Netocracy’s Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Collabocracy — Collaborative Intelligence and Governance of Globalised Society

Human intelligence is a manifestation of high mental capacity. It is defined as the ability to learn, reason, understand, plan, think and comprehend complex ideas, self-awareness, language, and responding successfully to changing circumstances in the natural and social environment. Eventually all properties of human intelligence could be reduced to the capability for decision-making and solving problems. Very often both processes are linked through creativity in one truly unique process. Human intelligence is closely tied to the evolution of the human brain and development of human language. For our purposes, we will look closely at three forms of human intelligence, directly linked to consciousness and self-awareness – individual, collective and collaborative, – which seem to have increasing power and importance.

           Individual, collective and collaborative intelligence

Individual intelligence is a mode of problem-solving and decision-making at a personal level. Throughout history, there are extraordinary examples and achievements of individual intelligence in all fields of human activity.

Collective intelligence is a shared or group intelligence. It accepts that a group of properly organised people, or a collective, can be more “intelligent” than the sum of its members’ intelligence. Political parties, councils, unions, among many others, are examples of collective intelligence. Collective intelligence is a form of cooperation based on discussions, deliberations and voting.

Collaborative intelligence is the most powerful human intelligence. It is a result of collaboration among knowledgeable, exceptionally gifted and creative people. Collaboration is as old as humanity – folklore, myths, legends, traditions and religious beliefs; in modern times technology and science are created by collaborative intelligence. Evolution of collaborative intelligence is an evolution of the platform for collaboration – “oral” (folklore), written text (science & technology) and, nowadays, digital.

“Collective” and “collaborative” sound misleadingly similar, but they are two completely different forms of intelligence. Collective intelligence is based on cooperation; collaborative intelligence is based on collaboration. Collective intelligence is a mechanism for making decisions; collaborative intelligence is a mechanism for solving problems. Decision-making is a mode of choosing one among several options. Solving problems is the capacity of the mind to create and verify knowledge. For example, politicians make decisions; inventors and scientists solve problems to find the right solution. Naturally, politicians discuss and vote to make decisions, which is collective intelligence. Scientists collaborate to solve problems. For this purpose, they create and verify hypotheses. Once proven, they are tested and elaborated by many others. There are no elections for scientists or voting components, as in the collective decision-making mechanisms. Science is an example of typical collaborative intelligence and its achievements demonstrate how powerful it can be. In collaborative intelligence, there is no room for voting at all. In short, collective intelligence is a decision-making mechanism, which involves all members of the social group; collaborative intelligence is a problem-solving mechanism, which involves a limited number of self-selected experts, who contribute to solve the problem according to their abilities and expertise. For instance, the Internet was expanded during the last two decades due to the collaboration of a thousand experts contributing to this project.

          Human intelligence and governance of society

 Governance is a mode of making decisions. Understandably, human intelligence is the key in the governance of society. For thousands of years society has been governed by individual intelligence: chiefs, pharaohs, khans, kings, emperors, etc. This is autocracy. After the Industrial Revolution, societies became more complex, and individual intelligence was inadequate to deal with such complexity. Slowly but surely, autocracy was replaced with democracy, which is a collective decision-making mechanism. Autocracy is a typical form of governance for relatively simple agrarian societies. Representative democracy (a collective decision-making mechanism) is typical for more complex industrialised societies. Representative democracy is a sophisticated system based on collective intelligence, which involves general elections and elaborate voting systems. Decisions are made in favour of the majority, with the assumption that the truth is on the side of the majority.

No doubt, industrial societies are more complex compared to feudal societies, but the forthcoming “post-industrial” or globalised society will be even more complex and “multidimensional”, taking into account not simply economic growth, but moral values amongst many others. It generates problems like pollution, climate change, nuclear proliferation, deforestation, poverty, etc., unsolvable by the collective intelligence and voting system. Emerging problems require a qualitatively different problem-solving mechanism. Democracy is based on collective intelligence and is simply not sufficient for this purpose. It is not a matter of the decision-making process, based on choosing between “left” and “right” political philosophy; this is a question of solving problems. In this situation, elected politicians and voting systems are powerless. In globalised society, there are clear indications for moving from decision-making to problem-solving mechanisms, i.e. from collective to collaborative intelligence. So, the increasing complexity of global society makes collective intelligence an insufficient mechanism for governance, just as Industrial societies made autocracy obsolete about two hundred years ago.

           Transition from collective to collaborative form of governance

Applying collaborative intelligence in the governance of society is a process of transition from democracy to collabocracy. Today nobody knows how this collabocracy will be fully implemented, but there is a clue.

In the governance of society, collective intelligence emerged and gave birth to parliamentarism about 800 years ago. It started with the appointment by the kings of groups of advisers, who met in a designated room to “parlare” and find solutions to emerging problems. Naturally, these councils became lawmakers and later evolved into elected parliaments as a more powerful collective decision-making mechanism. Nowadays, in a similar way, think tanks appointed by political leaders and parties are an archetype of future collaborative problem-solving mechanisms used for governance of society.

Think tanks or public policy research analysis are groups of experts working in collaboration and in a scientific manner. They conduct policy-orientated research and analysis, solve problems and give advice in an effort to enable policymakers and the public to make informed decisions. Think tanks are strictly specialised in very narrow fields or created ad hoc to solve one particular problem. Currently there are over 5550 think tanks worldwide, in nearly 170 countries. However, although nowadays think tanks pretend to be independent problem solvers, they may be affiliated to political parties, governments, interest groups or private corporations, which could bias their work. Most likely, the next level in the development of modern society is the emergence of collaborative problem-solving networks connecting think tanks through a digital platform facilitating collaboration. Such collaborative platforms already exist, but they are still in their infancy, available only for limited corporative projects. Nevertheless, the emergence of collaborative platforms and problem-solving mechanisms is the key to the transition from the collective to collaborative decision-making mechanism, or from democracy to collabocracy.

Keep in mind: autocracy invented parliament as a collective forum in response to increased pressure, due to the rising complexity of society and the limitation of one individual’s intelligence to resolve emerging problems. But only the overthrowing of autocracy turned parliament into a truly democratic institution. Nowadays the situation is similar. Representative democracy legitimises the ruling elite, which employs think tanks as collaborative organs to resolve emerging problems, which are beyond the capacity of collective intelligence. Hopefully, transforming the existing think tanks into frontline problem-solving mechanisms would lead to a qualitatively new level of governance – collabocracy.

At the time of the emerging parliamentarism, nobody imagined how fully implemented democracy could work. Understandably, today we cannot imagine what a society with a fully implemented collaborative mechanism will look like, but fortunately there is a clue. The complexity of globalised society is comparable only to the complexity of the human brain. The human brain is Mother Nature’s solution for complexity. Brain cells work “collaboratively”. Only “self-selected”, most relevant neurons are interconnected (associate) and involved in decision-making and the problem-solving process. There is no voting system at all. So, fully-grown collabocracy will resemble the structure and cognitive function of the human brain and mind.

Perhaps the next step is developing a platform for collaboration. Once developed, this platform could be used to solve problems and make decisions on all levels – local, national, regional and global. However, it is certain that the creation and implementation of such a mechanism is a matter of collaboration among lots of experts throughout the upcoming few decades.

For more info – see my book “Collaborative Democracy: The Transition from Money-Driven to Knowledge-Based Society”

http://www.amazon.com/Collaborative-Democracy-Transition-Money-Driven-Knowledge-Based/dp/1449564283/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1351626137&sr=8-1&keywords=Collaborative+democracy

Advertisements

December 20, 2012 Posted by | Democracy, Society | , , , | Leave a comment

Collaborative Democracy

Transition from Representation to Collaboration

The concept of collaborative democracy is simple. It is based on two interconnected fundamental principles of Social Evolution related to two of its most significant aspects: Decision-making mechanism and Social structure.

Firstly – governing of society is mode of making decisions. Becoming more complex, evolving society generates more complex problems and insists higher intelligence, more powerful and complex decision-making mechanism to be ruled properly. So far there are known only two forms of intelligence used as decision-making mechanism: individual and collective. For thousand of years relatively simple Agrarian societies have been ruled by single individual. This is autocracy. Understandably power was inherited. More complex Industrial societies are ruled by more sophisticated collective decision-making mechanism – representative democracy. The history of representative democracy is a history of parliamentariasm. It could be traced back to Magna Carta and almost completed around French Revolution and now is broadly spread across the world. Representative democracy transformed the world from sleeping to digital village. However representative democracy now faces same problems as autocracy in the 18th century – lack of intelligence. Although Industrial societies are very complex compare with Agrarian, forthcoming “post-industrial” or Humanitarian society is even more complex. This is so because currently dominated politico-economic system is “one dimensional”, based only on profit or economic growth and money is world spread religion. Moral is in decline and side-effects of financial capitalism destroy society. Ongoing globalisation generates global problems, which cannot be solved by collective intelligence. Those problems insist higher intelligence and more complex decision-making mechanism. This is collaborative intelligence.

Secondly: Social evolution is a gradual transfer from a hierarchy to heterarchy. In principle simple systems are hierarchically organised, more complex system like, Universe, free-market, Internet and human brain are heterarchical by nature. Not surprising simple societies are hierarchical, more complex societies are heterarchicaly organised. Agrarian societies have complete hierarchical structure by definition. More complex Industrial societies are partly heterarchical. They have two clear heterarchical components – representative democracy and free-market economy. To survive forthcoming Humanitarian society insists complete heterarchical structure. However for society heterarchical structure doesn’t mean “equality” as politicians and economist could assume. It is a matter of using and abusing of power.

Interconnection between both principles – higher intelligence and heterarchical organisation explain dynamics of modern society – emerging of hierarchical politico-economic systems like communism and fascism, collapse and destruction of both systems. Historians could count number of various reasons: political, economic or what so ever, but at the end of the day they both were wiped away due to inadequate decision-making mechanism. Decline of democracy and degeneration to plutocracy; emerging of financial capitalism and corporatocracy, which is the last hierarchy based on possession and control of resources is a completely different politico-economic system compare with earlier stages of capitalism. It generates unsolvable problems by collective intelligence, which in addition is turned down by money masters and corrupted, arrogant and hypocritical power elite.

Although collective and collaborative intelligences seem to be tricky and misleadingly similar, they are very different indeed. Collective decision-making mechanism is based on competing political parties, general elections and elaborated voting system. Decisions are made in favour of majority. In most cases this is thru, but not always. Throughout history collaborative intelligence created folklore, myths and legends, in modern times – science and technology. There are no elections and voting system only self-selection according abilities, skills and expertise. In short, collective intelligence is quantitative by nature based simply on number of participants and decisions are made in favour of majority assuming that majority is right. Collaborative intelligence is qualitative by nature and only best minds could collaborate in an attempt to resolve a problem or contribute to creation of something socially significant. This is collaborative democracy. So, the point is could collaborative intelligence be organised in a manner to solve social problems and make-decisions? How collaborative democracy will look like and works?

For simplicity collaborative democracy could be called “netocracy”. However “netocracy” as higher form of democracy should be disambiguate clearly from a technocratic term “netocracy” coined by the American magazine “Wired” to describe emerging digital “aristocrats”, who supposedly will control future society. There is nothing in common between democracy and aristocracy, apparently noting in common between “netocracy” as collaborative democracy and “netocracy” as a “digital aristocracy”. In fact they are diametrically opposed and totally negate each other.

March 7, 2010 Posted by | Democracy, Society | , , , , , | Leave a comment

“We, The People” (Developing a new democracy)

Comment:  Perry Walker – “We, The People” (Developing a new democracy)

The book “We, The People” could be downloaded at: http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/we-people

Dear Mr. Walker,  I  share your concerns about democracy. I believe the ideas outlined in your book, from Democs to preferenda are interesting and helpful for local authorities, but I am very sceptical regarding possibilities to reinvent democracy especially on national and international levels.

Downfall of democracy is a fact and democracy simply cannot be reinvented, restored revitalised or unlock because of two core reasons:

a) The “marriage of convenience” between power of money and political power systematically destroys democracy and apparently there is no prospective for divorce.

b) Representative democracy has limitations, which make it already inadequate to increased complexity of modern society.

Briefly – so far are known only two decision-making mechanisms: individual and collective, respectively – two fundamental forms of governing – autocracy and democracy. All well known forms of governing are derivates of those two basic forms, reflecting concrete historical and political situations. However the autocracy is typical for relatively simple Agrarian societies; the representative democracy (collective decision-making mechanism) is typical for more complicated Industrial societies.

Although Industrial society is more complicated compare with Agrarian society, it is “one-dimensional” because dominated today politico-economic system capitalism is based on “one dimension” – profit. Forthcoming future “post-industrial” (or Humanitarian) society will be “multidimensional”, taking into account not simply economic growth, but moral values among many others. Therefore nowadays representative democracy not surprisingly become increasingly inadequate to emerged complexity of modern society. Former beauty queen who transformed world from sleepy to digital village now is an old frail lady already suffering from dementia and nobody could cure her. She will pass away together with existed politico-economic system, as autocracy disappeared together with Agrarian society.

So, as was mentioned above any stage of Social evolution: Agrarian or Industrial society has its own specific decision-making mechanism reflecting complexity of society: individual resp. collective. Therefore the future Humanitarian society, where economy will be based on moral values instead of profit, needs qualitatively different decision-making mechanism. In my view this is collaborative mechanism. So, if something needs to be discussed, this is – how “collaborative democracy” will look like, operate and how collective or “representative” democracy will be transformed into “collaborative” and why “collaborative democracy” is higher form of democracy compare with collective?

February 19, 2010 Posted by | Democracy, Society | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Society as Living and Rational System

Modern society is in a process of creation of social self-consciousness, which will replace currently domination of political social consciousness and reshape society in unpredictable way

Any self-organised formation can be defined as system. Best example is Universe. Starting with Big Bang as chaos of particles it gradually formed Galaxies and Solar systems. For 3.5 bn years the planet Earth, through self-organisation of “chemical soup” created most primitive living organisms. They can be considered as living systems. So, physical form of self-organisation “grows up” to biological form of self-organisation, i.e. inanimate matter created animate matter, which in fact is appearance of Biological Evolution. The living systems are self-reproductive, i.e. self-organisation reaches a level of self-reproduction. Therefore the biological evolution is a new; more complex form of self-organisation. For about another 3.5 bn years the simple forms of live developed: nerve system, central nerve system and eventually human mind. This is new turning point of self-organisation – emergence of rational systems and fundamentally different form of self-organisation – Social Evolution. There are only two such systems – human being as individual and society as a group of individuals. Both systems have a mind & reason, respectively – individual and social consciousness.

The core of self-organisation is information, which is fundamental property of matter on same status as motion, space and time. In fact evolution at al levels: physical, biological and social is an evolution of information, from pattern to gene and from gene to knowledge. The knowledge is consciousness information. The engine of society is verification of knowledge.

Most amazing, incredible and intriguing thing of self-organization and evolution in general is that there is no need of creator, intelligent designer or whatsoever. It is simply moving matter and self-organized information, which create marvellous structures called: Universe, living and rational systems. Only time scale is incomprehensible for our mind.   

Social being and Social consciousness

As a living and rational system society contain two sub-systems – social being and social consciousness. Social being is “living” part of society, representing “physiology” of the system and securing physical survival of society – economy.  Social consciousness represents reason and social mind. It is the “contents” of information: believes, myths, aesthetical views, religion ideas, philosophy, science, moral values etc. Both sub-systems are interconnected with multiple positive – and negative feedbacks. Understandably they evolve in parallel passing through several levels of increased complexity known as socio-economic systems (slavery, feudalism and capitalism) and dominated form of social consciousness (mythological consciousness, religious consciousness (polytheism & monotheism), political consciousness. The parallel and interconnections between evolutions of both sub-systems is obvious.

The mechanism of Social Evolution is very simple. It is a string of repeated cycles started with idea generated in right times and finished with destruction (negation) of this idea. However this controversial process brings society to new level of complexity. The cycle of development passes trough eight critical changes:

  1. Emergence of radical new ideas. New ideas appear in times of perils. They are fundamentally new approach offering non-standard solution of currently ongoing social situation. The ideas come from freethinkers and “critical mass” of very few people planted these ideas in the public domain triggering changes in the social consciousness.
  2. Institutionalisation of the idea. At certain level of development the new ideas are institutionalised. It makes the ideas structure determinated factor, therefore extremely powerful tool for social changes.
  3. Creation of Hierarchy. The institutionalisation creates hierarchical structure of official institutions and officials, opening door for “practical” people who joint the movement because of offered opportunities. This is subjective process of recruitment of decision-makers or ruling elite.
  4. Changes in social being. Newly created social environment change social being (economy, welfare etc.) according to the vision of ruling elite, changing society accordingly.
  5. Corruption of institutions and officials. Due to emerging contradictions and conflict of interests, officials and decision-makers become corrupted servicing their own interest instead the system as a whole.
  6. Self-protection. To secure and prolong its privileges, the ruling elites set up special institutions to control the rest of society.
  7. Downfall. The created hierarchy and decisions made in favour of ruling elite, lead to corruption, which undermine moral values and sooner or later trigger process of self-destruction (negation) of this idea. Entire socio-economic system is under treat and the resistance of ruling elite for radical changes plunge society into “dark ages”.
  8. Transition to new social system. Newly achieved complexity of society insists new more adequate decision-making mechanism, economy and moral values. Society needs new ideas to motivate social consciousness for qualitative (revolutionary) changes. However those times of perils provoke new ideas and new cycle is going to start again. Eventually the existed hierarchy has been destroyed and new economy, moral values and decision-making mechanism established.

The first stage present changes in social consciousness and can be defined as Cultural Revolution. The second change is revolution in social being. The rest of changes are lifespan, boom and bust of newly created stage of Social Evolution. This cycle could be monitored again and again throughout history.

Emerging and downfall of Christianity is an example for replacement of polytheism with monotheism. This is Cultural Revolution, because lead to qualitative changes in social consciousness, which thereafter lead to Economic Revolution or replacement of slavery with feudalism. Not surprisingly Church as Institution becomes corrupted; created Sent Inquisition to protect its integrity and eventually plunged society into dark ages.

Emerging and downfall of nowadays Financial Capitalism is an example of transition from money-driven to moral based society. The capitalism started with Cultural Revolution or changes in social consciousness during Italian Renaissance passed trough period of French Enlightenment, which transformed dominated monotheistic social consciousness with secular or to be more precise with domination of political social consciousness. Newly emerged social consciousness initiate Economic Revolution, which eventually replaced land based economic system (feudalism) with money based economic system (capitalism). Political social consciousness also re-invented democracy as completely different decision-making mechanism, compare with long-lasted autocracy. In that way the process of institutionalisation was completed. During the last two hundred years the capitalism created hierarchy of self-made capitalists, which gradually turned into hierarchy of money-masters. This hierarchy steadily monopolize decision-making mechanism destroying democracy, restricted social liberties and plunge society into nowadays political mess and uncertainty, which perhaps one day will be considered as “political dark ages”. Such a downfall is not surprising, because modern social consciousness is obsessed of money as medieval consciousness was obsessed with Havens.

Appearance and downfall of communism and fascism are very edifying examples of unsuccessful attempt to reshape existed socio-economic system with pre-designed men-made models. They both passed trough above mentioned cycle of changes, created hierarchy of party’s bureaucrats   and collapsed infamously, simply because socio-economic systems are result of objective process of accumulation and verification of knowledge; they are very complex strictures and cannot be pre-designed by human mind, according to assumed principles as economic equality or national superiority.[1]

It is important to comprehend that as a system society cannot be artificially pre-designed and any such attempt is doomed and with terrible consequences for society. The subjective factor including ruling elite could make numerous of quantitative changes, but qualitative leaps to new socio-economic system is prerogative of objective laws. Therefore the artificially designed New World Order, which nowadays politicians and power elite offer as solution of emerging global problems is simply impossible to be implemented.

As was mentioned above there are only two rational systems – human being and society, respectively – individual consciousness and social consciousness. Apparently same similarities between both forms of consciousness are very likely to exist. There are some evidences about symmetry between phylogenesis and ontogenesis. According to Ernst Haeckel, the ontogenesis is a brief and rapid recapitulation of the phylogenesis. [2] Dr. Spock also said: “Each child as he develops is retracing the whole history of mankind, physically and spiritually, step by step. A baby starts off in the womb as a single tiny cell, just the way the first living thing appeared in the ocean. Weeks later, as he lies in the amniotic fluid of the womb, he has gills like a fish”.[3] So if such similarities exist for physiological development this law of evolution could be expected for psychological development of both rational systems as well. For instance Ken Wilber in his book, A Brief History of Everything, suggests that cultures evolved consciousness following a similar path that children mature through, from magical thinking to mythical and ultimately objective thinking, and for some, holistic thought.[4]

In fact similarities between individual and social consciousness are overwhelming: perceptions, emotions, memory, thinking, behaviour, even pathologies are comparable. [5] Keeping in mind emergence and development of individual consciousness it is possible to predict with high degree of probability the next level of evolution of social consciousness. This upcoming step is –

Emergence of social self-consciousness and transition of society from “puberty to adulthood”

So far social consciousness evolved from: mythological, religious (polytheism & monotheism) and nowadays dominated political social consciousness.

Those levels of development resemble emergence and development of individual consciousness up to emergence of individual self-consciousness during late teens. The self-consciousness or “knowing yourself” is a crucial and critical period of transition from puberty to adulthood. Recently emergence of social self-consciousness or understanding that we are all in one boat and society is a single organism is a sign this process is already underway. The engine of this process is Globalisation of society especially during last few decades.

If emergence of social self-consciousness is comparable with the emergence of individual self-consciousness, this comparison could produce a rough idea about the “age” of our society. Recently the emerged global self-consciousness is a sign of transition from youth to mature age; hence our civilization is still in its “teens”. This means humanity is in the middle of the road of its evolution, still very young and there are plenty to explore ahead. This is also qualitative leap in social evolution and can be considered as Cultural Revolution which inevitably will lead to dramatic changes in social being as sub-system.

Perhaps most important upcoming change is replacement of money with knowledge as fundamental values. This seems understandable. Money is a bloodstream of economy and base of capitalism as economic system. However knowledge is the bloodstream of society as a whole, i.e. bloodstream for both sub-systems, therefore more important for sustainable development and surviving of society compare with money.

The second crucial change is adopting of new decision-making mechanism. Democracy, general election and voting system on all levels is a collective decision-making mechanism. It works satisfactory today, for resolving relatively simple national and regional problems, but will be insufficient in resolving global problems. This is so, because global problems are very complex, few people have sufficient knowledge to comprehend and make decisions. Global problems are like scientific problems, which are solved by verification of hypothesis. Apparently voting system in such situations is meaningless. Most likely social self-consciousness will form something as

Virtual brain and Global mind

Imagine a network of experts related to one particular problem across the globe, collaborating in an attempt to elaborate solution in form of hypothesis, which will be tested in real life to proof its validity. This job actually is very similar to collaboration of several authors in writing an article in Wikipedia or another wiki site. Apparently any particular problem will form a specific network of experts contributing to find right solution. The experts will act as “brain cells” and created networks will resemble something as virtual brain. The function of this virtual mind could be considered as Global mind.

The virtual brain and global mind is collaborative decision-making mechanism which exclude voting system by definition. It is next and higher level of democracy, because all decisions will be made in favour of society as a whole not particular privileged group of people. Emergence of virtual brain and global mind is embodiment of social self-consciousness into society as a single organism. It is Cultural Revolution, which inevitably will result in dramatic changes in both sub-systems of society. Nobody could predict how future society will look like and how will work, because the future of society will entirely depend on solutions made by global mind.

Notes

  1. No doubt if Germany was succeeded to wine WWII, the fascism would collapse thereafter as communism did due to same reasons.
  2. Ernst Haeckel, Riddle of the Universe at the Close of the Nineteenth Century. 1899.
  3. Dr. Benjamin Spock, Baby and Child Care, 1957, p. 223.
  4. Ken Wilber, A Brief History of Everything, pp 330, Shambhala; 2 edition, 2001.
  5. A new interdisciplinary formal science “Social Psychopathology” is needed to research pathological deviation of social consciousness.

February 1, 2010 Posted by | Society | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Global Brain and Mind Project

Collaborative decision-making mechanism
Nowadays solving social problems and decision-making process is a prerogative of governmental, nongovernmental institutions and political parties at al levels – global, regional, national and local. However several factors badly influence those decisions.

Firstly, very often conflicts of interests between institutional, governmental and political parties on one hand and society on other hand made final decisions in favour of small group of people instead in favour of society.

Secondly, media manipulations of public opinion could influence decisions also in favour of small group of people instead of society.

Thirdly – baying and selling decisions. Recently was found that the profit of black economy for last year alone exceeded $2 trillions. Half of this amount is bribes paid to corrupted officials across the world. No doubt one trillion dollars are spending to bay decisions, which also are in favour of those who paid the bribes.

Fourthly – According to the Centre for Public Integrity, the “influence industry” in Washington now spends $6 billion a year and employs more than thirty-five thousand lobbyists, some two hundred of whom are former Congress members who enjoy easy access to their erstwhile colleagues. Not to mention “contributions” of white economy legally investing millions in sponsorship for political parties. Society is looser and need independent and alternative mechanism for decision-making.

Our ambition is to crate worldwide social network of self-selected people resembling human brain and mind, who will collaborate in attempt to solve social problems on all levels – global, regional, national and local. The final solutions should be accepted as alternative second opinion to officially made solutions by institutions, governments and political parties. To be helpful for society NetsMind solutions should be truly independent and transparent made in favour of society as a whole, not particular group of people or nation i.e. will be based on morality.

To fulfil our mission and objects we have to create high quality social network of dedicated to society people and effective mechanism to maintain highest possible standards of collaboration.

According to our concept, most of the national and local problems will be discussed and solved on nationally based websites. In this way on one hand will be reduced unnecessary traffic across the world and on other hand will be created network of servers worldwide, resembling human brain. To any one of involved in this project country will be assigned sub-domain. Apparently national and local problems will be discussed and solved on local languages.

The procedure for recruiting regional and national administrators is simple.

  1. They should be registered as a contributors;
  2. They should apply by email;
  3. In case of approval national sub domain will be assigned and website could be set up immediately.
  4. At certain stage the national sub domain could be transferred to nationally based server to reduce unnecessary traffic.

Administrators have extended responsibilities. However they have no status in NetsMind above those of other regular contributors. Using admin powers to dominate or abuse productive NetsMind contributors is not acceptable.

We believe in solving problems process morality should be above all. Any forms of religious and political extremism, ethnic or racial discrimination or hatred will not be tolerated. All contributor should keep in mind society as a whole not particular group of people or nation. We work for surviving of society and humankind.

We are strictly not for profit organization and entirely depend on donations. So no ads of any sort are allowed to be published on our network.

NetsMind.org wiki web site is dedicated to solving social problems on all levels: global, regional, national and local.

Unfortunately in most cases there is conflict between institutional and political parties’ interest from one hand and society as a whole from other hand. As a result most decisions are badly biased in fever of decision-makers. Very often they are no effective, counterproductive and even destructive for society. This is valid for decisions made on all levels from climate change, nuclear proliferation and regional conflicts to national and local issues. Society is looser and need an alternative and independent mechanism for decision-making. This site is an attempt to offer such opportunity.

The idea is independent self-selected according their expertise people to collaborate based on formal psychological model for solving problems. In this way will be created virtual network of people resembling human brain and mind. The people who assemble virtual social network collaborating to resolve social problems could be called netocrats, Hence – Netocrats’ Virtual Mind or NetsMind.

Netocrats’ virtual mind (or NetsMind) is a Virtual Brain and Mind Project based in London with mission to facilitate this process on all levels – global, regional, national and local.

Our mission is to present platform, infrastructure and resources to crate community of self-selected people, with expertise to contribute in solving variety of social problems. The final solution should be made in favour of society as a whole, not particular group of people. In other words solutions will be independent and morally based.

Those solutions will be “second opinion” of society, and:

  • will be corrective to institutionally made decisions;
  • will generate new ideas;
  • will facilitate the exchange of positive experience among communities;
  • will allow fast introduction to various problems for people not so familiar with them;
  • will increase social activity and creativity.

Second opinion is broadly accepted in medical practice and successfully used for ages. In field of politics second opinion usually offer rival political party in opposition. However this opinion is also politically biased. Therefore society needs truly independent decision-making and problem-solving mechanism.

To crate such mechanism, the cardinal problem is structuring and modelling of social creativity. There are software programs for decision-making in corporate environment. Decision-making process however is routine process to choose one among number of possible, but well-known alternatives.

Solving-problem is a process, which generate new information. It is truly creative process. There is no algorithm for creativity. Theory of social creativity is still in its infancy. Nevertheless a formal model describing solving-problems creative process emerges and hopefully could facilitate web-based collaboration. In this way the circle of participants in problem-solving process, or netocrats expands enormously, covering entire world.

The formal model for solving problems consists of six stages and many internal steps. It is designed to solve very complicated social problems and not all steps should be followed strictly in case of more simple issues. The model could be seen on our project page). Working with this model is very simple task. The contributor should present his/her thoughts according to models’ format. If on certain stage or step text is already written, it should be edit in the spirit of improvement. Opposed opinions will be discussed separately in designate page openly and transparently and resolved with consent. Alternatively two scenarios will be elaborated and verified in practice. In this way all contributors will structure one single document, which will lead to resolving existing problem.

No doubt:

  • Firstly, newly born virtual brain and mind at the very beginning will be more or less like baby’s brain and mind, charming, but not so capable to solve any significant social problem. To do that virtual brain and mind should grow up and mature. For this reason the first steps will be more difficult until participants, contributors or netocrats expand to level of “critical mass”. At this point all independent decisions will have significant impact on society.
  • Secondly, implementation of decisions in social practice at the beginning will be very difficult, partly because of luck of political will and perhaps due to deliberately opposition of nowadays official decision-makers. Guess why.
  • Thirdly, nevertheless in foreseeable future most important social decisions will be made or influenced through netocratic mechanism of collaboration and implemented by national and international institutions. In this way NetsMind will resemble a judicial system – most important decisions are made by juries and the judges implement the verdicts.
  • Fourthly, in long term inevitably decision-making process in social practice will be separated by implementation, because this is only way to beat corruption of politicians and bureaucrats. After all society will transit from democracy to netocracy i.e. self-governing society.

For more info regarding Netocracy see – http://www.netocracy.org.uk

Model for Problem Solving

There is significant difference between Making decisions and solving problems. In the first case solutions are known and decision-maker should choose best one. Solving problems is truly creative process. Final solution is unknown and there is no algorithm for creative solutions. However same logical levels leading to such solutions could be identified. In proposed model there are six basic levels subdivided in one, two or several logical steps. Solving any sort of social problems will follow more or less those steps, although they are not equally important and in some cases some of them could be ignored and skipped.

In case of contradicting opinions, contradiction could be discussed on designated “Discussion” page. If this is not possible a second alternative solution should be elaborate up to the level of “Feasible Model” and social practice will verify which solution is right.

Model for Problem Solving

Describing the Problem’s situation

  • Describing the problem in plain language
  • Background – genesis and developments. Reason not to be solved so far
  • Potential causes for the problem
  • Identifying recourses and collecting data
  • Interpreting data
  • Formulating the problem
  • Structuring the problem(Describing the problem in system way)
  • Identifying aim and objectives

Analysing the Problem situation

  • Identifying positive and negative connections. Possible subsystems.
  • Identifying the contradictions
  • Analysing the contradictions
  • Identifying the basic contradiction

Solving the basic contradiction

  • Analysing analogous, hypothesis & suppositions, alternatives and consequences
  • Finding strategies
  • Describing ideal solution
  • Resolving the basic contradiction

Feasible Model of the Solution

  • Implementation of pilot project
  • Restating the problem in another way if necessary

Implementation

  • Necessary changes, resources, management

Monitoring results and changes

  • Observation and feedback

For more info regarding Netocracy see – http://www.netocracy.org.uk

Contribute your expertise to solve social problem – www.NetsMind.org

August 19, 2009 Posted by | Society | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How to “Upgrade” Democracy?

Evolving society become more and more complicated and decision-making mechanism periodically was upgraded to more powerful “operational system” (OS). For instance Agrarian societies have been ruled simply by one person; therefore autocracy is “version 1.xx” of decision-making mechanism. There are many “xx” modifications of this operational system, but the people of 18th century successfully upgraded autocracy to democracy, which is completely different “2.xx” version, more powerful, sophisticated, stable and most importantly – adequate to complexity of emerging Industrial societies.

Democracy was great operational system. It is collective decision-making mechanism, involving political parties competing to rule, elections and voting system working in favour of majority. Democracy is “collective mind” it worked very well for several centuries. During 20th century democracy also experimented with some modifications of decision-making mechanisms. In general these versions are attempts of one particular group of users to monopolise entire market. Most important are communism and fascism, which already crashed because they were unable to solve the social problems, they were created for.

Currently dominated “corporative democracy” also intend to monopolise entire market, but cause more damage than good to society and soon will collapse in even more spectacular way, because of the same reason – emerging global problems are so complex and “collective mind” of political parties, think-tanks and other democratic institutions, simply cannot solve them. This corporative version of democracy is badly paralysed by greed and hypocrisy, it destroy morality of users and generate social outcast and terror. Perhaps soon this version of democracy will be pronounced as clinically death. So, modern society is on the brink of transition from “Industrial” to “Post-industrial” level of complexity. Humanity urgently need new version of decision-making mechanism, adequate to this higher level of social and technological complexity. This is version 3.xx or “collaborative” decision-making mechanism.

“Collective mind” and “Collaborative mind” sound similar, but difference is principle and staggering. There are no political parties, leaders, “fathers” and voting systems at all; only we – the people of 21st century. Collective mind is something like – “mechanical set” of individual minds; Collaborative mind is “functional synergism” of the best minds of humanity.

Collaborative decision-making mechanism works as human brain, which is the most sophisticated decision-making mechanism created by Mother Nature itself. There is no “competing”, “leading” or “controlling” sells, no voting system; there are only associations (or collaboration) among “most relevant brain cells”. Hence we simply have to apply this mechanism to future society. So, basically people with necessary expertise collaborate as brain sells do in attempt to find solution, which is tested in real life. The final decision is made in favour of humanity as a whole, because humanity as a whole is a single living organism (or rational system). Therefore the collaborative decision-making process resemble global virtual mind in action. This stuff is outlined in more details at http://www.netocracy.org.uk.

To give a chance for such collaboration, experimental version of 3.xx decision-making mechanism is installed on wiki based website http://www.netsmind.org, which offer possibility to everybody with sufficient expertise to participate and collaborate with others in attempt to resolve social problems on all levels – global, regional, national and local. This Project also offer an opportunity to all people currently involved in variety of social movements, to collaborate in outlining the features of Modern society, the structure and functions of Future society and how transitional period will be implemented.

Apparently the people, who control the currently dominated corporative version will tray to keep it running as long as possible, but approaching upgrade is inevitable, because this system cannot run smoothly with very sophisticated modern applications. So, let make this qualitative leap from “collective” to “collaborative” mind, and upgrade Democracy to new more adequate to complexity of forthcoming society decision-making mechanism.

Upgrading the system is job for professionals. During 18th century British upgraded their version 1.xx to 2.xx OS in peaceful way. French people completed the job in very emotional and damaging way. Let we, the people of 21st century, upgrade paralysed democracy to the new 3.xx version peacefully and wisely. So, you are invaded to visit http://www.netsmind.org and participate in pre-release testing and debugging of this revolutionary new OS and bear in mind only collaborative mind could make it stable and operational.

D. Tchurovsky

November 30, 2008 Posted by | Society | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hello world!

"Netocracy"  is a term with two different meanings: a) in technological
context "netocracy" derives from "internet" and "aristocracy" and refers to
a perceived global upper-class that bases its power on a technological
advantage and networking skills; b) in humanitarian context netocracy is the
next level of development of democracy. This is newly emerging mode of
"collaborative decision-making mechanism", based on digital technologies and up-and-coming
social networks. In this case the word "netocracy" derives from "net" (web
of connections) and the ancient Greek "kratos" -  "rule" or "power" and is
qualitative new stage of development of decision-making process. Netocracy
is based on virtual global mind or global intellect, social consciousness
and self-consciousness. Decisions are made in favour of society as a whole.
Netocracy is self-ruling society without power elite. The next
socio-economic system (i.e. after capitalism) is epistemism – knowledge
based economy and collaborative decision-making mechanism. 

For more details see www.netocracy.org.uk.
 
 
D. Tchurovsky
 

November 29, 2008 Posted by | Society | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment