewhat mitigated.

This, for now, serves as a response to Kheng Soon's sharp observations on the potential pitfalls of a collective sensing or a collective "intelligent neural network" system. I'll have to sleep on it a bit more before coming up with a more well-informed response, but it certainly leaves me with the conscience to take a step back and look at the ramifications of such technologies on individuals who are part of a larger multitude, from time to time, as the project progresses.

I'll check back with an update soon once I have my thoughts sorted out.