Forcing a collective consciousness

Eh, no. In fact, I'd say a hivemind is more detrimental than anything since it allows for mobs, wasting time poking around with others, and still avoiding a lot of face to face contact that largely serves for helping us understand each other.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Usht, with a hivemind there would be no such thing as "others", because individuality would not exist.

Is Instrumentality a good idea? I'd say not, the physical, cultural, and human cost of such a thing would be beyond comprehension.

Out of Context Theater: Mike K "'Bloody Pussies' cracked me up"

Speak well, Tnu 1138. If you're as violently opposed to this as I expect you to be, you've just been given one hell of an opportunity for a massive Made Of Win-worthy argument against it. (Personally, I find the very idea creepy on a level too deep to properly explain, but I wouldn't stand in the way of someone trying to form one so long as I got to stay out of it.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

All the more reason for it, a large chunk of why humans are able to evolve as well as we do is because there's a lot of different minds that can think up different things and pursue that particular objective. Humanity is better at creativity and spontaneity than intense levels of focus when it comes to progress.

edited 5th Apr '11 11:20:38 PM by Usht

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

Depends on what do you mean by "hivemind". If it means losing one's individuality, hell no. But if it means adding a further layer of organization, by setting up some system for directly communicating thoughts, emotions and even physical sensations among members on a voluntary basis... well, I think that the idea could have potential, and would not be squicky at all.

Consider Mars from A Miracle Of Science, for example: Martian people do retain their individuality, and are different people with different opinions and personalities. However, together they constitute Mars, and this gives them access to insane amounts of intellectual and physical power.

edited 5th Apr '11 11:50:47 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

^ I know I wasn't supposed to find Mars freaky, but I never quite got over my initial reaction to it. Made a lot of the story have the wrong effect on me, since the author clearly intended me to like Mars.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I personally don't find anything wrong with this idea, as long as it's consensual on both ends. It's just a more efficient, direct form of communication. Kinda like what email is to physical mail.

Some people would argue that all people, indeed the whole universe, are already a single consciousness. Call it God if you like. So a collective consciousness would involve freeing some people from the delusion that they are completely independent individuals. There would be no loss of individuality, but everyone would gain the ability to sense the collective, to understand that we are all parts of a whole.

Under World. It rocks!

That's quite a handle, OP.

Kill all math nerds

I have no problem with this.....seems like only good things could come from it. I don't find the idea disturbing at all, but that's just me.

Power corrupts. Knowledge is Power. Study hard. Be evil.

I actually think/believe that we're already at a state of collective consciousness, at least at a low level, being a subconscious awareness of the emotions of others.

@Muller Heh, All will be one!

edited 6th Apr '11 9:18:06 AM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

On this subject, I suggest you meet these guys:

http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/stf/137

A single phrase renders Christianity a delusional cult.

It's worth noting that this wouldn't necessarily result in sunshine and roses. Gundam explores this a bit (though not as much as it could) with the Newtype concept. Basically, Newtypes are people with the ability to do what you describe — communicate on a subconscious, psychic level, where misunderstandings are impossible. Most of the time people use this to kick ass (being able to read thoughts gives you Jedi-style uber-reflexes), but when two Newtypes encounter each other, the result is that they completely understand one another — they communicate, instantly, with no possibility for misunderstanding.

There are exactly two possible results of this in the series: Love at First Sight and instant, deep-seated hatred*

. The point is that simply removing barriers to communication does not necessarily mean you'll agree with someone else. It's entirely possible to know and understand someone completely and hate them because of it.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I think the third example in the OP is telling of how a hivemind could be practical. In that example, each individual is sovereign over their own actions and needn't interact directly with any other, while being aware of all the information accessible to everyone else. Which leaves little pressure to go along with the "greater cause" except that it suits the individual. A sufficiently unpopular action thus loses out for lack of individual initiative, while popular ones thrive.

The only possible advantage I can see to such a thing would be the faster spread of ideas and knowledge. That function is obviated by the constantly increasing speed, ease, and efficiency of communication technology, however.

Anything else coming from this would be detrimental. Let's say a man kills someone with no witnesses. All objective evidence points to this being a murder, while the man's own attitudes and memories point to it being perfectly justified. In that case, instant communication of feelings and ideas would bias any jury/judge/what have you to acquit a murderer.

How so? You being privy to someone thinking to themselves "they totally had it coming anyway" isn't any more persuasive than someone telling you "they totally had it coming anyway!" in that sort of situation... well, except that you know that they're being sincere when they say that instead of telling a self-serving lie.

Understanding something does not necessarily lead to agreeing with or condoning it.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Then we could presumably have the victim's memories recorded or preserved as any forensic evidence would be prepared, showing the clear distress and injustice of the act. Also this. Sovereignty of our own thoughts means we can recognize injustices still.

edited 6th Apr '11 12:10:18 PM by Ratix

Speech gives you an objective knowledge of what someone else is thinking, and an idea of what they are feeling. The sort of complete communication being discussed here would make you feel it and transplant the thoughts directly to your mind, meaning that you essentially feel what the other party feels and think what they think.

EDIT: That depends on how this "instrumentality" is enacted.

edited 6th Apr '11 12:11:39 PM by Wanderhome

And why would that necessitate that you agree with them? If I'm stuck experiencing the guy murdering someone And I Must Scream style (ie, a helpless "passenger" in their memory/sensation/emotion), then that's going to make me condemn it even more because it's impossible to maintain emotional distance.

Unless it literally makes everyone one person, people will still have their own opinions on things. And if everyone is one person, then how could there be murder in the first place?

edited 6th Apr '11 12:15:16 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Your scenario also depends on how the Instrumentality works. The information exchange necessary to make your perception of others thoughts indistinguishable from your own would require a fair amount more effort than merely perceiving other thoughts separate from your own. EDIT: Murder in the former sense would probably be handled in a Blue-and-Orange Morality manner where the perpetrator is removed in the same manner that a foreign invader in a body would; it's a threat to the super-organism.

edited 6th Apr '11 12:18:17 PM by Ratix

To both and

Every version of instrumentality proposed thus far in the thread has included, at a bare minimum, some form of complete and perfect transmission of feelings and thoughts. Given the nature of real life human communication, in which ideas are encoded into language by the sender and decoded back into ideas by the recipient, both of whom have their own internal perceptions, knowledge, and skepticism to color their interpretation of each others' statements. Body language and other nonverbal cues can give more information on which to base perception of others' feelings and/or truthfulness, but you've still got the whole encoding/decoding/interpreting thing going on.

Direct and complete transmission of thoughts and feelings from one individual's mind to another's would remove this "buffering" entirely. You would literally have their thoughts and feelings placed in your mind; without some level of limitation of communication, I do not see any possible way then make it possible for the recipient to disentangle their own perceptions from the sender's.

This would mean a serious erosion, if not a complete destruction, of an individual's ability to weigh another's ideas objectively, or view them with skepticism. Lying would be effectively impossible, since the recipient would feel the sender's lack of conviction in an idea. On the flipside, if someone believes something that is wrong with complete certitude, they would directly transmit that certitude into the recipient's mind.

In the case of the hypothetical murder, assuming that this form of instrumentality is not a complete hivemind (which would render murder effectively impossible), but rather the voluntary transmission of one's thoughts and feelings for certain intervals, then the victim would be unable to put forward their point of view. The murderer, meanwhile, would be able to transmit their own certitude of justification to those investigating or sitting in judgement over them.

See the Gundam example. Perfect communication does not mean perfect harmony. Just because you understand someone does not mean that you agree with them. If you are separate enough to be considered distinct individuals at all, then you will be able to disagree with them even if you experience their thoughts. Perhaps not as you experience their thoughts, but after the direct experience is over, you would be able to separate their thoughts and your thoughts, and judge them appropriately.

If that's not true, then you're not individuals, you're the same person.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

What I'm getting at is that if the communication of feelings and thoughts was truly complete, it would not be possible for people to remain individuals.

In the Gundam example, if you had all of another person's memories, thoughts, feelings, and ideas transmitted completely into your own mind, there is no way you could come out of it just having a snap judgement of that person. You would have a copy of their mind in your own; at best, you would walk away with a split personality in which both sides love each other; at worst, you'd have a split personality where both sides hate each other.