Collective Learning and the Information Age

[rousseau]

Some historians argue that collective learning is one of the main drivers of social progress. In other words, people's ability to retain, transmit, and exchange information with each other accelerates change in society.

And at this moment in history we're at the dawning of the internet where collective learning itself has accelerated by a huge rate.

That being said, I wonder what people think the future impacts of this rate of change of collective learning will be?

I'll probably think about it a bit later myself, but thought I'd go ahead and get the thread out there.

 

[untermensche]

On the internet is there more information or disinformation?

 

[ryan]

On the internet is there more information or disinformation?

Good point, but at least the people who know how to differentiate between good and bad information will be more knowledgeable in life and more efficient on projects that require good information.

 

[fromderinside]

Boys, boys, boys. As a technical term (Shannon) Information is all information. Why the heck do you think physicists are considering whether information can be lost in a deterministic material universe (Black Holes).

Hope the above ends any attempted derail.

My view on your question rousseau is social animals or other things that can be viewed as surviving using collective measures, the historians you mention may just be right. There may even be substantial knowledge about that process being developed right now in discussion of epigenetics and also in social sciences tribe/collectivist discussions illustrated in terms of America's current political power contest.

 

[ryan]

Boys, boys, boys. As a technical term (Shannon) Information is all information. Why the heck do you think physicists are considering whether information can be lost in a deterministic material universe (Black Holes).

Information can be lost; the question is whether or not it can be destroyed. If it can't be destroyed, Shannon information is a record of everything that everything did in the universe.

 

[fromderinside]

Boys, boys, boys. As a technical term (Shannon) Information is all information. Why the heck do you think physicists are considering whether information can be lost in a deterministic material universe (Black Holes).

Information can be lost; the question is whether or not it can be destroyed. If it can't be destroyed, Shannon information is a record of everything that everything did in the universe.

Come on. rousseau is asking a different question. Let's end the derail. For instance you might start another thread on whether "lost" and "destroyed" are legitimate material synonyms.

 

[untermensche]

Boys, boys, boys. As a technical term (Shannon) Information is all information. Why the heck do you think physicists are considering whether information can be lost in a deterministic material universe (Black Holes).

Hope the above ends any attempted derail.

My view on your question rousseau is social animals or other things that can be viewed as surviving using collective measures, the historians you mention may just be right. There may even be substantial knowledge about that process being developed right now in discussion of epigenetics and also in social sciences tribe/collectivist discussions illustrated in terms of America's current political power contest.

Information means to "inform".

One is not informed by misinformation.

 

[fromderinside]

Information means to "inform".

One is not informed by misinformation.

Technically both information and disinformation are coherent information forms. Noise, on the other hand, is incoherent.

Now back to rousseau's OP. He asks whether such as internet a social information vehicle used by people accelerates change in society. Nothing about good or bad change, just accelerates change. Whether one Trump's or Clinton's information is exchanged. Does this process accelerate social change? Given recent changes in poll numbers in the example I'm using I have to conclude uniformity society is probably changing to a more tribalism society form very rapidly. One might even use Hitler's rise in similar terms.

 

[ryan]

Information can be lost; the question is whether or not it can be destroyed. If it can't be destroyed, Shannon information is a record of everything that everything did in the universe.

Come on. rousseau is asking a different question. Let's end the derail. For instance you might start another thread on whether "lost" and "destroyed" are legitimate material synonyms.

Actually, I take this very seriously. The most information that the universe can possible generate is Shannon information. Slowly but surely we are approaching this maximum, as long as there aren't an infinite number of universes.

Furthermore, I am actually going to be applying to my university to fund research on thermal information coming from melanoma. I will hope to find certain algorithms of heat information (a bulkier version of Shannon entropy) that are indicative of melanoma. This absolutely will be the future as we will eventually have portable and private devices able to "scan" moles and other concerns on the skin for melanoma.

If you ask me, this kind of information is one of the most useful kinds I can think of.

 

[ryan]

Information means to "inform".

One is not informed by misinformation.

Technically both information and disinformation are coherent information forms. Noise, on the other hand, is incoherent.

Now back to rousseau's OP. He asks whether such as internet a social information vehicle used by people accelerates change in society. Nothing about good or bad change, just accelerates change. Whether one Trump's or Clinton's information is exchanged. Does this process accelerate social change? Given recent changes in poll numbers in the example I'm using I have to conclude uniformity society is probably changing to a more tribalism society form very rapidly. One might even use Hitler's rise in similar terms.

Oh, and no information is just as important as information.

 

[untermensche]

Information means to "inform".

One is not informed by misinformation.

Technically both information and disinformation are coherent information forms. Noise, on the other hand, is incoherent.

To humans information and misinformation are not the same thing.

Only to something with no mind.

 

[fromderinside]

Technically both information and disinformation are coherent information forms. Noise, on the other hand, is incoherent.

Now back to rousseau's OP. He asks whether such as internet a social information vehicle used by people accelerates change in society. Nothing about good or bad change, just accelerates change. Whether one Trump's or Clinton's information is exchanged. Does this process accelerate social change? Given recent changes in poll numbers in the example I'm using I have to conclude uniformity society is probably changing to a more tribalism society form very rapidly. One might even use Hitler's rise in similar terms.

Oh, and no information is just as important as information.

All energy perceived (information) is just as important. Even noise which is militated against through evolution is important. Misinformation and noise are not the same thing. Else there would be no requirement for humans to group stars randomly presented in the sky. Humans find usable information, information that can be parsed and regrouped into systems, to serve their struggle to survive.

Still, you are walking down a road not included in the OP. Its called a derail. Read it and discuss what rousseau is concerned about regarding information and society. Hes talking about the nature of humans information processing in a society. He's not talking about the nature of information.

You can't even get it that he presumes information. He doesn't need to specify what is information else he'd have referenced  Information theory

What is it about social humans accessing increased amounts of information that impacts the nature of the society (rate it changes) in which they exist.

Way beyond HS discussion of information.

 

[rousseau]

On the internet is there more information or disinformation?

I'd respond that this question is irrelevant to the thread at large for a few reasons:

1) Correct information has survival value

This means a few things. For one, people have an incentive to identify correct information amongst their available data set. This doesn't always mean they'll find it, but it means that they're at least looking for it, so given enough time the probability of them parsing through available misinformation is high.

It also means that people who are able to identify correct information and use it to survive are more likely to not only be alive to transmit that information to others, but they're also more likely to produce children and pass that information down their lineage.

2) Transmitting correct information has survival value

Ever seen the internet? It's a constant show of people trying to one up others by being 'right'. If I'm right and you're wrong, I'm smart, I get the girl or boy. In effect people are constantly trying to transmit correct information, unless they have some type of incentive to transmit incorrect data.

So not only are those who do this more likely to reproduce and pass on their knowledge, but the sum effect is that most human beings are 'correction robots' who are constantly trying to fix other people's knowledge.

Because of this, in the long run people will tend to become more informed rather than misinformed.

3) Incorrect information eventually dies

That's not to say it's never transmitted, or there aren't groups who exist as an echo chamber of misinformation, but the idea is that eventually ideas that don't work are abandoned, because even the holder gains nothing by holding on to it if they know it doesn't work.

So the sum effect of all of this is that truth and facts usually prevail in the long run, even if there's a bit of transient misinformation.

 

[ryan]

3) Incorrect information eventually dies

That's not to say it's never transmitted, or there aren't groups who exist as an echo chamber of misinformation, but the idea is that eventually ideas that don't work are abandoned, because even the holder gains nothing by holding on to it if they know it doesn't work.

So the sum effect of all of this is that truth and facts usually prevail in the long run, even if there's a bit of transient misinformation.

Islam is growing

 

[rousseau]

3) Incorrect information eventually dies

That's not to say it's never transmitted, or there aren't groups who exist as an echo chamber of misinformation, but the idea is that eventually ideas that don't work are abandoned, because even the holder gains nothing by holding on to it if they know it doesn't work.

So the sum effect of all of this is that truth and facts usually prevail in the long run, even if there's a bit of transient misinformation.

Islam is growing

We're only a small number of decades into the industrial era and information age. For almost the entirety of islamic history (many centuries) there's been no force dampening it's growth, and so at this point social and familial pressures are no doubt going to be stronger than the seeds of atheism that are now seeping in.

I guarantee you that, save the complete breakdown of society, Islam will be irrelevant within the next 300 - 500 years. This will probably be an artefact of collective learning.

 

[untermensche]

On the internet is there more information or disinformation?

I'd respond that this question is irrelevant to the thread at large for a few reasons:

1) Correct information has survival value

This means a few things. For one, people have an incentive to identify correct information amongst their available data set. This doesn't always mean they'll find it, but it means that they're at least looking for it, so given enough time the probability of them parsing through available misinformation is high.

It also means that people who are able to identify correct information and use it to survive are more likely to not only be alive to transmit that information to others, but they're also more likely to produce children and pass that information down their lineage.

2) Transmitting correct information has survival value

Ever seen the internet? It's a constant show of people trying to one up others by being 'right'. If I'm right and you're wrong, I'm smart, I get the girl or boy. In effect people are constantly trying to transmit correct information, unless they have some type of incentive to transmit incorrect data.

So not only are those who do this more likely to reproduce and pass on their knowledge, but the sum effect is that most human beings are 'correction robots' who are constantly trying to fix other people's knowledge.

Because of this, in the long run people will tend to become more informed rather than misinformed.

3) Incorrect information eventually dies

That's not to say it's never transmitted, or there aren't groups who exist as an echo chamber of misinformation, but the idea is that eventually ideas that don't work are abandoned, because even the holder gains nothing by holding on to it if they know it doesn't work.

So the sum effect of all of this is that truth and facts usually prevail in the long run, even if there's a bit of transient misinformation.

Where does this misinformation come from?

 

[rousseau]

On the internet is there more information or disinformation?

I'd respond that this question is irrelevant to the thread at large for a few reasons:

1) Correct information has survival value

This means a few things. For one, people have an incentive to identify correct information amongst their available data set. This doesn't always mean they'll find it, but it means that they're at least looking for it, so given enough time the probability of them parsing through available misinformation is high.

It also means that people who are able to identify correct information and use it to survive are more likely to not only be alive to transmit that information to others, but they're also more likely to produce children and pass that information down their lineage.

2) Transmitting correct information has survival value

Ever seen the internet? It's a constant show of people trying to one up others by being 'right'. If I'm right and you're wrong, I'm smart, I get the girl or boy. In effect people are constantly trying to transmit correct information, unless they have some type of incentive to transmit incorrect data.

So not only are those who do this more likely to reproduce and pass on their knowledge, but the sum effect is that most human beings are 'correction robots' who are constantly trying to fix other people's knowledge.

Because of this, in the long run people will tend to become more informed rather than misinformed.

3) Incorrect information eventually dies

That's not to say it's never transmitted, or there aren't groups who exist as an echo chamber of misinformation, but the idea is that eventually ideas that don't work are abandoned, because even the holder gains nothing by holding on to it if they know it doesn't work.

So the sum effect of all of this is that truth and facts usually prevail in the long run, even if there's a bit of transient misinformation.

I should probably add something about the contingency on thriving, peaceful societies.

But, for the reasons above, I'd argue that over time societies will tend towards equality, equilibrium, and the realization of truth. Communities will become more interdependent and laws put in place that protect a broad range of rights, and correct past failures. Gender equality will become more and more normalized, and sexism/racism will dampen due to people's increasing awareness. Religion will become a fringe part of most societies. And we'll likely eventually be completely dependent on renewable forms of energy.

What's going to happen to the environment and how that will impact the above is a variable I couldn't begin to predict, but isolating for collective learning I'd predict the above.

 

[untermensche]

Ever seen the internet? It's a constant show of people trying to one up others by being 'right'. If I'm right and you're wrong, I'm smart, I get the girl or boy. In effect people are constantly trying to transmit correct information, unless they have some type of incentive to transmit incorrect data.

It's a bunch of people transmitting misinformation over and over.

And no final judges as to what is the truth.

What survives is what appeals in some way to people, many times only appealing to a prejudice or emotion, not necessarily the truth.