Difference between revisions of "Holotopia: Collective mind"

From Knowledge Federation
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
 
(46 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<center><h2><b>H O L O T O P I A: &nbsp;&nbsp; [[Holotopia:Five insights|F I V E &nbsp;&nbsp; I N S I G H T S]]</b></h2></center><br><br>
+
<center><h2><b>H O L O T O P I A: &nbsp;&nbsp; [[Five insights|F I V E &nbsp;&nbsp; I N S I G H T S]]</b></h2></center><br><br>
  
 
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Collective mind</h1></div>
 
<div class="page-header" ><h1>Collective mind</h1></div>
Line 7: Line 7:
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<blockquote>  
 
<blockquote>  
The printing press revolutionized communication, and enabled the Enlightenment. But the Internet and the interactive digital media constitute a similar revolution. Hasn't the change we are proposing, from 'the candle' to 'the lightbulb', <em>already</em> been completed?  
+
The printing press revolutionized communication, and enabled the Enlightenment. But the Internet and the interactive digital media constitute a similar revolution. Hasn't the change we are proposing, from the 'candle' to the 'lightbulb', already been completed?  
 
</blockquote>   
 
</blockquote>   
  
<p>We look at the socio-technical <em>system</em> by which information is produced and handled in our society, which the new information technology has helped us create; we zoom in on its structure, and principle of operation. We readily see that the way in which this new technology is being used has remained broadcasting—which suited the printing press, the old technology. We see, in other words, that we have used the new technology <em>to recreate the candle</em>.</p>   
+
<p>We look at the socio-technical <em>system</em> by which information is produced and handled in our society, which the new information technology helped us create; and we zoom in on its structure. We readily see that its principle of operation has remained broadcasting—which suited the printing press, but when applied to the new technology exacerbates problems, instead of enabling solutions.</p>
 +
<p>We see, in other words, that we are using our wonderful new technology to do no better than create 'electrical candles'.</p>   
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
 +
 +
  
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Stories</h2></div>
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our <em>collective mind</em> needs <em>structural</em> change</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>What it means to be "informed"</h3>  
+
<div class="col-md-7">
<p>Imagine a world where a correct understanding of a situation is used as basis for action. In <em>knowledge federation</em> we use the keyword  <em>gestalt</em> for such understanding, and consider having an "appropriate <em>gestalt</em>" or a <em>gestalt</em> that is appropriate to a situation as a model for what we intuitively mean when we use the word "informed". "Our house is on fire" is a canonical example. An appropriate <em>gestalt</em> points to a course of action that is appropriate to a situation.</p>
+
<blockquote>The real story will be told in the second book of the Holotopia series, whose tentative title is "Systemic Innovation", and subtitle "Cybernetics of Democracy".</blockquote>  
<p>Suppose, now, that we apply this idea to our handling of information, and knowledge. What <em>gestalt</em> would result? What course of action would it be pointing to?</p>  
+
 
 +
<p>While we wait for this book to be written, we offer the article [https://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings57th/article/view/2080 "Bootstrapping Social-Systemic Evolution"] as a placeholder.</p>  
 +
 
 +
<p>The article has an appendix with a <em>very</em> short version of the two stories that are woven together to form the core texture of the book—"The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart", and a similarly incredible history of Erich Jantsch. The two stories are told to set the stage for <em>the article's</em> call to action—to combine systems science and <em>knowledge federation</em> (which those two frontier thinkers iconically represent) under a new <em>paradigm</em> (which is now modeled by the <em>holoscope</em>), and foster a creative frontier with an uncommon social and academic potential impact.</p>  
  
<h3>Knowledge work has a flat tire</h3>
+
<p>The article itself, and the situation where it was presented, are part of the "Cybernetics of Democracy" story. In 2013, in Haiphong, Vietnam, less than two weeks after Doug Engelbart passed away, Alexander Laszlo as the President of the International Society for the Systems Sciences initiated a systemic change in this academic community—exactly along the lines that was Engelbart's life-long dream, and call to action. We began our presentation in Haiphong by saying "We are here to build a bridge—between two communities, and interests, and ways of working." See [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/STORIES#Alexander this summary].</p>  
<p>At the point where we were "going public" with our <em>knowledge federation</em> initiative, by presenting it to The Silicon Valley and to a community of international knowledge-work innovators at our Stanford University workshop, within the Triple Helix IX international conference in 2011, we used the flat tire metaphor to propose the <em>gestalt</em> that characterizes our knowledge work condition, and point to a correct course of action.</p>  
+
 
<p>[[Knowledge Work Has a Flat Tire]] is a <em>thread</em> consisting of two brief <em>vignettes</em>, where  two leading scientists contradict one other while presenting to the public the scientific view of an urgent policy issue, the climate change.</p>
+
<p>We here supplement the Engelbart and Jantsch story by several side stories prepared for the book—which might <em>alone</em> be sufficient to make the point that the book is intended to make.</p>  
<p>The intended point was that the public has no basis for deciding which one of them is right. That the net result of this way to combine academic research and media informing is passivity and confusion. And that our situation in knowledge work is similar to the situation of passengers of a car with a flat tire. Pressing the gas pedal and surging forward (i.e. just publishing more) is no longer an action appropriate to our situation. We must stop and take care of a <em>structural</em> problem.</p>  
 
  
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
<!-- XXX
+
<div class="row">
 +
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Democracy must evolve</h2></div>
 +
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Cybernetics of democracy</h3>
 +
<blockquote>What <em>is</em> "democracy"?</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<p>There are two ways to answer that question.</p>
 +
<p>One of them is to answer it in a similar way as we answer "What is science?", or  "journalism", or any of our various professions or institutions—by <em>reifying</em> a practice we've inherited from the past. The other one is to define it as a role or a function, within our society as a whole.</p>
 +
 
 +
<p>The word "democracy" is derived from Greek "demos", which means "people", and "kratos", which means power. So "democracy" is supposed to be a social system where the people have power; where the people are in control. But <em>are</em> people in control?  </p> 
 +
<p>We added the word "cybernetics" to the subtitle, to suggest the answer. "Cybernetics" is derived from Greek "kybernetike", which means governance. So cybernetics is a scientific study of governance, or of governability. This study is transdisciplinary. Cybernetics shares its larger purpose with general systems science, and with the systems sciences more generally—which is to study systems of all kinds, both natural and human-made, in order to understand how a system's <em>structure</em> influences or "drives" its behavior. And to to then use this understanding create and handle systems of all kinds—and social systems in particular. So all we'll need from cybernetics, to answer our question, is the obvious insight that <em>motivated</em> its development.</p>
 +
<blockquote>In a bus without a steering wheel and without proper headlights, which is speeding through uncharted terrain in the darkness of the night—<em>nobody</em> is in control!</blockquote>
 +
<p>There might be seeing someone sitting in the driver's seat (Donald Trump; the people who elected him); we might <em>believe</em> that he's driving. But the moment we've  examined the <em>structure</em> of the bus we see that this just cannot be the case—because driving is <em>physically</em> impossible. </p>
 +
<blockquote>Does our society have a structure where "democracy" is possible?</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Democracy needs brakes</h3>
 +
<p>We intend to begin the Cybernetics of Democracy book by telling the story of Jørgen Randers, who in 1969, having just graduated from college, traveled from Oslo to Boston to do a doctorate in physics at MIT. And who upon hearing a lecture by Jay Forrester, decided that his study would be in systems sciences, or in "system dynamics" more precisely. </p>
 +
<p>In 1972, Randers became one of the authors of The Club of Rome's first and most widely read book report "The Limits to Growth". What followed was an exhausting series of completely nonsensical debates. He and his three co-authors, whose average age was 25, were called "doomsday prophets", and severely attacked. What they were <em>really</em> saying was, however, completely obviously (it didn't even require computer simulation)—and completely ignored. Their point was, namely, that a 'bus' (a human system growing at an accelerating speed on a finite planet) must have 'brakes' to avoid crashing. </p>
 +
<p>[https://youtu.be/0141gupAryM?t=225 Hear Randers summarize his forty years of experience] (at the 40th anniversary of The Limits to Growth at the Smithsonian), by declaring:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
"The horrible fact is that democracy, and capitalism, will not solve those problems. We do need a fundamental paradigm shift in the area of <em>governance</em>."
 +
</blockquote>
 +
</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Democracy cannot be reactive</h3>
 +
<p>Jay Forrester was a creative computing pioneer, who contributed to the computer revolution. In 1956, with several patents and an MIT professor chair, he got the idea that this new machine could be used for a whole new purpose—to model social systems, and understand their behavior.</p>
 +
<p>A colleague who had earlier been the mayor of Boston moved to an office near by, and told him how he often noticed that applying the obvious policy to solve a recurring problem made the problem <em>worse</em>. Forrester made models, and found that this "counterintuitive behavior of social systems" (the title his 1971 research article) was a rule rather than exception. Social systems share that property with all "complex" or "non-linear dynamic systems".</p>
 +
<p>Forrester lobbied to present this insight to the American congress.</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>Democracy must be "anticipatory"</h3>
 +
<p>As a mathematical biologist, focusing specifically on the issue of democracy while on sabbatical in the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, in 1972, Robert Rosen showed that to be viable, social systems must share a property shared by all living systems—namely that they must be "anticipatory" (make predictions of the future to govern their present behavior). He later summarized his findings in the book titled "Anticipatory Systems", with subtitle "Philosophical, Mathematica and Methodological Foundations".</p>
 +
 
 +
<h3>The root of our problems is a paradox</h3>
 +
<p>A half-century after the mentioned insights have been made, our "democracy" is  still only <em>reacting</em> to contingencies. Our "policy makers" are experts in doing no more than keeping the 'bus' on its <em>present</em> course (keeping the economy growing—for another four-year term).</p>
 +
<p>You might have noticed that The Club of Rome's 1972 simulation study did exactly what Forrester and Rosen found a democracy <em>must</em> be able to do—make models and predictions, to see what sort of condition its present course is leading to. But neither the voters nor the politicians have, even today, a faintest clue that those "doomsday prophets" were just trying to add to our "democracy" a capability that any system of control that deserves that name <em>must</em> have—the capability to 'steer'!</p>
 +
<p>And so the root problem of our democracy, and by extension of our various other problems as well, is not at all a problem but a paradox: <em>We are not using information</em> to understand our world and modify our behavior!</p>
 +
<p>And we are not doing that <em>even</em> when this information is telling us what our systems must be like, if we should <em>become</em> capable of using information to see where we are headed, and what's going on!</p><p>To point to this most intriguing and no less alarming issue, to give it visibility and citizenship rights, we have given it a name: the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>. </p>
 +
<p>David Bohm left us this clue, how we may (<em>not</em>!) be able to handle it:</p> 
 +
<blockquote>As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved.</blockquote>
 +
</div> </div>
 +
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Cybernetics of democracy</h2></div>
+
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Wiener's paradox</em></h2></div>
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Communication <em>is</em> the system</h3>  
+
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>We are back to 'square one'</h3>
 +
<p>What we have seen so far is what we pointed out to begin with—that "knowledge work has a flat tire". Before we tell you how this issue needs to be handled—a solution that was in principle proposed already in 1945 (yes, this too has been ignored), and <em>developed</em> with audacious novelty and in profound detail well beyond that early vision by 1968 (we are calling this solution <em>collective mind</em>)—we will remain a moment longer with the paradox. We want to tell you <em>why</em> exactly we are calling it <em>Wiener's paradox</em>. And by doing that, share a story whose points should not be missed.</p>
 +
<p>We've already explained the <em>Wiener's paradox</em> by sharing the Wiener-Jantsch-Reagan <em>thread</em> ([http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#WienersParadox on this website], and then again [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Jantsch in a blog post], we'll here only mention a couple of important points we've omitted there, and highlight the conclusions.</p>
 +
 
 
<p>It seems rather obvious that <em>the</em> natural "systemic leverage point", or place to <em>begin</em> "a great cultural revival", is to provide (a way to) information that can show the way (as we submitted at the Visions of Possible Worlds conference, at the Triennale di Milano in 2003, see the transcript [http://folk.uio.no/dino/ID/Articles/Vision.pdf here].)</p>  
 
<p>It seems rather obvious that <em>the</em> natural "systemic leverage point", or place to <em>begin</em> "a great cultural revival", is to provide (a way to) information that can show the way (as we submitted at the Visions of Possible Worlds conference, at the Triennale di Milano in 2003, see the transcript [http://folk.uio.no/dino/ID/Articles/Vision.pdf here].)</p>  
 
<p>But that is also the key insight Wiener was intended to communicate in the mentioned last chapter of his 1948 Cybernetics (a copy of which we provided [http://knowledgefederation.net/Misc/Wiener.pdf here]). <em>The</em> most elementary fact reaching us from cybernetics is that a system needs "communication (or feedback) and control" ('headlights' and 'steering') to be governable or viable. Communication, Wiener observed, <em>is</em> the system (being what enables a collection of disparate entities to function together as an entity). </p>
 
<p>But that is also the key insight Wiener was intended to communicate in the mentioned last chapter of his 1948 Cybernetics (a copy of which we provided [http://knowledgefederation.net/Misc/Wiener.pdf here]). <em>The</em> most elementary fact reaching us from cybernetics is that a system needs "communication (or feedback) and control" ('headlights' and 'steering') to be governable or viable. Communication, Wiener observed, <em>is</em> the system (being what enables a collection of disparate entities to function together as an entity). </p>
Line 43: Line 90:
 
<p>Reagan did not win by the force of the argument, but by having incomparably more "air time" than our two academic heroes. </p>  
 
<p>Reagan did not win by the force of the argument, but by having incomparably more "air time" than our two academic heroes. </p>  
 
<p>We may now see who 'keeps Galilei in house arrest', and how. Well before the advent of the Internet, Umberto Eco compared the New York Times and (then the main Soviet communist paper) Pravda in an interview, to argue that while in the latter censorship was achieved directly, in the former overabundance of information had the same effect.</p>
 
<p>We may now see who 'keeps Galilei in house arrest', and how. Well before the advent of the Internet, Umberto Eco compared the New York Times and (then the main Soviet communist paper) Pravda in an interview, to argue that while in the latter censorship was achieved directly, in the former overabundance of information had the same effect.</p>
</div> </div>
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Information technology was <em>meant</em> to be the remedy</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>Vannevar Bush's call to action</h3>
 
<p>Wiener developed his argument in the last chapter of Cybernetics partly by quoting Vannevar Bush—at the time <em>the</em> academic strategist par excellence, who already in 1945 pointed to the issue at hand as the one to which the scientists must give <em>the highest priority</em>, (see our summary [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Bush here]).  </p>
 
 
<h3>Doug Engelbart's response</h3>
 
<p>
 
[[File:Doug-4.jpg]]
 
</p>
 
<p>In 1968, Doug Engelbart and his SRI team provided demonstrated a <em>prototype</em> answer to Bush's call to action, which was well beyond what Bush was able to envision. The congruence between Engelbart's vision and Wiener's and Jantsch's is striking. We highlight it by showing the above four Engelbart's slides, which were intended to present his vision to the world at its 2007 presentation at Google. In Slide 3 Engelbart even used the metaphor of steering and headlights frame his call to action! The longer story will be presented in the book titled "Systemic Innovation", whose tentative subtitle is "The future of democracy". A short outline of Engelbart's story and vision is provided [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/STORIES#Engelbart here]. In 2013, Engelbart passsed away decorated and celebrated, but feeling himself a failure (as we explained [https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbnq6wau5at6904/1.%20DE%20Story.m4v?dl=0 here]; his vision (whose essence we presented [https://www.dropbox.com/s/tyf1705t4hvk05s/2.%20DE%20Vision.m4v?dl=0 here]) failed to be understood, or attended to. </p>
 
 
</div> </div>  
 
</div> </div>  
  
Line 88: Line 123:
  
  
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Wiener's paradox</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>
 
<blockquote>
 
As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved,
 
</blockquote>
 
observed David Bohm.</p>
 
 
<p>We use this <em>keyword</em>, the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>, to point to a sensationally alarming reality—that <em>entire academic fields</em> may fail to deliver to our society even the single core insights that the society needs to receive from them; the ones that would make a difference.</p>
 
<p>And that all the publishing <em>may further obscure</em> that insight.</p>
 
<p>The story involving Wiener, Jantsch and Reagan, which was outlined above, explains why.</p> 
 
<p>
 
[[File:WP.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
<p>By committing his own results to the "feedback loop" that—as he himself diagnosed—was broken, Norbert Wiener fell prey to a paradox.</p>
 
<p>How can this predicament be avoided on the much larger scale of the contemporary <em>academia</em>? And our society?</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
  
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="row">
Line 133: Line 150:
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>TNC2015</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>TNC2015</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Tesla and the Nature of Creativity (TNC2015) is a complete example of <em>knowledge federation</em> in academic communication, which shows how an academic result has been <em>federated</em>. See it described in the [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity Tesla and the Nature of Creativity] and [https://holoscope.info/2015/06/28/a-collective-mind-part-one/ A Collective Mind – Part One] blog posts.</p>  
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Tesla and the Nature of Creativity (TNC2015) is a complete example of <em>knowledge federation</em> in academic communication, which shows how an academic result has been <em>federated</em>. See it described in the [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity Tesla and the Nature of Creativity] and [https://holoscope.info/2015/06/28/a-collective-mind-part-one/ A Collective Mind – Part One] blog posts.</p>  
</div> </div>
 
 
 
<!-- OLD
 
 
 
<b>To be continued</b>
 
 
<!-- OLD
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>Wiener's paradox</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">We use the <em>Wiener's paradox</em> and the Wiener–Jantsch–Reagan <em>thread</em> (see it outlined [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#WienersParadox here] are intended to serve as a parable. They point to a general alarming phenomenon, that academic results—even when they are best and most relevant—tend to remain without any effect whatsoever. </p>
 
<p>The root of the paradox is that the system is broken (our 'bus' does not have proper 'headlights' or 'steering'), i.e. structured so that it is incapable of using information to steer (as Wiener pointed out, already in 1948). </p>
 
<p>The resolution to the paradox is <em>bootstrapping</em>—co-creating new systems, with our own minds and bodies.</p>
 
</div> </div> 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>A core academic issue</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<blockquote>
 
<p>Consider the <em>academia</em> as a <em>system</em>: It has a vast heritage to take care of, and make use of. Selected creative people come in. They are given certain tools to work with, certain ways how to work, certain communication tools that will take their results and turn them into socially useful effect. How effective, and efficient, is the whole thing as a system? Is it taking advantage of the invaluable (especially in this time when our urgent need is creative change) resources that have been entrusted to it?</p>
 
<p>Enter information technology...</p>
 
</blockquote>
 
<p>The big point here is that the <em>academia</em>'s <em>primary</em> responsibility or accountability is for the system as a whole, and for each of its components. The <em>academia</em> had an asset, let's call him Pierre Bourdieu. This person was given a format to write in—which happened to be academic books and articles. He was given a certain language to express himself in. <em>How good</em> are those tools? <em>Could there be</em> answers to this question (which the <em>academi</em> has, btw, not yet asked in any real way) that are incomparably, by orders of magnitude, better than what the <em>academia</em> of his time afforded to Bourdieu? And to everyone else, of course.</p> 
 
 
 
<h3>Analogy with the history of computer programming</h3>
 
<p>We point to the analogy between the situation in computer programming following the advent of the computer, in response to which computer programming methodologies were developed—and the situation in our handling of information following the advent of the Internet. In the first years of computing, ambitious software projects were undertaken, which resulted in "spaghetti code"—a tangled up mess of thousands of lines of code, which nobody could understand, detangle and correct. The programmers were coming in and out of those projects, and those who stepped in later had to wonder whether to throw the whole thing away and begin from scratch—or to continue to try to correct it. </p>
 
<p>A motivating insight that needs to be drawn from this history is that a dramatic increase in size of the thing being handled (computer programs <em>and</em> information) can not be effectively responded to by merely more of the same. A <em>structural</em> change (a different <em>paradigm</em>) is what the situation is calling for. </p>
 
<h3>A new <em>paradigm</em> is needed</h3>
 
<p>Edsger Dijkstra, one of the pioneers of the development of methodologies, argued that programming in the large is a <em>completely</em> different thing than programming in the small (for which textbook examples and the programming tools at large were created at the time):</p>
 
<blockquote>
 
“Any two things that differ in some respect by a factor of already a hundred or more, are utterly incomparable.”
 
</blockquote>
 
<p>Doug Engelbart used to make the same point (that the increase in size requires a different paradigm) by sharing his parable of a man who grew ten times in size (read it [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/#Tenfold_growth_parable here]). </p>
 
 
<h3>The key point</h3>
 
<p>The solution was found in developing structuring and abstraction concepts and methodologies (as we summarized [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#InformationHolon here]). Among them, the Object Oriented Methodology is the best known example.</p>
 
<p>The key insight to be drawn from this analogy: computers can be programmed in <em>any</em> programming language. The creators of the programming methodologies, however, took it as their core challenge, and duty, to give the programmers the conceptual and technical tools that would <em>coerce</em> them to write code that is comprehensible, maintainable and reusable. The Object Oriented Methodology responds to this challenge by conceiving of computer programming as modeling of complex systems—in terms of a hierarchy of "objects". An object is a structuring device whose purpose is to "export function" (make a set of functions available to higher-order objects),  and "hide implementation". </p>
 
<p>Without yet recognizing this, the <em>academia</em> now finds itself in a similar situation as the creators of computer programming methodologies. The importance of finding a suitable response to this challenge cannot be overrated.</p>
 
 
<h3>Implications for cultural revival</h3>
 
<p>There is also an interesting <em>difference</em> between computer programming and handling of information: The fact that a team of programmers can no longer understand the program they are creating is easily detected—the program won't run on the computer; but how does one detect the incomparably larger and more costly problem—that a generation of people can no longer comprehend the information they own? And hence the situation they are in?</p>
 
</div> </div> 
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>Our <em>collective mind</em> is just plain insane</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3>The Incredible History of Doug</h3>
 
<p><em>The</em> most wonderful story, however, is without The Incredible History of Doug (Engelbart), introduced by the story of Vannevar Bush. This story will be <em>federated</em> in the book "Systemic Innovation" (subtitle "The Future of Democracy"), which is the second book we are preparing as part of the tactics for launching the Holotopia project.</p>
 
<p>What more to say about the fact that Vannevar Bush, as <em>the</em> academic strategist par excellence, identified the problem we are talking with as <em>the</em> problem the scientists must focus on and resolve—already in 1945? And that Douglas Engelbart understood that (well beyond what Bush anticipated) digital computers, when equipped with interactive terminals and joined into a network, can serve as in effect a collective nervous system—and enable <em>incomparably better</em> ways to respond to the "complexity times urgency" issue, that underlies the humanity's contemporary challenges. See our summary [https://holoscope.info/2019/02/07/knowledge-federation-dot-org/#Bush here]. [https://www.dropbox.com/s/lbnq6wau5at6904/1.%20DE%20Story.m4v?dl=0 This short video] introduces The Incredible History of Doug, [https://www.dropbox.com/s/tyf1705t4hvk05s/2.%20DE%20Vision.m4v?dl=0 this one] explains his vision. </p>
 
<p>It remains to highlight the main point.
 
</p>
 
<blockquote>
 
A collective mind, combined with broadcasting (the process we've inherited from the printing press), spells collective madness—and not "collective intelligence" as Engelbart, and also Bush, intended.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
<h3>What if</h3>
 
<p>There are quite a few pieces of anecdotal evidence, and even some theoretical ones, that suggest that real or systemic or outside of the box creativity, as well as our comprehension of complex matters, depend on a slow, annealing-like process, which requires a relaxed and defocused state of mind (some of them were discussed in the blog post [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity/ Tesla and the Nature of Creativity]). </p>
 
<p>Here is an ad-hoc possibility.</p>
 
<blockquote>
 
<p>A frog leaps and catches a passing fly. Had the fly been still, the frog would not have noticed it.</p>
 
<p>Already very primitive organisms have adapted, through the survival of the fittest, to pay attention to movement and to changes of light and shadow—that being an easy way to detect food, and predators. What if the contemporary media keep us captive by taking advantage of some similarly primitive properties of our mechanism of perception?</p>
 
<p>"The average length of a shot on network television is only 3.5 seconds, so that the eye never rests, always has something new to see", Postman observed in "Amusing Ourselves to Death". </p>
 
</blockquote>
 
<p>Have we developed a lifestyle that precludes such creativity, and comprehension?</p>
 
<p>Has "a great cultural revival" become a cultural <em>impossibility</em>?</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>The <em>cultural</em> big question</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>Here we may begin from the archetypal image, of a mother by the bedside or a grandfather by a fire place, telling kids the stories of old... In focus here are cultural reproduction... and human quality... in the age of ubiquitous and pervasive digital media.</p>
 
 
<h3>Nietzsche already warned us</h3>
 
<p>Already Nietzsche warned us that the overabundance of impressions that modernity has give us keeps us dazzled, unable to digest and to act, but merely reacting... See [[Intuitive introduction to systemic thinking]].</p>
 
 
<h3>Neil Postman studied this issue academically, and thoroughly.</h3>
 
<p>At NYU, where he chaired the Department of Culture and Communication, he created a graduate program in "media ecology"—and by naming it thus put his finger exactly at the sore spot. </p>
 
<p>Postman's best known work, his 1985 book "Amusing Ourselves to Death", is a careful argument showing... well, here is a summary by his son, Andrew Postman, in the introduction he wrote for the 20th anniversary edition:</p>
 
<blockquote>
 
Is it really plausible that this book about how TV is turning all public life (education, religion, politics, journalism) into entertainment; how the image is undermining other forms of communication, particularly the written word; and how our bottomless appetite for TV will make content so abundantly available, context be damned, that we'll be overwhelmed by "information glut" until what is truly meanmingful is lost and we no longer care what we've lost as long as we're being amused. ... Can such a book possibly have relevance to you and The World of 2006 and beyond?
 
</blockquote>
 
 
<h3>Guy Debord saw that this issue was political</h3>
 
<p>The technical keyword here is "alienation" (Debord operated within the ideological framwork of neo-Marxism), but Debord's insights are invaluable, and need to be <em>federated</em>. Seen within the <em>power structure</em> and <em>symbolic reality</em> framework, they will be (we anticipate) be a lot more easy to digest for a contemporary reader.</p>
 
<p>But yes, his point–it is that the addictive effect the new media have on us must be seen, and handled, as a key means of disempowerment. His "Society of the Spectacle" has lately been drawing increased attention—see [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/nov/14/guy-debord-society-spectacle-will-self this commentary in the Guardian], and [https://youtu.be/_wl3HCKQ6WI?t=133 this video] where Debord's work is introduced as a "critique of a society which he saw as  being ever more obsessed with images and appearances, over reality, truth and experience".</p> 
 
<p>Is "human quality" eroded by the new media. </p>
 
<p>And what is to be done about that?</p>
 
 
<h3>We need to look at ourselves in the <em>mirror</em></h3>
 
<p>The deeper underlying question is the one of academic self-identity.</p>
 
<blockquote>Wll the <em>academia</em> remain "an objective observer" of all the structural changes in our cultural reproduction that are going on? Or will it take a proactive stance?</blockquote>
 
 
</div> </div>
 
 
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Ideogram</h2></div>
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>
 
[[File:KFvision.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
<p>Our civilization is like an organism that has recently grown beyond bounds ("exponentially")—and now represents a threat to its environment, and to itself. By a most fortunate mutation, this creature has recently developed a nervous system, which could allow it to comprehend the world and coordinate its actions. But the creature is using it only to amplify its most primitive, limbic impulses.</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
 
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Keywords</h2></div>
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Ideogram</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Placeholder—for a variety of techniques that can be developed by using contemporary media technology. The point here is to condense lots and lots of insights into <em>something</em> that communicates them most effectively—which can be a poem, a picture, a video, a movie....</p>
 
<p>Instead of using media tools addictively, and commercially, we use them to <em>rebuild</em> the <em>culture</em>—as people have done through ages. The difference is made by the <em>knowledge federation</em> infrastructure—which secures that what needs to be <em>federated</em> gets <em>federated</em>. </p>
 
</div> </div>
 
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Knowledge federation</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7">
 
<p>We use this keyword, <em>knowledge federation</em>, in a similar way as "design" and "architecture" are commonly used—to signify both a set of activities, and an academic field that develops them.</p>
 
<p>As a set of activities,  <em>knowledge federation</em> can now be understood as the workings of a well-functioning <em>collective mind</em>. Instead of broadcasting, the cells and organs (researchers, disciplines, communities...) process the information they are handling and dispatch suitably prepared pieces to suitable other cells and organs. The prefrontal lobe receives what it needs. And so do the muscles. In the development of a <em>collective mind</em> that <em>federates</em> knowledge, the cells self-organize, specialize, develop completely <em>new</em> goals, processes, ways of working...</p>
 
<p>How does it all work? 'Programming' our <em>collective mind</em> is what <em>knowledge federation</em> as <em>transdiscipline</em> is all about. It draws insights from all relevant fields—and weaves them into the very <em>functioning</em> of our <em>collective mind</em>. Yes, this is roughly what philosophy was or appeared to be all about, in the old <em>paradigm</em>. </p>
 
<p>As an academic field, <em>knowledge federation</em> develops the <em>praxis</em> of <em>knowledge federation</em>. There is phenomenally much to be done—since everything that the <em>tradition</em> has given us and we customarily take for granted (all those 'candles'...) now need to be reassessed and reconfigured. </p>
 
<p> 
 
[[File:Dahl-structure.jpeg]]
 
</p>
 
<p>In the analogy with computer programming, <em>knowledge federation</em> roughly corresponds to <em>object orientation</em>. Here is how Old-Johan Dahl, one of the creators of the Object Oriented Methodology, described the underlying idea.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Transdiscipline</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Roughly corresponds to the discipline.</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Prototype</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Enable <em>knowledge federation</em> and give agency—by forming a <em>transdiscipline</em> around a <em>prototype</em>.  </p>
 
</div> </div>
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Bootstrapping</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Enables <em>knowledge federation</em> to overcome its basic obstacle, the [[Wiener's paradox|<em>Wiener's paradox</em>]]—instead of merely writing and observing, we co-create systems by using our own bodies and minds as material.</p>
 
<p>As Engelbart rightly observed, <em>bootstrapping</em> is the key next step in the <em>collective mind</em> re-evolution. </p>
 
</div> </div>
 
 
<div class="page-header" ><h2>Prototypes</h2></div>
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Information holon</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Roughly corresponds to "object". </p>
 
</div> </div>
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2><em>Knowledge Federation</em></h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p><em>prototype</em> of "the <em>transdiscipline</em> for <em>knowledge federation</em>. Modeled by analogy with an academic discipline—to contain everything from epistemological underpinnings and methodology, to social processes and institutional organization. All very different, of course, adapted to the needs of <em>transdisciplinary</em> work, and <em>knowledge federation</em>. </p>
 
</div> </div>
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>TNC2015</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>Tesla and the Nature of Creativity (TNC2015) is a complete example of <em>knowledge federation</em> in academic communication—shows how a research result is <em>federated</em>. See the [https://holoscope.info/2020/01/01/tesla-and-the-nature-of-creativity Tesla and the Nature of Creativity] and [https://holoscope.info/2015/06/28/a-collective-mind-part-one/ A Collective Mind – Part One] blog posts.</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
 
 
<div class="row">
 
<div class="col-md-3"><h2>BCN2011</h2></div>
 
<div class="col-md-7"><p>The Barcelona Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism (BCN2011) is a complete <em>prototype</em> showing how public informing can be reconstructed, to <em>federate</em> the most relevant information, according to the needs of people and society. A description with links is provided [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/APPLICATIONS#SystemicPrototypes here].</p>
 
 
<!--
 
 
WP
 
 
 
<div class="col-md-7"><h3><em>Wiener's paradox</em></h3>
 
<p>We use this <em>keyword</em>, the <em>Wiener's paradox</em>, and the associated <em>thread</em>, to point to a general phenomenon—that academic publishing, <em>especially</em> when it offers ideas that can and <em>should</em> have a large social impact, tends to remain without effect on public opinion and policy (it was told [http://kf.wikiwiki.ifi.uio.no/CONVERSATIONS#WienersParadox here]). The story begins with Norbert Wiener giving, in 1948, in essence the same message that we have been echoing with our Modernity <em>ideogram</em>—namely that our systems lack the steering and control that would make them <em>whole</em> or viable. Then comes Erich Jantsch, to connect this insight with the mission of The Club of Rome, and do what was necessary to take care of the problem. The story ends with Ronald Reagan obliterating their efforts—not with the strength of argument, but by having simply incomparably more media visibility or "air time" than our two academic heroes. This situation has the irony of a paradox because Norbert Wiener's core message was that academic publishing has no effect, because our communication-and-control system is broken; and yet he committed his own insight to that same broken system.</p>
 
<p>What do we need to do to break this spell?</p>
 
</div> </div>
 
 
-------
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
<!-- OLD
 
 
<blockquote>
 
The printing press revolutionized communication, and enabled the Enlightenment. Without doubt, the Internet and the interactive digital media constitute a similar revolution, which is well under way. Are we really calling <em>that</em> a 'candle'?
 
</blockquote>
 
 
<h3>Scope</h3>
 
<p>In the manner that we just outlined, we consider the people connected by technology as a gigantic system, a <em>collective mind</em>. And we look at the 'program' or process, which constitutes our <em>collective mind</em>'s very principle of operation. </p>
 
 
<h3>View</h3>
 
<p>Once again we've adopted something from the past, without considering the options.  By using the principle that the printing press made possible—broadcasting—we've failed to take advantage of their <em>main</em> distinguishing trait.</p>
 
<p>Far from giving us the awareness we need, the new technology is keeping us dazzled. Instead of empowering us to see and change our world, it keeps us overwhelmed, and passive.</p>
 
<p>A <em>radically</em> better way to use the information technology is now possible, and also necessary. To make it a reality, our relationship with information, <em>and</em> with technology, need an update.</p>
 
 
<h3>Action</h3>
 
<p>Just as the human mind does, our <em>collective mind</em> must <em>federate</em> knowledge; not merely broadcast information.</p> 
 
 
<h3>Federation</h3>
 
<p>The new media were <em>created</em> to enable the change we are proposing—a half-century ago, by Douglas Engelbart and his SRI-based team. And Engelbart too was following the lead suggested by Vannevar Bush, already in 1945. </p>
 
<p>The non-technical, humanities side of this coin is no less interesting. Already Friedrich Nietzsche warned us that the overabundance of impressions is leaving us dumbfounded, unable to "digest" the overload of impressions and to act. Guy Debord, more recently, contributed far-reaching insights, which now need to be carefully digested. </p>
 
<p>The <em>prototypes</em> here include the <em>knowledge federation</em> as a <em>transdiscipline</em>—which is offered to serve as an evolutionary organ, and supplement the function our society, and <em>academia</em> are lacking.</p>
 
 
</div> </div>
 
</div> </div>

Latest revision as of 19:44, 17 November 2020

H O L O T O P I A:    F I V E    I N S I G H T S



The printing press revolutionized communication, and enabled the Enlightenment. But the Internet and the interactive digital media constitute a similar revolution. Hasn't the change we are proposing, from the 'candle' to the 'lightbulb', already been completed?

We look at the socio-technical system by which information is produced and handled in our society, which the new information technology helped us create; and we zoom in on its structure. We readily see that its principle of operation has remained broadcasting—which suited the printing press, but when applied to the new technology exacerbates problems, instead of enabling solutions.

We see, in other words, that we are using our wonderful new technology to do no better than create 'electrical candles'.


The real story will be told in the second book of the Holotopia series, whose tentative title is "Systemic Innovation", and subtitle "Cybernetics of Democracy".

While we wait for this book to be written, we offer the article "Bootstrapping Social-Systemic Evolution" as a placeholder.

The article has an appendix with a very short version of the two stories that are woven together to form the core texture of the book—"The Incredible History of Doug Engelbart", and a similarly incredible history of Erich Jantsch. The two stories are told to set the stage for the article's call to action—to combine systems science and knowledge federation (which those two frontier thinkers iconically represent) under a new paradigm (which is now modeled by the holoscope), and foster a creative frontier with an uncommon social and academic potential impact.

The article itself, and the situation where it was presented, are part of the "Cybernetics of Democracy" story. In 2013, in Haiphong, Vietnam, less than two weeks after Doug Engelbart passed away, Alexander Laszlo as the President of the International Society for the Systems Sciences initiated a systemic change in this academic community—exactly along the lines that was Engelbart's life-long dream, and call to action. We began our presentation in Haiphong by saying "We are here to build a bridge—between two communities, and interests, and ways of working." See this summary.

We here supplement the Engelbart and Jantsch story by several side stories prepared for the book—which might alone be sufficient to make the point that the book is intended to make.

Democracy must evolve

Cybernetics of democracy

What is "democracy"?

There are two ways to answer that question.

One of them is to answer it in a similar way as we answer "What is science?", or "journalism", or any of our various professions or institutions—by reifying a practice we've inherited from the past. The other one is to define it as a role or a function, within our society as a whole.

The word "democracy" is derived from Greek "demos", which means "people", and "kratos", which means power. So "democracy" is supposed to be a social system where the people have power; where the people are in control. But are people in control?

We added the word "cybernetics" to the subtitle, to suggest the answer. "Cybernetics" is derived from Greek "kybernetike", which means governance. So cybernetics is a scientific study of governance, or of governability. This study is transdisciplinary. Cybernetics shares its larger purpose with general systems science, and with the systems sciences more generally—which is to study systems of all kinds, both natural and human-made, in order to understand how a system's structure influences or "drives" its behavior. And to to then use this understanding create and handle systems of all kinds—and social systems in particular. So all we'll need from cybernetics, to answer our question, is the obvious insight that motivated its development.

In a bus without a steering wheel and without proper headlights, which is speeding through uncharted terrain in the darkness of the night—nobody is in control!

There might be seeing someone sitting in the driver's seat (Donald Trump; the people who elected him); we might believe that he's driving. But the moment we've examined the structure of the bus we see that this just cannot be the case—because driving is physically impossible.

Does our society have a structure where "democracy" is possible?

Democracy needs brakes

We intend to begin the Cybernetics of Democracy book by telling the story of Jørgen Randers, who in 1969, having just graduated from college, traveled from Oslo to Boston to do a doctorate in physics at MIT. And who upon hearing a lecture by Jay Forrester, decided that his study would be in systems sciences, or in "system dynamics" more precisely.

In 1972, Randers became one of the authors of The Club of Rome's first and most widely read book report "The Limits to Growth". What followed was an exhausting series of completely nonsensical debates. He and his three co-authors, whose average age was 25, were called "doomsday prophets", and severely attacked. What they were really saying was, however, completely obviously (it didn't even require computer simulation)—and completely ignored. Their point was, namely, that a 'bus' (a human system growing at an accelerating speed on a finite planet) must have 'brakes' to avoid crashing.

Hear Randers summarize his forty years of experience (at the 40th anniversary of The Limits to Growth at the Smithsonian), by declaring:

"The horrible fact is that democracy, and capitalism, will not solve those problems. We do need a fundamental paradigm shift in the area of governance."

Democracy cannot be reactive

Jay Forrester was a creative computing pioneer, who contributed to the computer revolution. In 1956, with several patents and an MIT professor chair, he got the idea that this new machine could be used for a whole new purpose—to model social systems, and understand their behavior.

A colleague who had earlier been the mayor of Boston moved to an office near by, and told him how he often noticed that applying the obvious policy to solve a recurring problem made the problem worse. Forrester made models, and found that this "counterintuitive behavior of social systems" (the title his 1971 research article) was a rule rather than exception. Social systems share that property with all "complex" or "non-linear dynamic systems".

Forrester lobbied to present this insight to the American congress.

Democracy must be "anticipatory"

As a mathematical biologist, focusing specifically on the issue of democracy while on sabbatical in the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara, in 1972, Robert Rosen showed that to be viable, social systems must share a property shared by all living systems—namely that they must be "anticipatory" (make predictions of the future to govern their present behavior). He later summarized his findings in the book titled "Anticipatory Systems", with subtitle "Philosophical, Mathematica and Methodological Foundations".

The root of our problems is a paradox

A half-century after the mentioned insights have been made, our "democracy" is still only reacting to contingencies. Our "policy makers" are experts in doing no more than keeping the 'bus' on its present course (keeping the economy growing—for another four-year term).

You might have noticed that The Club of Rome's 1972 simulation study did exactly what Forrester and Rosen found a democracy must be able to do—make models and predictions, to see what sort of condition its present course is leading to. But neither the voters nor the politicians have, even today, a faintest clue that those "doomsday prophets" were just trying to add to our "democracy" a capability that any system of control that deserves that name must have—the capability to 'steer'!

And so the root problem of our democracy, and by extension of our various other problems as well, is not at all a problem but a paradox: We are not using information to understand our world and modify our behavior!

And we are not doing that even when this information is telling us what our systems must be like, if we should become capable of using information to see where we are headed, and what's going on!

To point to this most intriguing and no less alarming issue, to give it visibility and citizenship rights, we have given it a name: the Wiener's paradox.

David Bohm left us this clue, how we may (not!) be able to handle it:

As long as a paradox is treated as a problem, it can never be dissolved.


Wiener's paradox

We are back to 'square one'

What we have seen so far is what we pointed out to begin with—that "knowledge work has a flat tire". Before we tell you how this issue needs to be handled—a solution that was in principle proposed already in 1945 (yes, this too has been ignored), and developed with audacious novelty and in profound detail well beyond that early vision by 1968 (we are calling this solution collective mind)—we will remain a moment longer with the paradox. We want to tell you why exactly we are calling it Wiener's paradox. And by doing that, share a story whose points should not be missed.

We've already explained the Wiener's paradox by sharing the Wiener-Jantsch-Reagan thread (on this website, and then again in a blog post, we'll here only mention a couple of important points we've omitted there, and highlight the conclusions.

It seems rather obvious that the natural "systemic leverage point", or place to begin "a great cultural revival", is to provide (a way to) information that can show the way (as we submitted at the Visions of Possible Worlds conference, at the Triennale di Milano in 2003, see the transcript here.)

But that is also the key insight Wiener was intended to communicate in the mentioned last chapter of his 1948 Cybernetics (a copy of which we provided here). The most elementary fact reaching us from cybernetics is that a system needs "communication (or feedback) and control" ('headlights' and 'steering') to be governable or viable. Communication, Wiener observed, is the system (being what enables a collection of disparate entities to function together as an entity).

We need "evolutionary guidance"

Jantsch-university.jpeg

We have introduced Erich Jantsch as a link between the universe of the systems sciences, and the universe where The Club of Rome belongs, where the goal is to secure our civilization's future. Erich Jantsch's final message, however, may be summarized by the formula that intervening into (or "designing for") the evolution is the key to our contemporary situation (see our summaries here and here). Which is, once again, what the bus with candle headlights is pointing to (the 'way' that the 'bus' is following is our society's evolution).

"The invisible hand" won the argument

Coincidentally, Erich Jantsch passed away in the same year when Ronald Reagan became the US president—on an agenda opposite to his and wiener's.

Reagan did not win by the force of the argument, but by having incomparably more "air time" than our two academic heroes.

We may now see who 'keeps Galilei in house arrest', and how. Well before the advent of the Internet, Umberto Eco compared the New York Times and (then the main Soviet communist paper) Pravda in an interview, to argue that while in the latter censorship was achieved directly, in the former overabundance of information had the same effect.


KFvision.jpeg

Our civilization is like an organism that has recently grown beyond bounds ("exponentially")—and now represents a threat to its environment, and to itself. By a most fortunate mutation, this creature has recently developed a nervous system, which could allow it to comprehend the world and coordinate its actions. But it uses it only to amplify its most primitive, limbic impulses.



Collective mind

We use this keyword to point to the core of Doug Engelbart's vision, as rendered in the shown four slides. When each of us is connected through an interactive interface to a digital computer, and when those computers are linked together into a network, we are in effect connected as cells in a single nervous system are. Imagine if your own cells were using your nervous system to broadcast messages—and you will see why broadcasting on a collective mind leads to collective insanity, not to "collective intelligence" (capability to cope with the complexity and urgency of our problems) as Engelbart intended.


Knowledge federation

Knowledge federation can now be understood, simply, as the activity of a well-functioning or 'sane' collective mind.

A core task of the proposed knowledge federation transdiscipline is to draw insights from relevant fields—weave them into structural changes of academic and other institutions, to give them vision.


Bootstrapping

The key to solution is what Engelbart called bootstrapping—and we adopted and adapted here as a keyword. The point is that–in a situation where using the old system to achieve the result is useless—we must create new systems, with our own bodies. And/or help others do that, in a way that can scale.

The last decades of Engelbart's career were about bootstrapping—see this brief video excerpt.

Knowledge Federation was created by an act of bootstrapping—to enable bootstrapping; see the summary here.



The Lighthouse

The Lighthouse prototype, done in collaboration with the International Society for the Systems Sciences and for the society, was developed as a remedy for dissolving the Wiener's paradox. See it described here.

BCN2011

The Barcelona Innovation Ecosystem for Good Journalism (BCN2011) is a complete prototype showing how public informing can be reconstructed, to federate the most relevant information according to contemporary needs of people and society. A description with links is provided here.


TNC2015

Tesla and the Nature of Creativity (TNC2015) is a complete example of knowledge federation in academic communication, which shows how an academic result has been federated. See it described in the Tesla and the Nature of Creativity and A Collective Mind – Part One blog posts.