The Hive-Mind

The internet has become so ubiquitous that even the word seems to be antiquated: no one really uses it anymore. We will ask each other for wifi or complain about lack of data but rarely do we think of the internet as it’s own entity, we feel it is too intrinsic to our lives for that, and our language demonstrates that. Soon we may never even refer to the internet and perhaps only talk about “speed”, which leads us to ask: What are we becoming?

Could we be more than individuals and communities? I believe we are entering an era where these words may take on new definitions or new meanings as we increasingly become interconnected in what I refer to as “The hive-mind”. I also believe that a hive-minded process could itself, only be a transition towards a singularity in consciousness.

There are however, predicating questions which must be established before asking whether this event is possible, what it means and if it is desirable: Is it inevitable? Are we in the process of it? Can it be controlled? Preceding these still, is a need for the definition of the words “Hive” and “Mind”, and emerging therefrom, the word “Hive-Mind”- What is it exactly?

Forgive and bear the complexity of this next definition however, as it is meant to bring an intuitive understanding of what the mentality of a hive could feel like rather than a clear statement of what it is.

Hive

Multiple minds sharing an element of awareness not particularly unique to any individual but present to each as experienced by all as an awareness of the singularity of their collectiveness.

Mind

An awareness of existence at it’s base, to externalities of itself and to it’s own existence.

Hive-Mind

An entity of awareness, not defined by the separateness of the individual minds which compose it but is separate from the constraint of each of it’s individual minds.

Let us (and yes, pun intended) try to approach the topic of the possibility of hive-mindedness in the framework of “free will”, and operate under the assumption that a loss of individual free will is undesirable. How morality is implicated can be examined after understanding the implications of such a concept.

Inevitability

Basic survival, it has been repeatedly seen, depends on some kind of cooperation, and this could be called a shared “will” or an “awareness” of mind, personal and otherwise. In this sense, humanity certainly depends on “hive-mindedness”, although we usually refer to it as group psychology. As far as executing common goals quickly and efficiently in order to secure the good of the individual (as opposed to what is good for the society), we are not very hive-minded as much as the birds, bees, ants and fish. We first prioritize the society and by extent we secure the individual to a basic or minimum state of well-being. This is evident on the scale of our historical evolution all the way up to the recent technology we have created as a result of such a need for survival but also for the thriving desire of our species. I believe a good example of an anomaly here would be the American political system, which displays high levels of support for individuality first and is really unprecedented in our history.

As to what regards the inevitability of a hive-minded level such as we are beginning to see is occurring due to our communication technology (the internet), I believe it is safe to assume that as long as no catastrophe occurs which would rid us of electricity, that we can not help but increasingly lose our sense of individuality. I say this because if we think about the internet as a brain-to-brain direct connection interface, one may easily see that the sustainability of individuality becomes exponentially difficult for any two or more individual minds because of the quickening rate at which we are able to share our thoughts; somewhere along the way, one brain acts more like a neuron to the “synapses of the internet brain” than a self-contained unit because we begin to mimic a lot more information than we create.This is what we call sharing, re-posting and re-tweeting- people increasingly scroll for hours and pick out what stimulates them in order to self-actualize and represent their online selves by adding such content to their timelines. We simultaneously see more groups creating highly complex content rather than individuals because it is faster to achieve richer content that way. In addition to this, the content which individuals do create is more like raw data than a processed output because it is getting easier and faster to capture our experiences through photos and videos which are passed through filters which generically impress a sense of quality but in actuality only reduces diversity therefore personal individuality.

Resumed, there seems to be an inevitability of hive-mindedness if we consider the speed at which we are evolving our connections in the virtual world; it must be safe to then assume that the same hive-mindedness is starting to be seen in base reality simply because the brain models reality on what it experiences and does not seem to discriminate between which environments are better suited for it, and so it will think the same way in both environments, especially as we continue to connect the physical world to the virtual one.

Processes

Having established that we are in the process of connectivity of a type like that of a hive, it becomes apparent to ask another question: are we closing the gap between brains? We must ask whether we are in the process of just increasing the connectivity of the hive-mind or beginning to create “one” mind altogether. The distinction must be made because the answer could mean that we have no choice in the matter, either as individuals or communities.

By comparing ourselves to the interconnections of our neurons, can our individual minds be what we can call “one mind”, or is it more a hive of aware “mini-minds” we call “Neurons”? Our neuroscientists and psychologists seem to keep showing us that the mind is less centralized than we think. In any case, all this highlights the eternal problem/question of consciousness and what it really is; It then seems to me a matter of perspective of any awareness which is made up of multiples, that a singularity of identity is ever felt as existing. I wonder if we could ever be aware that the internet considers itself aware and integrated as we do.

All-in-all, we are certainly in the process of creating a hive-mind that will soon be sophisticated enough to connect our minds beyond what we can truly comprehend right now, and a consciousness emerging therefrom must be considered a possibility because we are in it’s process- even being that we are unaware of it and will continue to be unaware until such a possibility actualizes itself.

Control

Intrinsic to the idea of process, we must ask whether control over this is in any way is possible; can the axiomatic perspective of a hive-mind like the internet be compartmentalized enough to preserve a sense of individuality? Such a question displays that this is a function of desire.

Is the individual’s desire to remain so conscious or subconscious? Well, if an individual still exists in a highly connected mind as we still seem to feel is the case, then we must ask whether it is the hive’s desire to allow individuals the control it still understands as being possible without disrupting it’s sense of singular identity. As far as if it could possibly be aware of this in the first place, we can not know. I believe however that in order to exercise the freedom to remain individuals we would need reject the connection altogether and this seems highly unlikely to happen. This leads to a very sharp and concerning question: How much control do we even have as of now, that already can not be increased if due to the hive-mindedness we are undeniably influenced by?

All of this makes “control”, a question of collective desire because alone or unified, the ultimate motivation for human connection is freedom, to the extent that the possibility of it will bring survival, maximized happiness and comfort and minimal suffering.

With this premise then, control over the hive as individuals is a matter of the collective desire for individual control, which is tantamount to saying we have no control as individuals- the amplification of our group psychology is exponentially powerful due to the sheer numbers of interconnections between people, and so even a strong movement for individuality could cause the larger system to reject it if it senses that such a movement causes its own fragmentation. We see this being played out on smaller scales with massive mobbing on platforms like twitter.

The inevitability of connectedness however, deteriorates the awareness of any control even being necessary therefore eliminates any basis for individual desire to begin with, specifically because of the overwhelming collective desire- in short, if any control is to be had, we would not know it so we could not control it, all the way up to the point where any individual awareness would be completely consumed by a new, singular awareness, surpassing the idea of a “hive-mind” and instead simply becoming a “mind”. In this situation, control becomes a matter of self-control, “The” self.

Morality

As seemingly impossible as it has been to establish a fundamental truth for the basis of morality in general, even more so would it be difficult to establish one as we increasingly became connected to the hive-mind. This is because the identity of the “self” would necessarily and continuously have to be re-defined by the individual at incredible rates of speed until each of us were to lose our “selves” entirely, just in order to adapt to the rapidly changing environment of the internet as consumed by the singularity. An alternative possibility would be that we instead fracture into several hive-minds before any singular consciousness can be formed, and eventually regress back into individuals.

As for the notion of the morality of a singularity, we can only think that a single mind composed of what used to be a hive of individuals would be utterly alone therefore morally pure and absolute therefore “God” if you wish, or perhaps it would mean morality would no longer exist, depending on which side of the coin you prefer.

Otherwise and until then, we are still left with the same complex questions as to the risks to individuality and it’s freedoms: How free should we be? At what point is societal organization tyrannical? What is freedom anyway? How can we be moral? These questions are always over us while we simultaneously try to establish meaning for what a “human” really is, up until “We”, meaning the “I” of the collective individual, am no longer human.

James Sirois

-This is what came out.