Is the psycho-social system of NSG forming its own mind?

[Shaggai]

It has already occurred and [violet] quickly learned that the only move is not to play.

Oh, that's why [violet] has no nation! It all makes sense now!

[TaQud]

Oh please no

[Siaos]

Well, its one of the most conflicted minds in the world. If left brain right brain applies to the NSG mind, then Left brain would be socialist while right brain is Right-Libertarian.

[Mkuki]

If NSG formed a thought process? I'd suspect that it would quickly commit suicide. No way something as "simple" as the human brain can actually believe all of the conflicting beliefs on NSG and still stay mentally healthy.

[Orham]

We are NSG. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

NSG becoming self aware... I feel dread. But what would it say? Probably a lot.

[Bombadil]

There's a lot of parameters to the OP that are not made clear.. ironic since they previously posted a thread on ensuring such clarity as the purpose of a debate.. still..

For example, 'self-aware' isn't enough, we're assuming here that it can read, comprehend and relate to personal experience. What it would say depends on the relative sophistication of that self-awareness.

Having said that, if we were to assume NSG had the ability to fully comprehend all the posts, and also assume that it had instant recall, ability to parse by topic and inter-relate subjects and posters..

..I imagine it would be extremely intelligent given the amount of information it has access to. One would have to imagine it would be able to take the sum of discussion on any given subject and come up with the best possible answer especially given all the source material available - similar to a computer spitting out results from vast amounts of data.

Having said that, with no real means of personal experience, I suspect it could not have that comprehension.

[Skrewalkers]

There's a lot of parameters to the OP that are not made clear.. ironic since they previously posted a thread on ensuring such clarity as the purpose of a debate.. still..

For example, 'self-aware' isn't enough, we're assuming here that it can read, comprehend and relate to personal experience. What it would say depends on the relative sophistication of that self-awareness.

Having said that, if we were to assume NSG had the ability to fully comprehend all the posts, and also assume that it had instant recall, ability to parse by topic and inter-relate subjects and posters..

..I imagine it would be extremely intelligent given the amount of information it has access to. One would have to imagine it would be able to take the sum of discussion on any given subject and come up with the best possible answer especially given all the source material available - similar to a computer spitting out results from vast amounts of data.

Having said that, with no real means of personal experience, I suspect it could not have that comprehension.

Mea culpa, I should have better defined what was being proposed, but I lack the grasp of cognitive science to properly phrase the varying kinds of intelligence, much less the very sketchy hypotheticals of complex group intelligences. I admit I was hoping someone better schooled in such things would either propose a more solid definition or explain why it would be impossible or otherwise unfeasible. My fault

I'm not sure which earlier thread I posted about clarity of debate that you are referring to. While I very much value such clarity (while admitting I frequently fall short of the ideal), if I made such a thread it might have been to advocate more evident parameters in polemic discussion to avoid mere head-butting in favor of actual exploration of the idea. As the OP here presented a more generalized (and possible wholly impractical) concept, I thought leaving it a bit more open might have served as more amiable invitation to differing executions of a composite thought system; I just didn't want to narrow the possibilities, particularly for such a problematic topic. The resulting failure in clarity is honestly merely insufficiency in my own intellectual prowess in the pursuit of an unrestrained array of models, and not a rejection of whatever clarity I was talking about in whatever thread you're referencing. My bad

That said, would the mind necessarily need the systematic and exhaustive recall to all threads and opinions? Certainly NSG existing digitally as a "computer thing", the ability to record and reference that much data with the processing of modern computers might make that a foremost consideration. But what if it were just the people, whose geographical and logistic barriers to interaction are overcome by the computer context? Such people could identify the "gems" as it were, combing the threads like the higher analytic powers might listen to the background hum of daily brain-dance, and then latching onto and engaging with the most promising material for more targeted attention?

Certainly, the computers provide the communication, but what if the thinking were simply done by groups of the humans, refined by discussion, amplified by task-assignment to the particularly talented in whatever various specialties and subfields exist here, and then emitting some sort of "thought" in a wording crafted by whoever here evinces a particular ability to articulate? Of course, this isn't all that different than a group of scientists or researchers of whatever sort working in a lab or office, collaborating as a group and nothing so grandiose as a collective "mind", but I would imagine not all research groups have so broad (and tirelessly, almost obsessively active)
interaction with one another.

NSG never stops, and is unconstrained by any particular research director, stated goal, administrative complications, funding issues, organizational orthodoxy, or anything other than the inclinations of whatever mod happens to catch an issue.

Yes, it results in the occasional absurdity or vacuous prattling (my own threads likely included, I'll concede) but what of those silly utterings might have the seed of truly novel thought? In nature, the vast majority of mutation is either useless or in fact a detraction. Only time and enormous numbers yield that occasional specimen whose fortune-blessed weirdness might take flight or breathe first air.

But what have here, if not time and enormous numbers?

Perhaps I have overstated what "it" is. Perhaps it won't be a formal artificial intelligence that makes the boys at MIRI shit their pants and start designing EMP guns.

Maybe its just all of us, looking diligently for that thing we hadn't seen before.

In my previous thread, (which was about extremist methodology), somebody introduced me to an idea relating to the "moral equivalent of war". While I don't doubt most others here were already aware of the idea, it was something I hadn't seen before, and it has sent me to new readings, new ponderings, and ideas about my very core motivations that I had not previously considered. Merely new to me, old news to everyone else? I suppose.

But each time one of us gives something fresh to another, and not merely the umpteenth cry of "strawman" and "you're just trying to sound smart, so I will say you are not smart!!!", do we not improve those mental evolutionary odds in favor of one of us, or better stated, some of us...to find the vision beyond those pointalist posts and walls of text?

[Bombadil]

*snip* confunding wall of text

Well.. (and I'll TG on specifying which other thread but anyhow..)

...with the right programme one could probably create a map using Boolean logic and create a large interactive word cloud whereby the tone and volume of any subject, and the linkage of those keywords in relation to each other with links to sample posts, can be seen to get an idea of the overall 'conversation' of NSG and linkage between topics..

I mean, surely religion, abortion and republican/democrat would likely feature large but it would be interesting to see and click through various strands. I actually do this sort of thing for work but I don't deal with the volume contained in NSG nor the lack of parameters. i.e. I can look at a specific subject and then view the associated words with that subject through volume and relation so, potentially, I could key in 'abortion' and then add boolean text strings to look at results but not just enter NSG as a whole and draw out anything, well not without giving up the next 10 years of my time..