Talk:Global brain

New start
Dear all,

I just rewrote the Global Brain article that was recently deleted. This is just a new start, and here is a provisional to do list:


 * Check the wiki syntax. I'm still not very familiar with it.
 * Correct the english; I'm not an english native speaker.
 * I suggested that the main article for the "Organiscism aspect" was superorganism. However I did not edit or tried to make a conceptually coherent synthesis of the two articles.
 * Maybe it would be nice to add a "Global brain in science fiction" section, with books like Neuromancer, etc...

Best regards, Clementvidal 10:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added the stuff on global brain application in management back to this article. It was edited out - I am not sure what is the rationale for editing it out. The concept has had much wider application and innovation management is one important domain where it has had relevance and I think it justifies the placement there. It would be appreciated if whoever is trying to edit this out debates this issue ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.149.133 (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Another "The Global Brain" book exists.

Sorry, I do no see how to create a disambiguation. Howard Bloom has a popular book of the same title.


 * Bloom's wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Bloom#Books_2


 * Verification: http://www.worldcat.org/title/global-brain-the-evolution-of-mass-mind-from-the-big-bang-to-the-21st-century/oclc/43207426


 * Bloom's official website page for the book: http://www.howardbloom.net/Expert%20opinions%20on%20Global%20Brain.htm

Requesting someone create a disambiguation search intercept with pointer to Bloom's entry.

Thanks, Tickerhead (I think).

Notability?
I removed the "notability" tag (for the second time) because a little bit of reading in the article makes it clear that this is not a neologism but a term that has been used by quite a number of authors over quite a number of years. To emphasize this even more I have updated the reference to the "Conceptions of Global Brain: an historical review" (which exists in different versions), and which is clearly an example of "secondary literature" exposing the importance of the term over the years. I have also added a "Recent Development" section to further illustrate the notability of the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.184.131.111 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?
Generally I am skeptical of Wikipedia's blanket policy of rejecting submissions by people within the subject on the grounds that they are likely to be biased (as they are also likely to be the most knowledgeable); for the sake of clarity could the 'suspected' editor please make themselves known? Arlo James Barnes 20:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not add the CoI warning box, but upon a little investigation of the top contributors the only contributor it makes sense to apply it to is Koen Van Spaendonck. I assume the CoI was added because he is one of the few people who gave himself authorial credit on the protologism page he linked to and also signed Wikipedia contributions to the global brain article page (which although they may have been thoughtful and informed nonetheless took the form of intellectual musings rather than what is appropriate for an encyclopedia article). Although the problem has since been removed, I'll add my two cents here anyway because I see he has already reverted one attempt to remove the link...
 * The protologism page linked to is one that anybody can add whatever they want to, which is fine for what it is but completely unfit for Wikipedia. Furthermore, wiktionary:Wiktionary:Protologisms explicitly states "Protologisms should only be listed here, and not given their own articles. By similar logic, existing pages should not refer to protologisms." Per this statement as well as Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies and, most pointedly, WP:MADEUP, protologisms have no business on a Wikipedia page unless well documented by reliable sources (in which case it's difficult to say it's a protologism).
 * As an aside, I'm all for thoughtful new words and have no intention of changing the protologisms list given its premise, but "Baboesjkabrains" needs some work :) It fails even the criteria for inclusion on that largely humor-based list: it mixes Russian and English in a difficult way that dooms it from the start and its etymology is based on a misnomer (see Matryoshka doll). --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any particular evidence of bias in this article. Perhaps the person who added the neutrality warning was referring to the people of the Global Brain Institute (Francis Heylighen, Ben Goertzel, Johan Bollen...) whose work is extensively cited in the article, and who most likely have contributed to the text. But that is only logical since this institute was created specifically to investigate the topic of the global brain, and to bring together as many as possible of the specialists in the domain. As such, these people indeed seem to be particularly knowledgeable about the article. Therefore, if no one else can come up with a specific evidence of bias, I propose to remove the "conflict of interest?" tag. --62.235.198.21 (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI, "Matrioshka brain" does appear in some sci-fi novel (I don't know which) and it does get "name-dropped" in casual conversations where you're supposed to know what it is. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

✅ I *entirely* agree w/ the above - the "{ {COI|date=January 2013}}" template has been removed - hopefully that's entirely ok w/ others - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Not so hypothetical
The opening paragraph is rather misleading.

"The global brain is a hypothetical intelligent, self-organizing system which, as its proponents claim, will unite all human beings with the worldwide network of information and communication technologies".

The problems I have with this are:

1. The Global Brain is not hypothetical. It is real and exists now. As the description goes on to say, "it unites...human beings with the worldwide network of inormation and communication technologies". So, as long as humans are connected through communitation technologies, this very situation is called the Global Brain. It may still be a rudimentary network and may have limited function, but it is a 'brain' nevertheless.

2. ..."will unite all...". I don't think this is accurate. It will unite many, but not all humans.

3. ..."its proponents claim...". Some scholars have described what is already there. They have not proposed anything hypothetical. They just presented a synthesis of an already existing phenomenon.

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global brain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120907044231/http://www.ccsr.uiuc.edu/web/Techreports/1990-94/CCSR-94-22.pdf to http://www.ccsr.uiuc.edu/web/Techreports/1990-94/CCSR-94-22.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Last Paragraph of Recent Developments
I didn't want to make such a sweeping change without first making a Talk thread, but it seems to me the last paragraph about the Neuralink Brain Computer Interface is unrelated to this page. This hypothesis relates to a proposed emergent intelligence resulting from interactions on the internet, and its not clear how Neuralink ties in to that except in theme 174.240.118.203 (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2023 (UTC)