Surely I'm not the only one who has had this idea.

Since there was such an idea as a 'person', people have become more and more interconnected in our ideas and actions. Through language, books, societal structures, now the internet, peoples conciousnesses, ideas, worldview have become more and more interconnected to the point where today we are on the verge of becoming a sort of unified concious mind.

I'm sure you all have heard of neura link, right now the chip can only read information from the brain but research is being done to write information to it as well.

The next step of this is clear to me to be a sort of hive mind, everyone is on the same page, knows their place, each having their own set of ideas and experiences completely shared with everyone elses. Most likely with an AI integration.

But what would our 'unified' goal be then?
thoughts?

>>16717729 (OP)
>But what would our 'unified' goal be then?
Sending more money to Israel

>>16717734
This, they'll still make you pay for it, but they'll "generously" give it to those who don't fall in line.

>>16717729 (OP)
>But what would our 'unified' goal be then?
Same as all emergent hive intelligences, "The Hive must survive."
That's it. Only the hive. No more individual.

>>16717729 (OP)
Heraclitus invented the hive mind and called it logos. A faster interconnect shouldn't qualitatively change your relationship with it.

>>16717908
>A faster interconnect shouldn't qualitatively change your relationship with it.
The relationship change is fundamental.
A neuralink or like brain implant puts the value of my online servers much higher that I am willing to go over legacy gigabit ethernet and traditional systems administration.
Your brain and mind or a couple thousand caseless whiteboxes and GPU's. Easy decision.
No thank you.

>Knows their place
Yeah....about that...

>>16717908

>logos
>hivemind

Pff!! Loada bullcrap. I like my own thinking better.

>>16717991
It's easier to program somebody who thinks it's impossible.

>>16717729 (OP)
>everyone is on the same page
no such thing. even our bodies are full of things with "minds" of their own. they just do their thing, it just happens their thing fits for some purpose in the whole. cut it out with this "everybody on the same page" bullshit, that's fucking nonsense.

>>16717729 (OP)
>>16717908
Ah sweet another AIslop thread

>>16717729 (OP)
>everyone is on the same page, knows their place, each having their own set of ideas and experiences completely shared with everyone elses
The population in nearing 10 billion so you are suggesting that it is possible fore each individual to experience 10 billion seconds each second without even considering that everyone would have to react and provide feedback to each of those 10B seconds as well and all the recursive loops that would internally arise as a result that could cause that time requirement to explode exponentially.

Then there is the binding problem to consider and we don't even know how to make a mind singularity that isn't based on some singular bag of skin with a completely directly interconnected nervous system.

>>16718319
We design distributed systems. The agents follow rules for sending and receiving messages and everyone doesn't have to be perfect or know everything for the them to eventually be of one mind about certain things. The individual is already made of pieces that don't always agree either, since we say "I'm of two minds about ...".

>>16717729 (OP)

>>16719164
You are only designing incoherent nonsense.

>everyone doesn't have to be perfect or know everything for the them to eventually be of one mind about certain things.
How can they be of one mind on something they don't even know and how can they even be of one perfectly conforming mind, if the information they have is not perfectly synchronized?

>The individual is already made of pieces that don't always agree either
Now not only are you saying its impossible for even two people, let alone the entire human population, to do what OP suggests, but its not even possible for one person, so what the fuck is there to distribute if consensus can't even be reached within a single mind?

>>16719183
Anon, pretending to be confused only works if you have a reputation.

>>16719198
I didn't pretend to be confused at all, I used questions whose answers reveal exactly why your nonsense was self-contradicting.

>>16717957
yes, that was a creepy turn of phrase right there.