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