[en]People have a lot of ideas.
[fr] Les gens ont beaucoup d’idées<fr>
[en]Perhaps we don’t really need a catchy name for this. Just use varying descriptions because it is in fact, not a single phenomenon? “People interested in social software…” are not “people working on the web” or “internet infrastructure people”.
[fr]Peut-être que nous n’avons pas vraiment besoin d’un nom accrocheur pour ça. Utilisez simplement des description parce que ce n’est en fait pas un phénomène unique ? “Les personnes intéressées par le logiciel relationnel, social…” ne sont pas les personnes qui travaillent sur le web” ou les personnes de l’infrastructure internet”.
[fr]Noms proposés :
[en](process: Add new names to the middle. Move names you like up a bit. Move names you despise down to the bottom. Occasionally delete a name off the bottom).
[fr](processus : ajoutez de nouveaux noms au milieu. Migrez les noms que vous aimez un peu vers le haut. Migrez les noms que vous aimez moins vers le bas)
[de]das wort hive mind hat im deutschen keine direkte übersetzung (schwarm intelligenz ist kein sehr gängiger und gebräuchlicher ausdruck). da es für uns alle etwas uneingeschränkt positives ausdrücken soll (schon das wort an sich sollte bereits unsern hive mind fördern ) kann es sich nicht auf den herkömmlichen gebrauch beziehen. was schon daraus hervorgeht, dass z.b. pir es nicht uneingeschränkt positiv sehen kann und ich gebe ihm darin recht, denn schliesslich hatten auch die nazis einen sehr ausgeprägten und starken hive mind. wir können aber das problem dadurch lösen, dass wir dem wort für uns eine zukünftige bedeutung geben, eine bedeutung, die etwas ausdrückt, was jeder von uns anstrebt. ich schlage daher die bedeutung intakte menschliche gemeinschaft vor und hoffe, dass pirs übersetzungs genie hier eine adäquate engliche erklärung findet.
[en]the term “hive mind” has no exact translation in german (schwarm intelligenz is not a very popular and customary term). because it should express something unreservedly positive for us (the word itself ought to encourage our hive mind ), it can therefore not refer to the traditional usage. which already emerges from eg. piranha not viewing it as unreservedly positive, and i agree, because after all the nazis had a very pronounced and strong hive mind. but we can solve the problem by giving the term a meaning to-be, a meaning which expresses what each of us strives for. i propose therefore the meaning sound human community and hope that piranha’s translation genie can find an adequate english explanation.
dunno about my translation genie. “intakt” means “faultless, intact, sound, in good order” in english – do any of those terms work for y’all?
and i personally not only think of the term “hive mind” as less than unreservedly positive, i see it as unreservedly negative. lion likes it, and i am trying to get used to it, but i have 30 years of antipathy to overcome. besides which i think that “hive mind” serves fine for the sort of narrow genetic rigidity that bees, ants, termites etc. represent, which to me is not something i want us humans to emulate. i’d therefore prefer if we used another term entirely, such as Collective Intelligence. but i am not arguing for it here; Lion and i already had this discussion – i am just mentioning it to bring sigi up to date.
Mattis, can you think of a better name for us than Hive Mind?
I don’t like CollectiveIntelligence, because it makes it sounds sort of dry and lifeless and academic. I feel like a blue rectangle on graph paper when I hear it.
But people seem to think of bees when they hear “HiveMind,” and I guess people don’t enjoy that either.
Can you think of something cool?
Mattis, if you come up with something cool … check if it can be related to CommonSense …. in some way …. maybe through a TranslationGateway …
will you ?? … something i can tell my grand kids about … and in French … when Sylvie has made sense of it … Ciao! .. grandpa luigi
There has been some brainstorming already on the name on irc, in german also on GründerWiki:HiveMind
Looking for non-insectoid words, here… Come back to the term meme? A group meme is an idea or attitude shared by a lot of people, maybe a subculture or a movement, the emergence of shared values, although all these terms convey the impression of cohesiveness or directionality, which I think is not implied. So maybe an agora – a public place where we can have debates? Something like a rumor mill, where contradiciting pieces of information can coexist. A shared context is perhaps all that we need, a communication platform – or is that the thing that enables the emergence of a community? Perhaps look back to the terms used to describe the loose network of ancient scholars, interconnected by trickles of letters and copied books? We can also look at fascist ideas of Volksseele or similar ideas used by nationalists such as mentalité. What NGOs often use is the term civil society – maybe we can borrow from there and talk about the particular kind of society we mean… internet society or the internet avant-garde or perhaps we don’t really need a catchy name for this and just use varying descriptions because it is in fact, not a single phenomenon? “People interested in social software…” are not “people working on the web” or “internet infrastructure people”…
I really like InterMind. If it were just up to me, InterMind.
It combines InterNet, with Mind, with InterConnected?, with…
And it’s not too radical, and it’s not totally mundane, and it’s pretty easy to recognize, without following a link.
yeah! seems to be(e) the best.
I agree with Lion about how sounds InterMind … but … maybe it would be interesting also to heard the notion of circulation, so what do you think about TransMind ? to have the notion of something in movement , in trans-formation … something in a permanent alteration/interaction, like “memes” as Alex describe above. --sylvie
I like Transmind better than Intermind, but:
I propose this thing that we are hooking together, this thing that we are/will become/are discovering would more easily and naturally be named something non-descriptive and ambiguous… in other words, a name.
I’m throwing out “Amy” just cause I like the way it rolls of the tongue (like “cellar door” for those in the know). If pronounced just slightly one way or another, it doesn’t sound particularly Western (“Ahmee”, for example).
What say you all? – JustSomeGuy
Yes ! why not “Amy” --sylvie
Such a big idea; It’ll probably have a ton of names…
I mean, it already does, in some ways.
here’s the brain(heh)storming from #onebigsoup and #wiki-de this last week:
So, in computing, there’s two ways to have multiple processors work on the same problem.
One is a tightly-coupled system, where you have multiple processors that share the same memory space, disk space, etc. This is what most supercomputers and big servers use (although some people have “dual-processor” computers on their desktops, too).
Another is a loosely-coupled system, where you have multiple, independent computers working together on a problem, and they report to each other over a networks. Projects like SETI@home or distributed.net work like this (although they’re very loosely-coupled), but so-called clusters work the same way. Beowulf is a way to make cluster computers with Linux.
Tightly-coupled systems work the best together, but they’re really hard to architect and build. Loosely-coupled systems, on the other hand, are really flexible. They have a lot of communications overhead, but you can put together an awful lot of them into a big system. And, y’know, if one or the other component gives up the ghost, it’s OK – the other ones can make up for it.
Anyways, I think that what we’re trying to get at with TheCollective or HiveMind is something more like the latter than like the former. We maintain our individuality and distinctness, but we work on the same problem CommonCause) together.
I still like “Amy”, but I never considered the Cluster or Distributed angle. Distribrain? Distribumindedness? Collectribution? Clustribution? Nah. Way too clumsy. But fun to say, nevertheless
How about an acronym? THOMAS The Human Over-Mind Automated System… or something more reasonable. --JustSomeGuy
MindCluster?. mmh, with chocolate and macadamia nuts!
funny, how i don’t find “Amy” beautiful-sounding, but french “Aimée” sounds lovely. i bet we’ll find out that everyone here differs as to what sounds beautiful to them.
EntMoot?! (i had to say it here, since it came up on IRC.)
a cool-sounding acronym wouldn’t be bad either; good idea, JustSomeGuy. maybe something that spells out MIND or THOUGHT?
maybe each one might used his own term which would be link to others terms through a same cluster … the name of the cluster would be based on “x” terms displayed randomly --sylvie
I am with JustSomeGuy’s idea : an acronym looks/sounds good
say - A I R B A G - … ????….
it’s an object and it can work perfectly as an inteface ..
keeping fingers crossed
it could be a process describing acronym…
btw … i happened to try and sell this long ago … with no luck …
however .. this discussion brought it back and i went digging for it in a obsolete hard disk …
here is what i thought it could stand for …
A - for Acquiring
I - for Integrating
R - for Resources / Returns / Risk Recovery …
B - for Business
A - like the A from enAbled
G - like the G from to manaGe them
… it dont sound that bad … for an example ..
.. it dont mean a thing if it aint got that swing (Duke Ellington)
--just an old guy ..
Fun: MIND (multiple intelligence never dies), CAP (collectively aggregated personality). Fun.
A non-english word would be cool. MENTA, mind in latin, I guess (know me no latin, know?) Somebody?
I don’t know what this shall lead into. Anarchic thinking is fascinated by the absence of formal order and simultanously emerging intelligence of a “hive” or “swarm” organism. Either you want this type of intelligence and then you must accept that people have to act as unimportant parts of a mass. Or you don’t want to replace individual intelligence and creativity, but then you can’t claim that type of intelligence. A hype term can be easily invented but it will mean nothing unless backed by substance. ResonantMind? or SynergicIntelligence? might do. – HelmutLeitner
As far as I see it a “hive” or “swarm” organism intelligence does not exclude individual intelligence and creativity, on the contrary - it is essential to it.
Yes, but the resulting effect exceeds the individual intelligence by an order of magnitude. So it makes the individual and the individual intelligence and creativity replaceable. Wiki all the time shows examples for that (just follow the discussion that started in CoForum:FreieKooperation? and lead to CoForum:AutonomeKooperation?). Nothing of that could happen based on individual intelligence. The same is your way of “bridging behaviour” where you decide to act as a translation node between languages, wikis and people. This creates a totally new flow of cooperation that’s independent from your own intelligence. – HelmutLeitner
As is no doubt evident, I agree completely with HelmutLeitner. Of course intelligence and creativity is essential, or this wouldn’t be an evolutionary state change, but what we are a part of (or will be a part of) is on a level where each of us is neigh meaningless. We kill thousands of brain cells every time we get drunk, and unless we are an alcoholic, we don’t even miss them. Likewise, our skin cells are dying off at an astounding rate. Every living cell in our body, excluding certain organs such as the brain and heart, are completely replaced every 3 years.
Putting emphasis on the quality of work an individual can do on a wiki or HiveMind makes as much sense as putting emphasis on the quality of work an individual cell does in a liver or kidney.
And perhaps like the multi-celled creatures that we call ancestors, certain groups of us will form certain aspects of the HiveMind, and other groups will form other aspects… lobes in a brain perhaps.
I would like your opinion, Helmut, on the request to give this thing a more beautiful/meaningless name (my favorite being “Amy”). --JustSomeGuy
“Makes as much sense as putting emphasis on the quality of work an individual cell does in a liver or kidney” - The situation is different. Individually are not hurt too seriously loosing a whole bunch of cells by getting drunk or by going to a highvolume concert and having this peeping sound for some hours in your ears afterwards (this sound is a sign for dying hear cells caused by the overvolume). The situation is different. The creature we are talking about - I use the term “creature” on purpose - is growing, right, but it still isn’t made of more than a couple of cells (something like WikiFolks or some more).
There has been a similar state for everyone here in zies personal individual life. This was you as a young developing and few celled embryo in your mother’s uterus a couple of days after mom and dad had made you (this brings me back to the old logo of CommunityWiki btw). During that phase of your life a loss of a cell made a big difference.
Every single cell carries the complete genetic code for the individuum. Likewise it deserves the same respect as the individuum, and loosing one of them is like loosing the complete individuum (Well, I do not allways treat my own individual cells like that, I have to admit. As a collective individuum we hopefully will do better).
In other words: As long as we do not behave like ants or bees, we won’t be like them. And anyhow. What do we know how they treat each other? Maybe they’re all together fine buddies, ‘em ants?
I understand and especially agree on the beauty aspect of the evolving creature’s name. Meaning can be beautyful. It has to be the right meaning. My acronym proposals were not very deeply thought about, acronyms are pretty ugly, I think. I just made them to loosen us here and get us groove on.
for me, it’s the WikiWe (wiki wir). we can use all the different names by linking them to a cluster. wiki like, isn’t it?
huh, genau das hat sylvie ja auch gesagt! na sowas!
HelmutLeitner, I personally like names that have no meaning. In other words, names like Bratseth, Alifna, Dayesnya, et cetera. I think if I were a HiveMind consciousness searching for my own name, I’d want it to be pretty, not descriptive. I can’t imagine my name being HumanOrganism? or WalkingBagOfMostlyWater?.
But so far as acronyms go, WARMS is a good one! I like the use of “amplified”, but I think we’ll be using more than just wikis.
a name can hide an other name
example : HAL in the Space Odyssey
If each letter of the name HAL is replaced with the next alphabet letter so HAL=IBM
meaning/sense is everywhere, no ? --Sylvie
HAL was an acronym, standing for Heuristically ALgorithmic computer. And besides, HAL isn’t a beautiful name
Sylvie is a beautiful name, but unless you look it up, and find out that it means “of the forest”, one wouldn’t think about the meaning, and thus able to enjoy the beautiful name Sylvie without context or predefinition. I fear names tied to meaning such as HAB, Human Augmented Brain, is going to end up being quite limiting.
But give it a name like Sylvie, and it will never outgrow the name, because the name isn’t tied to anything. Sylvie can be the name of an amoeba as well as a kitten as well as a human-clustered uber-mind as well as whatever comes next. Naming it the HiveMind is limiting it to that particular point in time where HiveMind made sense, and had meaning.
What you say let me think about something.I ‘m not sure but it seems that in China the distinction between words and names doesn’t exist … names are chosen in the dictionary, to exprim a feeling, or an element of the nature, or a human value, … --sylvie
The chinese access to it is interesting and maybe good proposal can come from it.
My friend MarkoStevelic said “plasma” today. This is when things make OneBigSoup. Atoms insides the sun permanently or insides of a flash for fragments of a second for example. In a plasma there is supraconduction.
HiveMind is not the same thing as CollectiveIntelligence. While HiveMind exibits strong traits of conformity and GroupThink, CollectiveIntelligence, as characterized by Tom Atlee, Douglas Engelbart, Cliff Joslyn, Ron Dembo, and other theorists, is that which overcomes “GroupThink” and individual CognitiveBias?, in order to allow a relatively large number of people to cooperate in one process - leading to reliable action. See the (GFDL corpus) WikiPedia articles on “Hive mind” and “Collective intelligence”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hive_mind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence
our hive mind is a speciality. you may call it WikiNow or look at all the other names here.
Brute Force for Brain Teasers article by Daniel Terdiman 2005-02-14 uses these terms:
Well, I have to use some term when I talk. This conversation has given a lot of different ideas and things.
Since the thing we’re talking about is so big and huge, and we’re all connected to it, I propose that we all just use our own names for it, and introduce them and connect them when we talk. We probably have different concepts of just what it is, too- I imagine with some more conversation, we would find division in our ideas. (Not a bad thing at all- this is inevitable when you have something so immensely huge, but that hasn’t been systematically studied.)
(Technicality: Mozilla is huge, it’s been systematically studied, and everyone agrees on what the names of the parts are. Physics is huge, it’s been systematically studied, and everyone agrees (more or less) on what the names of the parts are. The HiveMind / InterMind is huge, but it hasn’t been systematically studied, and so we are having differences in naming. It is worth noting that the fringes of both Mozilla and Physics- people do not agree on the names. Something for DavidCary’s “naming” wiki, which I think is actually an incredibly good idea.)
I am personally going to go with InterMind. And I’ll explain why.
First, the what-it’s-not’s:
Okay, here’s the positive “why I like InterMind”‘s:
Would anyone mind if I took the page “InterMind,” linked it to HiveMind, and said, “This is LionKimbro’s preferred term for the thing also called HiveMind.” ..? And then maybe give notes about the choice of the name, and explicitely give the page name “HiveMind” for talking about ideas about the thing?
I believe I’ve found a way out of the misery that is the HiveMindName: too be more specific about what we’re talking about.
On HiveMind, we identify three things. Here are possible names for them.
Yes, OnlineOrganizing? sounds like a good name for part of the idea. I’m starting to agree that we probably need several different names
Today I stumbled across an article using the term “groupmind” in the title, but not defining (or even using!) that word anywhere in the article. (It's a Wiki world out there for the Web's groupmind, USA Today, 2003-07-01).
Does this mean “groupmind” is already a term that we expect the average USA Today reader to understand?
You are welcome.
What do you think about the Bee hive Design Collective ?
Perhaps those people think: somehow, mashing together all these words – each with slightly negative connotations – somehow turns it into a postive?
-aside- the Beehive Design Collective are wonderful, I have seen there presentation and it is awe inspiring.
Define external redirect: RedundantArrayofIndependentBrains SmallHuman OnlineSocialOrganization DancingMinds HumanCybernetics LiquidBook CoMind EmergentDemocracy NonlinearConversation GemeinsamesHirnFeuer ThoughtShare GemeinsamesFeuerGehirn KorbIntelligenz BrainCluster SynergicIntelligence NonSequentialConversation OneCapFitsAll AutonomeKooperation CommonBrainsFire SharedThought MindShare AllUnderOneCap ResonantMind CommonFireBrain CognitiveBias WalkingBagOfMostlyWater PeopleCluster CommonGrip AllesUnterEinerMütze HumanOrganism BrainsPlasma InterConnected ClusterBrain WarmSystem CommunalLife SharedLife HiveIntelligence CommunalMind CommonsMind MentalCommons CommonBrainFire OnlineOrganizing GroupMind PlasmaMind MindCluster EspritRésonant EntMoot CommonMind EineMützePasstAllen CommonBrainCap KorbGeist FreieKooperation OrchestralThinking PinkAndSoft