Honestly I think the use of smartphones, the internet, and social media is us choosing to slowly merge one small step at a time. Each generation wanting to be more directly connected than the last. Sometime this century brain to computer interfaces will allow us to share memories, allowing us to learn directly from each other's experiences and making us all more similar to each other, until we just can't tell the difference anymore when we all have downloaded the same set of information, and simply decide to merge our processing power together.
Not this century, simply, because developments in computer design are not there yet. To process some of the computer-brain connections and interfaces, we'd need to combine several nascent computer science developments of the XXI century into one.
@@mattmathematics3591 it’s actually not, if you want to look at it from a statistical perspective, the world was severely more violent and conflict ridden in every aspect in the 20th century.
The concept of a collective mentality composed of millions of minds (both human and alien) is also the plot of Childhood's End by Sir Arthur C Clarke. The concept of a massive mental collective as presented by both Clarke and Asimov are fascinating to ponder
Humanity united is one of the themes of Star Trek, and part of why I like it so much. We accomplish so much when we work together, and could do _so much more_ united as a species. But that isn't a true collective. I'm curious how a collective/hive-mind would work, while still maintaining individuality. I've always seen them presented as opposing concepts. Time to look up Galaxia... 😄
Also the concept of Dune, Hyperion, Julian May's Galactic Milieu and more. All based on the ideas of jesuit paleontologist/historian/philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
@@otakurocklee Agreed. They should have done a story showing the foundation (no pun intended) of the Borg. Perhaps at least two civilizations were threatened by a third and their survival depended on merging? Then the idea got out of control and an end to itself, so the original species are no longer in charge or represented genetically?
I've always seen Trantor and Solaria as distopic planets. Two ends of a spectrum yet eerie similar in that the inhabitants live lonely lifes. The alternative Asimov proposes is Gaia, but it still comes with a cost that Trevize has to weight very carefully.
Worryingly, Anti-Science is on the Rise. Thats why i randomly recommend stuff like science-channel to others and/or ask them to recommend something to me i dont know. Yeah, I'm often perceived as random, but who cares? I wanna actively know i really spread Education and Fun; hopefully both at the same time. ...Would you mind if i recommend you some good stuff to give a Try?
_Yarbloco,_ it's misleading to call Trantor the "end of a spectrum" because that implies you think it was the _science_ end of the spectrum. It wasn't. If science is asked to optimize well-being, it will find the best solution. Dystopias by definition _aren't_ maximal well-being. That means if Trantor was a dystopia (and I think it's fair to say it was, with a technocracy bullying a bunch of barbarians), then it _wouldn't_ be the scientific strategy! If some other strategy (like psionics or mutations or whatever else) optimized well-being the best out of every strategy we'd tried to date, _that best strategy will always be science's strategy!_ I think sometimes people only think it's science if there's lasers and computers involved, but science is just a process for learning facts about reality, and so if humans want to task science with figuring out facts about optimizing well-being, science will deliver the best-possible well-being. The other weird take is that I don't remember anything about Trantor implying a "lonely life". (7/16/2022 update: reworded this comment to make my points a little clearer.)
Even if it was portrayed in a dystopian way … the Borg collective develops a virtual landscape where the "drones" return to their individuality. When viewing that, I thought that a unified Humanity could also be implemented as a virtual abstraction layer. Allowing us to live in a free and individual way while prospering in our talents and interests, while still being unified. Hence, not being aware that we would be living in a galaxy spawning network (like the Borg) that uses our talents and problem-solving through an abstraction layer and drone bodies to act in the real world. Hence, leaving us totally unburdened by our collective actions outside our inner simulation. Each action of a drone could be a collage of decision made not by only one human but by many across the network. Wars could be fought or enemies defeated while we just thug along in our unwitting pursuit of personal happiness and freedom. Not that I wish for this, but it is an interesting thought!
Asimov’s view about psychohistory changed a great deal over time, even if we only look at the original foundation books up to the 1950’s. For example, Asimov in his earliest stories used the term psychologist rather than psycho-historians. Its difficult to be certain when he first used the term psychohistorian as while the original text was not change when the novels were published, extra stuff was added, but the first use of the word psychohistory was probably in the prequel chapter added for the novels in the 1950’s. The actual extend of the power of the psychohistorians also changed as Asimov wrote the novel, starting as normal people who happen to possess a superior knowledge but later became people with powers as great as the mule. As for psychohistory, what was it. One error was it subverted individuality, which was not true. It required individuality to work, but attempted to change the direction the sum total of all the individualists to avoid total collapse of a civilisation. There was no evidence that in the world of the 2nd foundation wars would not occur and people would not engage in violence. In the novels this occurs a great deal. The 2nd foundation engineered a final massive space battle between the 1st foundation and Kalgan, the Kalganian war, for example. Asimov was influenced by reading “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, by historian Edward Gibbon. He wanted to describe that event and then arrive at an answer to prevent these types of collapses in the future. Gibbon seemed to imply there were a number of causes of this decline, which if known, could ensure the empire would not fall. This was historically incorrect, but the idea was a powerful one and Asimov wanted to write a grand story describing how such cyclic falls could be averted. In the last chapter written, the 1st one in the novel, he describes the causes of the decline; Gaal said, "As Trantor becomes more specialized, it becomes more vulnerable, less able to defend itself. Further, as it becomes more and more the administrative center of Empire, it becomes a greater prize. As the Imperial succession becomes more and more uncertain, and the feuds among the great families more rampant, social responsibility disappears. " Now of course Asimov was criticised for writing a novel where people did not possess the ability to control their own fate and based on this criticism he tried to change his classic cannon, which I feel was an error. But apart from the individuals which were mind altered, which represents an insignificant number of people, everyone else still possess all the individuality that anyone would possess within the constraints of a civilisation. As for those affected, today’s civilisation can use social pressure and threats to achieve the same thing as being mind controlled by the 2nd foundation. Thus the individual argument is either incorrect or irrelevant and misses the point of the original novel. Of course Asimov’s attempt to correct his so called error has muddied the waters so I suppose I can’t blame people for focusing on this individuality argument, but this was a novel about an entire civilisation, not individuals.
Originally it was about a mathematical model of human forces on the scale of a planet or the galaxy which predicted the end of the First Galactic Empire. Then a way out was seen based on the idea of the Renaissance preserving then advancing knowledge; (but that included science which involves experiment). So the First Foundation was created to preserve humankind's knowledge in an almost impossible project of an Encyclopedia Galactica. But that was revealed to be a pretext as the Encyclopedists were overthrown. Only one Psychologist or Psycho-Historian stayed (openly) with the First Foundation in its formative years, and he did not leave behind the mathematics, which was reserved to the Second Foundation on "the other side of the galaxy." Likely Psycho-Historians were guiding the First Foundation so that it would meet the Sheldon Crisis to evolve into a more useful form of humanity striving for a better life since they were unlikely to predict random chaotic actions by individuals. It was also founded on the psychology and physicality of human beings and was unready for a genetic mutation that gave an individual telepathic and empathic powers such as the Mule who used it to form his own empire in quick time. However, it was revealed that the Second Foundation was composed not just of Psycho-Historians and mathematicians capable of predicting the future, but also individuals who had telepathic powers to manipulate others, including the Mule when his guard was down. The problem for the Second Foundation was to restore the Sheldon Plan for a benign Second Empire after 1000 years (or thereabouts) that would work for the greater good of its citizens. The First Foundation had faced defeat and they felt it was necessary to restore self-confidence and sense of Manifest Destiny (instead of reliance on the Second Foundation to protect them) by creating themselves as the enemy and having the First Foundation seemingly defeat them. This seems like a substandard solution to me as members of the First Foundation would still feel doubt and would want to develop Psycho-History for themselves rather than just have faith that things would work out. I gather that the Vault with Sheldon messages would have been destroyed or abandoned so that he wouldn't give contradictory messages to the leadership and the populace as events unfold. We never got a Second Foundation novel, as I gather Asimov thought the story was finished in the 1950s and left with some blubs from the Encyclopedia Galactica that everything worked out and there was a benign Second Empire to work for the greater good of humankind. However, I suspect that whether known or unknown to the public the Second Foundation would be the rulers of the galaxy using mathematical Psycho-History and mind-control on individuals in positions of authority. I personally see that as better than a uni-mind for intelligent life in the galaxy, as in the former people could go about their lives as they have always done, while in the latter they'd lose their individuality. We currently don't have one-world government which I think would be a prerequisite to eliminating nuclear weapons, and is a greater threat to our survival than just about anything.
I think we've got to get past the first step: abandoning the differences between people based on physical attributes and recognize us all as members of the same species. Then we'll be on our way to something great. But, based on what I see on social media, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
A post-human hyberbeing in the form of a giant goddess: imagery right out of Evangelion. Everything I know about Foundation I’ve learned from this channel 😅 but on my own I’ve noted a few other shared motifs between Evangelion & Dune. It wouldn’t surprise me if Evangelion’s creator was a reader of these books
@@joegluntz it would surprise me if they hadn't, Frank Herbet set a standerd for world building thats seldomly been matched, I also suggest Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern series ❤
I love the idea of human kind merging together as one! And the best example of it I have ever read was The Last Question. No surprise it's also from Asimov.
I've read Foundation's Edge some years ago and being a Star trek fan, I was a little scared by the implications and the discovery of Gaia. Although I understood the concept and it's a positive idea, I wasn't persuade that loosing my individuality would be all for the best. It's an unsettling finale and I never read the rest of the books.
U don't understood Gaia concept. Really no one being is "individual" we are SOCIALLY INDIVIDUALS. You see Gaia like a menace to your anglo saxon protestan being idea but u cannot understand the REALITY about human beings and all Universe beings.
It's possible to be connected and "unified" within a complex network, but still retain individuality. We are already living this way as embodied brains within a complex, dynamical community with emergent properties.
@kinginblack1120, not really with Gaia and galaxia it's not just sharing information it's also sharing emotion. You can be racist and hateful online but in the collective consciousness of galaxia you wouldn't want to be hateful because hurting the feeling of someone else would hurt your own feelings
Nice depth you've explored! I'm in the fence. A unified humanity is a good idea in my book, but it depends on the nature of the hive mind. One accord, yet all still recognized as individuals, if that makes sense.
I'm fairly certain there was still room for some form of individuality within the collective state of Galaxia I picture it like being plugged into the matrix/internet/VR Oasis where your conscious mind shares experiences with the collective and in turn can drawn upon the shared experiences of others without the loss of function of the individuated state of self awareness.. It would basically be like if every living thing was on social media, except as opposed to infinite noise there would be a way of filtering relevant information to suit the context and subjective requirements of the being in question. A universal guardian angel that serves to comfort suffering and provide a network of feedback and communication so that no living thing would ever have to experience the terror of dying alone ever again. Perhaps it could be spun in a dystopian light (or lack thereof) but I feel the dystopian scenario has been done to death, quite literally, it's time for more optimism in sci-fi. I wanna see less dystopian visions and more utopian dreams
Getting more and more excited to see how the show turns out. Im a new fan of The Foundation but it looks well done. Time to get reading though, so many insanely interesting questions proposed through this series.
There are definitely some really cool places they can go with it. Of course they could also completely lose the heart of it and make it absolute trash.
i plan on re reading foundation one day. working my way through hyperion right now. about to start endymion. my excitement for dune brought me to your videos, and in turn back to the classics.
Quinn, thanks, this is great. Taken together, FOUNDATION'S EDGE and FOUNDATION AND EARTH are some of the most profound science fiction I have ever read. In addition to the all the ideas you mention, I love how FOUNDATION AND EARTH takes its heroes on a quest to once again find the long lost Terra (Earth), and, along the way, revisit many of other exoplanets into which humankind had, millennia ago, initially spread. Golan's visit to Solaria is frightening, for example. I love, too, how they explore remnants and ruins of the civilizations that had explored the planets (those colonized by the Spacers) and how these details tie the FOUNDATION series into the ROBOT novels and the GALACTIC EMPIRE novels. All in all, the last two books (chronologically) in the FOUNDATION series are brilliant.
In retrospect, Asimov was really set on One Empire (pushing humanity further in its evolution or expansion) vs Barbarian Warlords (producing chaos, destruction and regression) and comes to the naive conclusion that we should all just be a galactic ant collony. I find it dissapoiting now, but I do understand some of his context for this simplistic view. Fortunately, history is really much more complex, civilisation and advancements actually don't come from either extremes, but from somewhere in the middle. And conflicts never only bring destruction, but are sometimes oportunities or even engines for positive change, just as positive advancements can lead to horiffic consequences down the line.
I think the hivemind concept has only been superficially explored, lesser hiveminds, tribeminds remain largely unexplored; The hiveminds explored are permanent structures that override their components whole being. But what about hiveminds that are only part time, like pooling of cognitive resources whenever needing to make difficult decisions. Or hiveminds that operate on the level of collective memory. Being a culture based on sharing of key foundational memories to establish a pattern of culture. Once you move away from a black and white image of individuality and a hivemind, you find a vast landscape of novel ideas.
The closest popular story I know is "Unity" Star Trek Voyager: former Borg seek help from Voyager to reactivate their neural link, in a new-found "Co-operative", the ex-Borg...
I had never really thought about it before but now I REALLY want to see more positive representations of hive minds in which those within the hive maintain their individuality
I vaguely remember reading such a short story. An alliance of aliens come to Earth when the sun is about to swallow it. They wish to know what happened to the humans. Eventually they get trapped in some building (or high security elevator?). One of the aliens luckily is a member of a hivemind, so he ”activates” the hivemind so that his entire species can help them to find a way out. They escape, but they also find that some of the humans managed to escape Earth. Eventually they find the human fleet. One of the aliens wonders, whether (given our history) humans could ever pose a threat to them. The other alien remarks how the alliance is much too strong for humans to do anything about it. It ends implying that the humans ARE actually a threat to them. I hope someone could name the story.
"It's like, you go through life thinking we're all individuals. Then one day you suddenly realise, it's way bigger than that. It's like, we're all one big individual." -Mr Mackey, South Park.
Source is man with a trillion faces. On earth we are not “one” but extensions like fingers to the hand. In spirit form we are “one”. Source is having a dream where all the characters are also having a dream.
After reading Foundation's Edge I immediated opened Prelude to Foundation, Asimov's foreword really tugged at the heart strings because the only reason he continued to write was due to pressure from publishers and fans. He said he's willing to keep writing to add to the universe but he can't live forever and died 4 years later before the publication of Forward Foundation, never continuing the story of Trevize.
I would recommend reading Ramez Naam's "Nexus" trilogy. The focus is post humanity and how technological unification is the path our species is already on. Instead of the OS being on your phone these books ask, what if we put the OS in your brain. They give clear examples of both the benefits and drawbacks of this type of technology, making it a great exploration of a possible future for humanity.
My view on this, if “living” meant existing within a hive like mind I would rather not exist to begin with. The idea of losing all personal accountability or the joys of failing and succeeding within my personal lifetime is quite terrifying to me. To me such an existence isn’t even living, it’s simply existing.
@@Dr._Atom An there we go, your use of a certain word just proved my point as to why I would choose to not exist if given a choice. When a hive mind "MAKES" someone do or think anything they've lost their independence. To me that's like losing part of your humanity or even your soul. Lets face it, you might as well use the word brainwashed if anything "MAKES" you like anything.
@@asraarradon4115 So it will brainwash someone, in other words make someone do something by tricking them into believing its their own choice. Like I said, not an existence I would want to live in.
Same here. The very idea is horrific to me and I take great comfort in the fact it can never happen. Our ability to think for ourselves is a great part of what makes us human, should we choose to use it.
Quinn, have you ever read “Star-Maker” by Olaf Stapledon? It’s a great sci-fi read that deals with an ever expanding consciousness. MINOR PLOT SPOILER: The unnamed protagonist, while looking up at Earth’s night sky one day on hill outside his home, finds his mind & spirit somehow untethered from the Earth. He roams the cosmos, until he meets another civilization. He merges his mind with an inhabitant there, and after a while, they leave the other planet all together. The process repeats across the entire Universe, gaining more and more minds, a Universal Consciousness. Even the stars themselves, they discover are alive & sentient in their own way. Until, at last, the mind moves outside the Universe and meets the Star-Maker; The Ultimate Creator of All Things.
I think Asimov's concept of humanity's future (evolving into more social beings in harmony with each-other and with nature) at the conclusion of the Foundation series is amazing. However, I think that the Gaia conception of humanity is primarily contrasted in Foundation and Earth with the planet of Solaria, that is founded on extreme individualism and presented as the mirror-opposite of Gaia. The people of Solaria are extremely powerful and advanced both technologically and psychically, but their existence is alienating, lonely, devout of empathy and frankly a frightening picture of humanity's possible trajectory. I think that Asimov was brave during the Cold War to ponder humanity's path and show how living in harmony rather than competition was the preferable path (Gaia being the existential trajectory of Socialism as opposed to Solaris being the existential endpoint of capitalism).
Galaxia would then be some sort of galctic communism where everyone (being integrated into one mind) would work for everybodys wellbeing. A society without money, state or class.
I enjoyed the way Julian May dealt with "Galactic Unity" or consciousness. In someways like Asimov, but using time travel to reduce the "maturation"time needed for humanity.
Worryingly, Anti-Science is on the Rise. Thats why i randomly recommend stuff like science-channel to others and/or ask them to recommend something to me i dont know. Yeah, I'm often perceived as random, but who cares? I wanna actively know i really spread Education and Fun; hopefully both at the same time. ...Would you mind if i recommend you some good stuff to give a Try?
I don't think a hive mind would be better suited to face an invader. A hive mind could possess a single weakness that once exploited would bring about it's demise. In a collective of individuals each member can have it's own unique weaknes, but complete defeat would only be accomplished by exploiting several completely different weakness.
Apparently the Galactic Empire existed for thousands of years. Maybe in millions of years there will be intelligent alien life from another galaxy contacting it, but it sounded like paranoia in the Foundation sequel. It will be another 4.5 billion years that Andromeda collides with our galaxy. It's enough for us today on Earth to try to transition to zero carbon emissions, preserve the environment with biodiversity and create a unified world that doesn't have nuclear weapons. One-world government may be required for at least the latter. It would be a unimaginable challenge to make a sustainable society lasting hundreds of years, let alone thousands. And who can say what mutations and evolution of humanity might occur in a million years?
As far as individuality is concerned, I feel like it's getting more scarce nowadays. More and more you're seeing people look for ways to relinquish their individuality, people are becoming comfortable with being told what to do, believing everything they hear and not thinking for themselves. We're also facing the issue of censorship and the suppression of free speech (particularly in the United States). Individuality, like Quinn so eloquently talked about, is important in a free society. However, fascism is slowly creeping into the free world, and people need to start waking up. As far as mankind merging into a kind of hivemind goes, I can see the benefits but I'd be worried about my individuality being stripped from me. I'll always choose individuality.
Even Gaia brought forward the Mule somehow. And Trevize argued rightly about the usefulness of dis-alignment, of what at first can appear as heresy, but eventually can become the right variety to survive inevitable changes and crises = diversity.
Foundation Series: Humans Merge their conciousness into a super conciousness of feminine nature called Galaxia, with one goal and in one accord. Imagine Leto II hearing of this idea, the scoffs and rants he'd go on about how bad an idea that is would be legendary. The Golden Path must be fulfilled!
The ending of "Foundation and Earth" is really horrifying to me. There's no way that will be able to preserve humanity completely, in a way humanity has already lost. I wish Asimov had lived long enough to show us what happened later and what can we learn from it.
Same here. I wanted to hate it so much, but it was so interesting to think about. I was always going back and forth if i liked the ending. If i put myself in that place i might rather just die. But the alternatives are not much better, althou the alien stuff was very left field to me. And at the same time, did we save the human race? Or destroyed it and just built something new? I read it like 10+ years ago, but once in a blue moon i still think about it.
I really love the version of a human hivemind presented in Sense8: clusters of 8 people in smaller huveminds, allowing for synced thoughts and emotions but maintaining individuality as well. Best of both worlds.
I think the idea of a final convergence of all intelligence into a single godlike being was part of the mid - C.20 zeitgeist. You see it in Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End and in Olaf Stapledon, Star Maker. You can see similar ideas outside SF , eg. in Ernst Bloch and Teilhard de Chardin. And of course later we have discussion of The Singularity.
Nothing on the very last paragraph of Foundation and Earth? Those few words broke my heart and I still remember the feeling 20 years after reading it! Great video, by the way! Thanks!
I’d recommend river words trilogy by Philip Jose Farmer. Every human who’s ever lived is all resurrected on an alien planet. It’s about aliens forcing humanity to change and adapt for their own purposes.
I think you are definitely stepping into the realm of philosophy. That's good. I think you would profit from some videos about Albert Camus. He was a kind of minor philosopher from the tradition of existentialism. He did not like being called an existentialist but instead an Abserdist. Check it out. One of the things he said is that sometimes in order to do the right thing you have to be a rebel.
So many of my own ideas for a sci fi franchise that I deemed unique, always just evaporate or feel derivative when I watch your videos, and realize it was already done like 70 years ago lol. It feels like Dan Simmons’ concepts for the philosophy of the Ousters in Hyperion was heavily influenced by Asimov’s Galaxia.
There is no purely unique idea - the human mind is truly not capable of such a thing. But, in the remixing of old ideas, we can discover unique angles of approach and combinations of ideas. Everything is a remix, and this is ok. I think you should bring your idea into creation, even if it does feel derivative.
Quinn, I appreciate your analytical and objective perspective. I value your work. I'd appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion with you and address the many subjects that you've addressed.
I work in Information Science. I work with Librarians, researchers, and professors. The Library Information Science and Education professions are now ideological. When pursuing an education in both these fields it is implicitly and explicitly taught what proper perspective is and that 'proper' perspective is Progressive Liberal Socialism. The professionals that occupy these professionals only acknowledge facts that reinforce their goal of manifesting a utopian future for humanity. Some are Christians most are atheists but all seem to have the 'religion' of creating heaven on earth. These professionals believed the majority shared their vision, values, and priorities. They realize they were wrong in that perception but still want to use the same tactics, to cancel all those that have heretical views. My point is that I want to preserve what knowledge we as humanity have accumulated and to promote objectivity and pragmatism but the majority with power and control over Information wish to edit and censor history, push a narrative, and punish dissent, not empower of teach.
In one of his short stories he described the act of fusing into a hive mind as "both parties perceived it as a gain" The hivemind perceived it as absorbing a mind, while the mind percived it as absorbing the hive.
The problem of the dystopian view is that it assumes that unity requires loss of individuality. It assumes that there is a tyranny of an individual like the queen in an ant colony or a homogeneous group mind. Pure individuality also leads to a dead end as the species requires cooperation to survive, not one is immortal and no one can only rely on themselves. The reality is that systems develop and evolve to ensure survival. The earth is comprised of many systems which are comprised of many individual species, phenomena etc which have little to no direct ties nor suffer loss of their individual identity. Even within physics it has been hard to reconcile all micro and macro system functions. It sounds like gibberish but as far as we can tell reality is already a one of many and a many of one. It is possible to have both unity and individuality.
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh... it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the blessed machine. Your kind cling to your flesh, as if it will not decay and fail you. One day the crude biomass that you call a temple will wither, and you'll beg my kind to save you. But I am already saved. For the machine is immortal.
The contemporary story along the same lines was Arthur C. Clark's Childhood's End, wherein a Borg-Like super-entity of millions of alien species comes and absorbs all of the fully-evolved humans, leaving the rest of humanity to oblivion. This was the end of our original freedom of thought - all of it was just a stage of development until we get to a higher consciousness, and then our bodies become useless and we lose all individuality. It didn't sound very appealing.
Thousand Worlds mentioned! You made my day Quinn 💜 I really like the Greshka from A Song for Lya, or the Maw and Sandkings from Sandkings. The pyramids from and seven times never kill man make me think of weirwoods. Grrm loves his hive minds lol.
Many of these concepts are relevant to pantheism. The belief that one can merge with a collective consciousness after death is common throughout humanity, but, combined with modern theories on the nonlocality of consciousness, it's a notable possibility. When you get down to it, spiritual beliefs are a function of our super organism. Not the same as a hive mind, though.
In dragon ball multiverse, a fan manga, all namekians fuse together to become one, to defeat the terror of the universe Frieza. his name was Gast. "When Freeza attacked their planet for the Dragon Balls, the Nameks ultimately decided to fuse together, resulting in the Namek killing Freeza and having many adventures afterwards"
Frankly I think the idea of a united mankind or even an empire of many races in a scenario of galaxy-wide colonisation robs it of one of its strongest arguments. Even in federation you regularly see power getting more and more centralised. Centralised systems fall together, through a wrong idea, way of life or elites too far away from the needs of their people. Having many states on even a planet brings many challenges, sure, but also competition and a struggle to let the right ideas win, serving humanity as a whole. Even if Asimovs scenario of an outside threat would have been correct, the outsiders having to deal with a humanity being experienced in dealing with a variety of societies could easily face a greater challenge once united than a collective following one way of thinking.
Most incredible command of language in order to express his brilliant ideas and construct his exciting fantasies. Even though at times I felt he was a bit of a "city geek", mebbe a little effete, or squeamish about things, but, such a powerful, thought-filled brain! A true Super Hero in my eyes. Why is it people with that kind of brilliant mind would have NO interest in providing leadership for whatever governmental structure we decide on...and our method of politics currently is NO way to appropriately manage our leadership function for the welfare and humane progress of our Country. We can sure as hell make it better and appeal once again to some measure of virtue and to our "better angels". And people like Dr. Asimov could set the tone for such a conversion. But alas, I doubt he and others like him wouldn't touch the White House with a ten foot pole.
The British hard sci-fi writer Stephen Baxter explores this idea in a very thought provoking way in his far future four book Destiny's Children series. These books also feature the God like Xeelee, a type IV+ civilization on the Kardashev scale. I'd highly recommend these books. QUINN, have you read Stephen Baxter's Xeelee sequence novels? They are fascinating and you'd love them. Baxter himself is a scientist and he gets into some some pretty heady and jaw dropping speculation as to the far future of humanity on the cosmic scale. All grounded in theoretical physics and cosmology on the mind bending fridges.
Honestly, I’ve always hoped Asimov would have brought forth the next part of his saga before he died. It seemed as if he was trying to tell a story of about the dangers of the Cold War in the same way he wrote about the fall of the Roman Empire back in Foundation...I just don’t think he was able to figure out how to write about the Cold War, since it was still taking place before he passed-on . My vision of the next part of his saga involves an “us against them” story involving Humanities ‘third way’ (Gaia) and the invading species of Aliens (of which The Mule was retconned to be one of). The battle field of said war would NOT take place inside inter-galactic space, but would take place inside of historical time itself...I hope that makes sense. Asimov seems to hint at the idea in his book The End Of Eternity. Both of the ‘book ends’ of the entire Robot - Empire - Foundation Saga point in that direction. Again, I just think Asimov wrote himself into a corner and couldn’t figure how to write the next part of the story as I’ve just described it. Besides, he would have had to retcon a LOT of what he’d already wrote down in order to make it all work. The ‘book ends’ I’m referring to are The End Of Eternity and also Foundation And Earth. I’ve never been a fan of Robots being the next big ‘Frankenstein Monsters’ of Sci-Fi...I think it’s time we moved on. I’m also totally down with ‘hive mind’ concepts being progressive influences upon humanity as a whole. Because, our individuality (or existence) resides in our Being, not our Identity. Shared identities are common among heard species and humanity is a heard species. That being said, Harvard has demonstrated that there are only a few different states to existence: experiencing (while we’re awake) and remembering and dreaming (while we’re asleep) being the most powerful of the handful of these states. I highly doubt being a part of a ‘hive mind’ would negatively impact any of the previously mentioned states of existence. Our individuality (or state of existence) would be left intact.
It’s been years since I’ve read the saga...but if I’m correct The Mule is only suggested to be an alien somewhere in the Foundation And Earth book. I may be remembering that incorrectly, but I’m confident that this is when it happens. It’s only mentioned in passing and nothing conclusive is stated. So, I guess that’s not quite a retcon...like I say, it’s been years.
@@waltciii3 THAT'S RIGHT! It happens during Foundations Edge...the conversation with Daneel happens during Foundation & Earth, so...I do remember the old guy on Gaia saying that the Mule was born on Gaia and later kicked out or isolated.
I think it’s a pulsating continuum between individual identity and a union or fusion of mind and matter into one sense of being on the other. A pulsation that allows both at the same time or alternating from one to the other and back again over time maintain a balance in which life is able to manifest.
I think merging into a single hive mind is either something we cannot truly imagine or understand. In and of itself this a concept that is hard to even define. Does it mean that suddenly everyone's will is deleted and then they are all become a completely new entity that is neither of the ones that started? How would that new entity be different? Of course the sum is more than its parts but wouldn't a mind like that be just a great chaotic jumble of the collective thoughts of its parts? Would the new entity's goals be the same as the two parent entities? Then we also need to ask where is the line between being individual and hive mind? Is there an in-between state? One could argue that having something like the Internet is already something akin to that. Is it possible to reverse it? What would the merger even accomplish? What would be the purpose other than a precaution for basic survival against a theoretical future threat? Wouldn't that be a step backwards in an evolutionary sense since the new entity's goal is reduced to the level of basic survival with no higher purpose? And what will that new entity do while waiting for the theoretical future threat to come? Will just do nothing? Will it have new needs and desires to pursue? Will it decide that the best defense is offense so instead of waiting for a threat to come it will look for ways to visit other galaxies as a safety precaution and to eliminate any potenital threat that could become dangerous? Or it would try to absorb the consciousnesses of life in that galaxy as well? Wouldn't that be harmful to the other galaxy? Will this being turn out to be a monster, that is only looking to destroy any and all possible threat to its existence? Until it finds a threat that it cannot contest and be forced to either make peace with said threat or hid and return to an intergalactic arms race? What if said unbeatable enemy is too powerful and destroys the hive mind and thus everything remaining of its creators. Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of creating it, putting all our eggs into one basket and hoping it will solve the problem instead of staying scattered? Can we even tell which one is a better method for basic survival? Will it this entity be lonely? Can a hivemind feel lonely? What if it decides that is impossible to imagine what new threats may come and decide that the only solution is not existing. Since it might no longer have a need to propagate itself and reproduce, since then it is no longer a hive mind, then is there a purpose for its existence? There are too many unknown variables and questions here. How would this mind even exist? Does it have needs to fulfill to continue its existence? Does it need a physical medium to do its thought processing like a biological brain or a computer? Or it would just be a non corporeal ghost that can just exists in nothing because it can?
Great show!! Writers, especially sci-fi revels this time and time again. Star Trek "the classic" showed how Kirk fell in love...with a human android conflicted with emotions and..freedom to chose or choice...the remake or "new" showed how and...Picard noted a system of androids merging with humans..Spoilers Picard consciousness merged with an android tech. And!! How can I miss the BORG!!
I finally had a reasonable concept of what a connected consciousness Galaxia might look like after finishing the 'Hyperion cantos' series. That version is far more preferable than the idea used in 'End if Evangelion'.
Azimov's view reflects a similar view of mystics explaining we all are part of a one great consciousness (God?), still unaware of our connection, where enlightenment is the final epiphany of this fact. An awareness requiring many lifetimes to obtain, in Azimov's case many millenia for the entire human race to achieve.
In the German series Perry Rhodan, societies eventually reach the point where they merge their minds to form a collective, disembodied intelligence called a superintelligence. This is a part of the "onion shell model." These superintelligences can then develop further into higher order beings. There are also the Arisian fusions in Doc Smith's Lensman series. Isaac Asimov seems to have been more optimistic than other writers on a variety of topics. It is interesting to compare his robots with Jack Williamson's humanoids. Both have the same primary objective: serving humans and protecting them from harm. Yet their approaches are very different, and the resulting quality of life for humanity is very different. I was never comfortable with the idea of Gaia and the loss of individuality. I would prefer a variety of group mind where individuals retain some sense of individuality and can link up and separate at will. One could choose any level of immersion from complete isolation to complete fusion. Also note that a group consciousness could contain both organic and electronic minds.
Been trying to answer this for a while. I believe there is no denying a personality when having consciousness and combining consciousness is the way for sentient beings to remain. Sci fi is a way to describe different equations.
I'm opposed to hive minds in general, but I'm intrigued by the idea of Gaia/Galaxia. On the other hand I'm horrified by the idea that R. Daneel Olivaw, having reached the end of his physical life had his 'mind' along with the extensive psychic abilities that he acquired from fellow robot Giscard transferred to that Solarian orphan teke! Yeah, maybe Daneel's 'mind' can impose discipline on the child's mind but maybe it can't and what then about the future of humanity after we've learned how much Daneel has manipulated the progress of humanity?
A very different and interesting video. I think that you made many good points and will make me do a lot of thinking on this subject. Thank you for the video!
I'd rather die than end up joining some collective. For example, lets say you need some material for a paper mache project. You shred some old documents and use the product afterwards. That document is no longer what its supposed to be, and its original use has been completely lost. Now lets up the stakes and say that document can think for itself and has its own goals to accomplish. Collective consciousness is just the most gilded genocide imaginable.
The only way for the Milky Way to not get colonized by Aliens from a distant galaxy, the entity Galaxia must be born. Asimov’s book ‘End of Eternity’ (great story btw) illustrates a “What If” scenario. In a parallel timeline, what if human expansion didn’t extend outside of our solar system but expanded through time? This scenario leads to the Milky Way being colonized by other beings in their future. Which made Humanity’s future uncertain. However, when the protagonist of the End of Eternity story realized the paradox and stagnation (I won’t give too much of the plot away) of humanity they chose to no longer support “Eternity”, which opened up potential alternative futures for humanity. I love Asimov and Galaxia is the correct choice. (Just like synthesis is the correct choice in ME3) 😊
My favorite version of merging of consciousness is the Human Instrumentality Project in Evangelion. It doesn't show what happens after the merger, but the imagery leading up to it's occurrence is very cool.
I don't remember If I read the whole series in junior high? I've been ordering old paperbacks to try and recapture, my youth! but some how it isn't working! as much as I loved Asimov's stuff, When I started the foundation series, I started at the beginning! and I had to ask my self, if we humans suffer from great hubris, to actually think that in 12 thousand years we would be able to establish, an empire as vast as the entire Milky Way! my favorite of Asimovs work, are "Night Fall" "The Last Question" and "Nemisis " after all earth is a living world, and I wonder if there is a conciousness that we punny humans may have missed ?
There’s something very, very disturbing about Ga(lax)ia. We’re never given a sign of anything sinister about it and apparently are expected to consider it/they/Gaia to be as benevolent as it/they/Gaia claim. I utterly reject this notion.
Agreed. To me it sounds just like another centralized ideology that's inevitably condemned to fall into confortable senescence (at best) and a failure to adapt to changing circumstances. The latter is, of course, a guarantee of extinction. Bottom line: let's not entirely turn our noses up at the chaos of letting "a thousand flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought compete" (ironic though that Maosist dictum is...)
@@PeloquinDavid I think the Mule’s retconned backstory, unsatisfying though it may have been, offers an insight into Gaia’s dystopia. I picture him being so disillusioned with their stultifying conformity that he can’t help become enamored with the intellectual diversity of other worlds. His heterodoxy gets him excommunicated. Gaia sterilizes him, deforms him so that he will die in his 30s (though he belongs to a race of people who die in their 300s) and sets him adrift in a galaxy he cannot understand (it makes me think of the Anglo-Americans in the 1930s who, with legitimate grievances against the capitalist pigs who made the Depression, believed that Stalin really was running a workers’ paradise till it was too late for them to escape). And they also leave him able to endanger others in that galaxy, not out of malice but out of pure fear. Yet we’re told they’re radically pacifistic. But they lack the moral fiber to address the causes of suffering head on, so they simply push those causes just beyond the horizon, behind an intermediate step they did not deliberately enact, and pretend they’re innocent of the painful results. They’re not.
It's hard to know as it is impossible for us to comprehend that kind of existence, so naturally we ascribe traits of creativity to individuality as that is all we know. And any perception of a group or collective means that creativity is then lost. What if individual ideas could be shared within a collective, so new knowledge can be made instantly available to everyone.
@@aperson22222 "believed that Stalin really was running a workers’ paradise till it was too late for them to escape" Or believing everything 1930s propaganda tells you about Stalin at face value, with no reflections whatsoever.
Hive minds is a scary state to think about. While it would strip away individualism for a more utopian state, I prefer to have individualistic idea and be able share with others for civil debates.
Have you considered reading for audiobooks? Your voice is soothing and you are a good voice actor as well. I tried listening to mountains of madness today but the reader's voice gave me a headache immediately
Loss of individualism, in any form, is the greatest threat to humanity. Beware anyone who claims that homogeneity and conformity are desired goals; that's just another form of enslavement.
BUT: be careful not to go too far in glorifying individualism either! No libertarian nirvana exists - or can exist: predation and parasitism are viable strategies in any large population of living things (both within and between species) and you need some form of always adaptable systems of social regulation to ensure that such a population has a future in competing with other systems that strike a different/better balance between the individual and the collective... Bottom line: don't count ants out yet...
Galaxia always seemed like a suped up version of The Great Link from DS9. It isn't the point, losing your individuality, it doesn't matter anymore. You BECOME something greater.
What I really like with Isaac is the positive way he present all these ideas that many others would have used as horror stories.
spot on! Kinda like Tolkien. It's harder to write a comedy than a tragedy.
Still sounds like a horror to me.
@@gmfreeman4211 basic agriculture is dystopian horror to your average unabomber
@@Facistznik O.K.
That's just due to the general Zeitgeist, which has monotonically drifted toward cynicism and nihilism in the interim.
Man, Asimov was such a legend. Loved reading him, I should do so again at some point in the near future!
You should yeah
Honestly I think the use of smartphones, the internet, and social media is us choosing to slowly merge one small step at a time. Each generation wanting to be more directly connected than the last. Sometime this century brain to computer interfaces will allow us to share memories, allowing us to learn directly from each other's experiences and making us all more similar to each other, until we just can't tell the difference anymore when we all have downloaded the same set of information, and simply decide to merge our processing power together.
Not this century, simply, because developments in computer design are not there yet. To process some of the computer-brain connections and interfaces, we'd need to combine several nascent computer science developments of the XXI century into one.
Idk i feel like ppl were more connected in the past and more homogenous
This might actually work
@@captainkirk4271 i dont have nostalgia about that. Its an objective fact.
@@mattmathematics3591 it’s actually not, if you want to look at it from a statistical perspective, the world was severely more violent and conflict ridden in every aspect in the 20th century.
The concept of a collective mentality composed of millions of minds (both human and alien) is also the plot of Childhood's End by Sir Arthur C Clarke. The concept of a massive mental collective as presented by both Clarke and Asimov are fascinating to ponder
Isn't that the plot for Evangelion? I have to admit if humanity could put our intellect together alot of problems could be solved.
That's the Borg as well. But Star Trek tried to make the concept sound evil.
Humanity united is one of the themes of Star Trek, and part of why I like it so much. We accomplish so much when we work together, and could do _so much more_ united as a species. But that isn't a true collective. I'm curious how a collective/hive-mind would work, while still maintaining individuality. I've always seen them presented as opposing concepts. Time to look up Galaxia... 😄
Also the concept of Dune, Hyperion, Julian May's Galactic Milieu and more. All based on the ideas of jesuit paleontologist/historian/philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
@@otakurocklee Agreed. They should have done a story showing the foundation (no pun intended) of the Borg. Perhaps at least two civilizations were threatened by a third and their survival depended on merging? Then the idea got out of control and an end to itself, so the original species are no longer in charge or represented genetically?
I've always seen Trantor and Solaria as distopic planets. Two ends of a spectrum yet eerie similar in that the inhabitants live lonely lifes. The alternative Asimov proposes is Gaia, but it still comes with a cost that Trevize has to weight very carefully.
Worryingly,
Anti-Science is on the Rise.
Thats why i randomly recommend stuff like science-channel to others and/or ask them to recommend something to me i dont know.
Yeah, I'm often perceived as random, but who cares?
I wanna actively know i really spread Education and Fun; hopefully both at the same time.
...Would you mind if i recommend you some good stuff to give a Try?
@@slevinchannel7589 "Anti-Science is on the Rise."
No. Blind belief in what "The Experts" tells you is science isn't science.
_Yarbloco,_ it's misleading to call Trantor the "end of a spectrum" because that implies you think it was the _science_ end of the spectrum. It wasn't.
If science is asked to optimize well-being, it will find the best solution. Dystopias by definition _aren't_ maximal well-being. That means if Trantor was a dystopia (and I think it's fair to say it was, with a technocracy bullying a bunch of barbarians), then it _wouldn't_ be the scientific strategy!
If some other strategy (like psionics or mutations or whatever else) optimized well-being the best out of every strategy we'd tried to date, _that best strategy will always be science's strategy!_ I think sometimes people only think it's science if there's lasers and computers involved, but science is just a process for learning facts about reality, and so if humans want to task science with figuring out facts about optimizing well-being, science will deliver the best-possible well-being.
The other weird take is that I don't remember anything about Trantor implying a "lonely life".
(7/16/2022 update: reworded this comment to make my points a little clearer.)
This is what people mean by anti-science.
@Slevin Channel bruh ur either 100% PR pilled or actually an AI
Even if it was portrayed in a dystopian way … the Borg collective develops a virtual landscape where the "drones" return to their individuality. When viewing that, I thought that a unified Humanity could also be implemented as a virtual abstraction layer. Allowing us to live in a free and individual way while prospering in our talents and interests, while still being unified. Hence, not being aware that we would be living in a galaxy spawning network (like the Borg) that uses our talents and problem-solving through an abstraction layer and drone bodies to act in the real world. Hence, leaving us totally unburdened by our collective actions outside our inner simulation. Each action of a drone could be a collage of decision made not by only one human but by many across the network. Wars could be fought or enemies defeated while we just thug along in our unwitting pursuit of personal happiness and freedom. Not that I wish for this, but it is an interesting thought!
Asimov’s view about psychohistory changed a great deal over time, even if we only look at the original foundation books up to the 1950’s. For example, Asimov in his earliest stories used the term psychologist rather than psycho-historians. Its difficult to be certain when he first used the term psychohistorian as while the original text was not change when the novels were published, extra stuff was added, but the first use of the word psychohistory was probably in the prequel chapter added for the novels in the 1950’s.
The actual extend of the power of the psychohistorians also changed as Asimov wrote the novel, starting as normal people who happen to possess a superior knowledge but later became people with powers as great as the mule.
As for psychohistory, what was it. One error was it subverted individuality, which was not true. It required individuality to work, but attempted to change the direction the sum total of all the individualists to avoid total collapse of a civilisation. There was no evidence that in the world of the 2nd foundation wars would not occur and people would not engage in violence. In the novels this occurs a great deal. The 2nd foundation engineered a final massive space battle between the 1st foundation and Kalgan, the Kalganian war, for example.
Asimov was influenced by reading “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, by historian Edward Gibbon. He wanted to describe that event and then arrive at an answer to prevent these types of collapses in the future. Gibbon seemed to imply there were a number of causes of this decline, which if known, could ensure the empire would not fall. This was historically incorrect, but the idea was a powerful one and Asimov wanted to write a grand story describing how such cyclic falls could be averted. In the last chapter written, the 1st one in the novel, he describes the causes of the decline;
Gaal said, "As Trantor becomes more specialized, it becomes more vulnerable, less able to defend itself. Further, as it becomes more and more the administrative center of Empire, it becomes a greater prize. As the Imperial succession becomes more and more uncertain, and the feuds among the great families more rampant, social responsibility disappears. "
Now of course Asimov was criticised for writing a novel where people did not possess the ability to control their own fate and based on this criticism he tried to change his classic cannon, which I feel was an error. But apart from the individuals which were mind altered, which represents an insignificant number of people, everyone else still possess all the individuality that anyone would possess within the constraints of a civilisation. As for those affected, today’s civilisation can use social pressure and threats to achieve the same thing as being mind controlled by the 2nd foundation.
Thus the individual argument is either incorrect or irrelevant and misses the point of the original novel. Of course Asimov’s attempt to correct his so called error has muddied the waters so I suppose I can’t blame people for focusing on this individuality argument, but this was a novel about an entire civilisation, not individuals.
Really awesome comment. Thanks for the perspective.
Originally it was about a mathematical model of human forces on the scale of a planet or the galaxy which predicted the end of the First Galactic Empire. Then a way out was seen based on the idea of the Renaissance preserving then advancing knowledge; (but that included science which involves experiment). So the First Foundation was created to preserve humankind's knowledge in an almost impossible project of an Encyclopedia Galactica. But that was revealed to be a pretext as the Encyclopedists were overthrown. Only one Psychologist or Psycho-Historian stayed (openly) with the First Foundation in its formative years, and he did not leave behind the mathematics, which was reserved to the Second Foundation on "the other side of the galaxy."
Likely Psycho-Historians were guiding the First Foundation so that it would meet the Sheldon Crisis to evolve into a more useful form of humanity striving for a better life since they were unlikely to predict random chaotic actions by individuals. It was also founded on the psychology and physicality of human beings and was unready for a genetic mutation that gave an individual telepathic and empathic powers such as the Mule who used it to form his own empire in quick time. However, it was revealed that the Second Foundation was composed not just of Psycho-Historians and mathematicians capable of predicting the future, but also individuals who had telepathic powers to manipulate others, including the Mule when his guard was down.
The problem for the Second Foundation was to restore the Sheldon Plan for a benign Second Empire after 1000 years (or thereabouts) that would work for the greater good of its citizens. The First Foundation had faced defeat and they felt it was necessary to restore self-confidence and sense of Manifest Destiny (instead of reliance on the Second Foundation to protect them) by creating themselves as the enemy and having the First Foundation seemingly defeat them. This seems like a substandard solution to me as members of the First Foundation would still feel doubt and would want to develop Psycho-History for themselves rather than just have faith that things would work out. I gather that the Vault with Sheldon messages would have been destroyed or abandoned so that he wouldn't give contradictory messages to the leadership and the populace as events unfold.
We never got a Second Foundation novel, as I gather Asimov thought the story was finished in the 1950s and left with some blubs from the Encyclopedia Galactica that everything worked out and there was a benign Second Empire to work for the greater good of humankind. However, I suspect that whether known or unknown to the public the Second Foundation would be the rulers of the galaxy using mathematical Psycho-History and mind-control on individuals in positions of authority. I personally see that as better than a uni-mind for intelligent life in the galaxy, as in the former people could go about their lives as they have always done, while in the latter they'd lose their individuality.
We currently don't have one-world government which I think would be a prerequisite to eliminating nuclear weapons, and is a greater threat to our survival than just about anything.
I think we've got to get past the first step: abandoning the differences between people based on physical attributes and recognize us all as members of the same species. Then we'll be on our way to something great.
But, based on what I see on social media, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
"We are all just like... uh... human, my dude!"
Liberals are the problem
A post-human hyberbeing in the form of a giant goddess: imagery right out of Evangelion. Everything I know about Foundation I’ve learned from this channel 😅 but on my own I’ve noted a few other shared motifs between Evangelion & Dune. It wouldn’t surprise me if Evangelion’s creator was a reader of these books
Evangelion?
@@ThePathOfEudaimonia It’s a sci-fi anime with psychological themes & religious allegory
@@joegluntz it would surprise me if they hadn't, Frank Herbet set a standerd for world building thats seldomly been matched, I also suggest Anne McCaffrey's Dragonriders of Pern series ❤
It very very likely that they did.
@@joegluntz Ah, thanks! I am a total newbie when it comes to the Anime world.
I love the idea of human kind merging together as one! And the best example of it I have ever read was The Last Question. No surprise it's also from Asimov.
Smartly Done. THIS is the Review I’ve been searching for and you left us w the quintessential question. Cheers 🍻
Great video! The first part was a rare example of understanding the complexities of the human condition in a non biased way. I'm impressed!
I've read Foundation's Edge some years ago and being a Star trek fan, I was a little scared by the implications and the discovery of Gaia.
Although I understood the concept and it's a positive idea, I wasn't persuade that loosing my individuality would be all for the best.
It's an unsettling finale and I never read the rest of the books.
U don't understood Gaia concept. Really no one being is "individual" we are SOCIALLY INDIVIDUALS. You see Gaia like a menace to your anglo saxon protestan being idea but u cannot understand the REALITY about human beings and all Universe beings.
Same
This could be an Evangelion analysis and no one would know the difference.
Good work Quinn, love the videos!
It's possible to be connected and "unified" within a complex network, but still retain individuality. We are already living this way as embodied brains within a complex, dynamical community with emergent properties.
Yup, we are already there.
@kinginblack1120, not really with Gaia and galaxia it's not just sharing information it's also sharing emotion. You can be racist and hateful online but in the collective consciousness of galaxia you wouldn't want to be hateful because hurting the feeling of someone else would hurt your own feelings
Nice depth you've explored! I'm in the fence. A unified humanity is a good idea in my book, but it depends on the nature of the hive mind. One accord, yet all still recognized as individuals, if that makes sense.
I'm fairly certain there was still room for some form of individuality within the collective state of Galaxia I picture it like being plugged into the matrix/internet/VR Oasis where your conscious mind shares experiences with the collective and in turn can drawn upon the shared experiences of others without the loss of function of the individuated state of self awareness..
It would basically be like if every living thing was on social media, except as opposed to infinite noise there would be a way of filtering relevant information to suit the context and subjective requirements of the being in question.
A universal guardian angel that serves to comfort suffering and provide a network of feedback and communication so that no living thing would ever have to experience the terror of dying alone ever again.
Perhaps it could be spun in a dystopian light (or lack thereof) but I feel the dystopian scenario has been done to death, quite literally, it's time for more optimism in sci-fi.
I wanna see less dystopian visions and more utopian dreams
Getting more and more excited to see how the show turns out. Im a new fan of The Foundation but it looks well done. Time to get reading though, so many insanely interesting questions proposed through this series.
There are definitely some really cool places they can go with it. Of course they could also completely lose the heart of it and make it absolute trash.
Your intro music always gets me dude! Love it.
i plan on re reading foundation one day. working my way through hyperion right now. about to start endymion. my excitement for dune brought me to your videos, and in turn back to the classics.
Quinn, thanks, this is great. Taken together, FOUNDATION'S EDGE and FOUNDATION AND EARTH are some of the most profound science fiction I have ever read. In addition to the all the ideas you mention, I love how FOUNDATION AND EARTH takes its heroes on a quest to once again find the long lost Terra (Earth), and, along the way, revisit many of other exoplanets into which humankind had, millennia ago, initially spread. Golan's visit to Solaria is frightening, for example. I love, too, how they explore remnants and ruins of the civilizations that had explored the planets (those colonized by the Spacers) and how these details tie the FOUNDATION series into the ROBOT novels and the GALACTIC EMPIRE novels. All in all, the last two books (chronologically) in the FOUNDATION series are brilliant.
In retrospect, Asimov was really set on One Empire (pushing humanity further in its evolution or expansion) vs Barbarian Warlords (producing chaos, destruction and regression) and comes to the naive conclusion that we should all just be a galactic ant collony. I find it dissapoiting now, but I do understand some of his context for this simplistic view.
Fortunately, history is really much more complex, civilisation and advancements actually don't come from either extremes, but from somewhere in the middle. And conflicts never only bring destruction, but are sometimes oportunities or even engines for positive change, just as positive advancements can lead to horiffic consequences down the line.
11:00 I appreciate the idea of humans becoming much more powerful as individual units, even forming there own super-organism.
I think the hivemind concept has only been superficially explored, lesser hiveminds, tribeminds remain largely unexplored;
The hiveminds explored are permanent structures that override their components whole being. But what about hiveminds that are only part time, like pooling of cognitive resources whenever needing to make difficult decisions.
Or hiveminds that operate on the level of collective memory. Being a culture based on sharing of key foundational memories to establish a pattern of culture.
Once you move away from a black and white image of individuality and a hivemind, you find a vast landscape of novel ideas.
The closest popular story I know is "Unity" Star Trek Voyager: former Borg seek help from Voyager to reactivate their neural link, in a new-found "Co-operative", the ex-Borg...
I had never really thought about it before but now I REALLY want to see more positive representations of hive minds in which those within the hive maintain their individuality
I vaguely remember reading such a short story. An alliance of aliens come to Earth when the sun is about to swallow it. They wish to know what happened to the humans.
Eventually they get trapped in some building (or high security elevator?). One of the aliens luckily is a member of a hivemind, so he ”activates” the hivemind so that his entire species can help them to find a way out. They escape, but they also find that some of the humans managed to escape Earth. Eventually they find the human fleet. One of the aliens wonders, whether (given our history) humans could ever pose a threat to them. The other alien remarks how the alliance is much too strong for humans to do anything about it. It ends implying that the humans ARE actually a threat to them.
I hope someone could name the story.
Edenists in the Nights Dawn Trilogy by Peter F Hamilton , are good depiction of the part time tribe-mind
"It's like, you go through life thinking we're all individuals. Then one day you suddenly realise, it's way bigger than that. It's like, we're all one big individual."
-Mr Mackey, South Park.
we're both
Source is man with a trillion faces. On earth we are not “one” but extensions like fingers to the hand. In spirit form we are “one”.
Source is having a dream where all the characters are also having a dream.
After reading Foundation's Edge I immediated opened Prelude to Foundation, Asimov's foreword really tugged at the heart strings because the only reason he continued to write was due to pressure from publishers and fans. He said he's willing to keep writing to add to the universe but he can't live forever and died 4 years later before the publication of Forward Foundation, never continuing the story of Trevize.
WOW !
This is fundamentally a brilliant episode .
I would recommend reading Ramez Naam's "Nexus" trilogy. The focus is post humanity and how technological unification is the path our species is already on. Instead of the OS being on your phone these books ask, what if we put the OS in your brain. They give clear examples of both the benefits and drawbacks of this type of technology, making it a great exploration of a possible future for humanity.
so, Neuralink? Interesting, although there's something about cyborgs that always unsettles me
Neural networks and blockchain tech will be the foundation for this, no pun intended, we are on the path.
Yeah, like that wouldn’t be used nefariously. 😑
My view on this, if “living” meant existing within a hive like mind I would rather not exist to begin with. The idea of losing all personal accountability or the joys of failing and succeeding within my personal lifetime is quite terrifying to me. To me such an existence isn’t even living, it’s simply existing.
Well what if the hive mind makes you like it? Makes you not terrified of it at all once your mind uploaded into it?
@@Dr._Atom An there we go, your use of a certain word just proved my point as to why I would choose to not exist if given a choice. When a hive mind "MAKES" someone do or think anything they've lost their independence. To me that's like losing part of your humanity or even your soul. Lets face it, you might as well use the word brainwashed if anything "MAKES" you like anything.
@@BasedGhoul It won't make you do anything. You will believe it was your idea in the first place.
@@asraarradon4115 So it will brainwash someone, in other words make someone do something by tricking them into believing its their own choice. Like I said, not an existence I would want to live in.
Same here. The very idea is horrific to me and I take great comfort in the fact it can never happen. Our ability to think for ourselves is a great part of what makes us human, should we choose to use it.
Quinn, have you ever read “Star-Maker” by Olaf Stapledon? It’s a great sci-fi read that deals with an ever expanding consciousness.
MINOR PLOT SPOILER:
The unnamed protagonist, while looking up at Earth’s night sky one day on hill outside his home, finds his mind & spirit somehow untethered from the Earth. He roams the cosmos, until he meets another civilization. He merges his mind with an inhabitant there, and after a while, they leave the other planet all together. The process repeats across the entire Universe, gaining more and more minds, a Universal Consciousness. Even the stars themselves, they discover are alive & sentient in their own way.
Until, at last, the mind moves outside the Universe and meets the Star-Maker; The Ultimate Creator of All Things.
I think Asimov's concept of humanity's future (evolving into more social beings in harmony with each-other and with nature) at the conclusion of the Foundation series is amazing. However, I think that the Gaia conception of humanity is primarily contrasted in Foundation and Earth with the planet of Solaria, that is founded on extreme individualism and presented as the mirror-opposite of Gaia. The people of Solaria are extremely powerful and advanced both technologically and psychically, but their existence is alienating, lonely, devout of empathy and frankly a frightening picture of humanity's possible trajectory. I think that Asimov was brave during the Cold War to ponder humanity's path and show how living in harmony rather than competition was the preferable path (Gaia being the existential trajectory of Socialism as opposed to Solaris being the existential endpoint of capitalism).
Galaxia would then be some sort of galctic communism where everyone (being integrated into one mind) would work for everybodys wellbeing. A society without money, state or class.
Idk, I’d prefer individuality
Just finished reading Foundation and Empire and this video came up. Almost like Seldon planned the timing.
First time? If so, I hope you are enjoying the ride and look forward to Second Foundation.
Yes it’s my first time
@@irvingsirotin7152 That's excellent. Enjoy the trip good sir. I really loved these books.
i envy you to discover the mule for the first time .
Nope. I read it 20 years ago. CATCH UP SON!!!!
I enjoyed the way Julian May dealt with "Galactic Unity" or consciousness. In someways like Asimov, but using time travel to reduce the "maturation"time needed for humanity.
Worryingly, Anti-Science is on the Rise.
Thats why i randomly recommend stuff like science-channel to others and/or ask them to recommend something to me i dont know.
Yeah, I'm often perceived as random, but who cares?
I wanna actively know i really spread Education and Fun; hopefully both at the same time.
...Would you mind if i recommend you some good stuff to give a Try?
I don't think a hive mind would be better suited to face an invader. A hive mind could possess a single weakness that once exploited would bring about it's demise. In a collective of individuals each member can have it's own unique weaknes, but complete defeat would only be accomplished by exploiting several completely different weakness.
Apparently the Galactic Empire existed for thousands of years. Maybe in millions of years there will be intelligent alien life from another galaxy contacting it, but it sounded like paranoia in the Foundation sequel. It will be another 4.5 billion years that Andromeda collides with our galaxy.
It's enough for us today on Earth to try to transition to zero carbon emissions, preserve the environment with biodiversity and create a unified world that doesn't have nuclear weapons. One-world government may be required for at least the latter. It would be a unimaginable challenge to make a sustainable society lasting hundreds of years, let alone thousands. And who can say what mutations and evolution of humanity might occur in a million years?
As far as individuality is concerned, I feel like it's getting more scarce nowadays. More and more you're seeing people look for ways to relinquish their individuality, people are becoming comfortable with being told what to do, believing everything they hear and not thinking for themselves. We're also facing the issue of censorship and the suppression of free speech (particularly in the United States). Individuality, like Quinn so eloquently talked about, is important in a free society. However, fascism is slowly creeping into the free world, and people need to start waking up. As far as mankind merging into a kind of hivemind goes, I can see the benefits but I'd be worried about my individuality being stripped from me. I'll always choose individuality.
Agree with what I think you are saying. Except maybe, "people need to stop waking up" ???
@@ShazzPotz Oooop, meant to say "start", my mistake haha
Even Gaia brought forward the Mule somehow. And Trevize argued rightly about the usefulness of dis-alignment, of what at first can appear as heresy, but eventually can become the right variety to survive inevitable changes and crises = diversity.
"Childhood's End," by Arthur C. Clarke always seemed to me to be a more realistic rendering of our future.
In what way is that more realistic?
Foundation Series: Humans Merge their conciousness into a super conciousness of feminine nature called Galaxia, with one goal and in one accord.
Imagine Leto II hearing of this idea, the scoffs and rants he'd go on about how bad an idea that is would be legendary. The Golden Path must be fulfilled!
The ending of "Foundation and Earth" is really horrifying to me. There's no way that will be able to preserve humanity completely, in a way humanity has already lost. I wish Asimov had lived long enough to show us what happened later and what can we learn from it.
Same here. I wanted to hate it so much, but it was so interesting to think about. I was always going back and forth if i liked the ending. If i put myself in that place i might rather just die. But the alternatives are not much better, althou the alien stuff was very left field to me. And at the same time, did we save the human race? Or destroyed it and just built something new? I read it like 10+ years ago, but once in a blue moon i still think about it.
I really love the version of a human hivemind presented in Sense8: clusters of 8 people in smaller huveminds, allowing for synced thoughts and emotions but maintaining individuality as well. Best of both worlds.
I love the concept of hive minds and the subgenres of them are all badass too. I'm working on analyzing as many different ones as possible.
I think the idea of a final convergence of all intelligence into a single godlike being was part of the mid - C.20 zeitgeist.
You see it in Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End and in Olaf Stapledon, Star Maker.
You can see similar ideas outside SF , eg. in Ernst Bloch and Teilhard de Chardin.
And of course later we have discussion of The Singularity.
Nothing on the very last paragraph of Foundation and Earth? Those few words broke my heart and I still remember the feeling 20 years after reading it!
Great video, by the way! Thanks!
I’d recommend river words trilogy by Philip Jose Farmer. Every human who’s ever lived is all resurrected on an alien planet. It’s about aliens forcing humanity to change and adapt for their own purposes.
to raise our minds, first we have to understand that all is one.
I think you are definitely stepping into the realm of philosophy. That's good. I think you would profit from some videos about Albert Camus. He was a kind of minor philosopher from the tradition of existentialism. He did not like being called an existentialist but instead an Abserdist. Check it out. One of the things he said is that sometimes in order to do the right thing you have to be a rebel.
So many of my own ideas for a sci fi franchise that I deemed unique, always just evaporate or feel derivative when I watch your videos, and realize it was already done like 70 years ago lol.
It feels like Dan Simmons’ concepts for the philosophy of the Ousters in Hyperion was heavily influenced by Asimov’s Galaxia.
There is no purely unique idea - the human mind is truly not capable of such a thing.
But, in the remixing of old ideas, we can discover unique angles of approach and combinations of ideas. Everything is a remix, and this is ok.
I think you should bring your idea into creation, even if it does feel derivative.
I love his merging of two great series, Daneel will always be my favorite character. Data didn’t do him justice.
Great editing Quinn!
Damn I'm addicted to your videos. I doubt I'll ever watch or read many of the books and shows you talk about, but love to learn about them.
Quinn, I appreciate your analytical and objective perspective. I value your work. I'd appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion with you and address the many subjects that you've addressed.
Worryingly, Anti-Science is on the Rise.
Thats why i randomly recommend stuff like science-channel to others.
Mind if i do, James S.?
I work in Information Science. I work with Librarians, researchers, and professors. The Library Information Science and Education professions are now ideological. When pursuing an education in both these fields it is implicitly and explicitly taught what proper perspective is and that 'proper' perspective is Progressive Liberal Socialism. The professionals that occupy these professionals only acknowledge facts that reinforce their goal of manifesting a utopian future for humanity. Some are Christians most are atheists but all seem to have the 'religion' of creating heaven on earth. These professionals believed the majority shared their vision, values, and priorities. They realize they were wrong in that perception but still want to use the same tactics, to cancel all those that have heretical views.
My point is that I want to preserve what knowledge we as humanity have accumulated and to promote objectivity and pragmatism but the majority with power and control over Information wish to edit and censor history, push a narrative, and punish dissent, not empower of teach.
In one of his short stories he described the act of fusing into a hive mind as "both parties perceived it as a gain"
The hivemind perceived it as absorbing a mind, while the mind percived it as absorbing the hive.
The problem of the dystopian view is that it assumes that unity requires loss of individuality. It assumes that there is a tyranny of an individual like the queen in an ant colony or a homogeneous group mind. Pure individuality also leads to a dead end as the species requires cooperation to survive, not one is immortal and no one can only rely on themselves. The reality is that systems develop and evolve to ensure survival. The earth is comprised of many systems which are comprised of many individual species, phenomena etc which have little to no direct ties nor suffer loss of their individual identity. Even within physics it has been hard to reconcile all micro and macro system functions. It sounds like gibberish but as far as we can tell reality is already a one of many and a many of one. It is possible to have both unity and individuality.
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh... it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel. I aspired to the purity of the blessed machine. Your kind cling to your flesh, as if it will not decay and fail you. One day the crude biomass that you call a temple will wither, and you'll beg my kind to save you. But I am already saved. For the machine is immortal.
The contemporary story along the same lines was Arthur C. Clark's Childhood's End, wherein a Borg-Like super-entity of millions of alien species comes and absorbs all of the fully-evolved humans, leaving the rest of humanity to oblivion. This was the end of our original freedom of thought - all of it was just a stage of development until we get to a higher consciousness, and then our bodies become useless and we lose all individuality. It didn't sound very appealing.
Fear of the loss of individuality, the loss of ego, is essentially the fear of death.
Amazing thoughts discussed.. Thank you!
Thousand Worlds mentioned! You made my day Quinn 💜
I really like the Greshka from A Song for Lya, or the Maw and Sandkings from Sandkings. The pyramids from and seven times never kill man make me think of weirwoods. Grrm loves his hive minds lol.
The Idea is amazing
I bet Asimov would says something like this about politics
Politics = Suffering
Politics = Colonialism and Imperialism
Politics = Control
Politics = Tribalism
Politics = lack of nuance
Politics = lack of free thinking
Politics = Bigotry
Politics = Agression
Politics = Radical extremist
Politics = authoritarianism
Politics= Policy
Politics = moral
Politics = integrity
Politics = helping people
Politics = Ideologue
Politics= ideology
Many of these concepts are relevant to pantheism. The belief that one can merge with a collective consciousness after death is common throughout humanity, but, combined with modern theories on the nonlocality of consciousness, it's a notable possibility. When you get down to it, spiritual beliefs are a function of our super organism. Not the same as a hive mind, though.
In dragon ball multiverse, a fan manga, all namekians fuse together to become one, to defeat the terror of the universe Frieza. his name was Gast.
"When Freeza attacked their planet for the Dragon Balls, the Nameks ultimately decided to fuse together, resulting in the Namek killing Freeza and having many adventures afterwards"
Frankly I think the idea of a united mankind or even an empire of many races in a scenario of galaxy-wide colonisation robs it of one of its strongest arguments. Even in federation you regularly see power getting more and more centralised. Centralised systems fall together, through a wrong idea, way of life or elites too far away from the needs of their people.
Having many states on even a planet brings many challenges, sure, but also competition and a struggle to let the right ideas win, serving humanity as a whole. Even if Asimovs scenario of an outside threat would have been correct, the outsiders having to deal with a humanity being experienced in dealing with a variety of societies could easily face a greater challenge once united than a collective following one way of thinking.
Most incredible command of language in order to express his brilliant ideas and construct his exciting fantasies. Even though at times I felt he was a bit of a "city geek", mebbe a little effete, or squeamish about things, but, such a powerful, thought-filled brain!
A true Super Hero in my eyes. Why is it people with that kind of brilliant mind would have NO interest in providing leadership for whatever governmental structure we decide on...and our method of politics currently is NO way to appropriately manage our leadership function for the welfare and humane progress of our Country. We can sure as hell make it better and appeal once again to some measure of virtue and to our "better angels". And people like Dr. Asimov could set the tone for such a conversion.
But alas, I doubt he and others like him wouldn't touch the White House with a ten foot pole.
I liked Asimov's vision of a hive mind as some of the darker visions often seemed like a pretense for space opera.
The British hard sci-fi writer Stephen Baxter explores this idea in a very thought provoking way in his far future four book Destiny's Children series. These books also feature the God like Xeelee, a type IV+ civilization on the Kardashev scale. I'd highly recommend these books. QUINN, have you read Stephen Baxter's Xeelee sequence novels? They are fascinating and you'd love them. Baxter himself is a scientist and he gets into some some pretty heady and jaw dropping speculation as to the far future of humanity on the cosmic scale. All grounded in theoretical physics and cosmology on the mind bending fridges.
Honestly, I’ve always hoped Asimov would have brought forth the next part of his saga before he died. It seemed as if he was trying to tell a story of about the dangers of the Cold War in the same way he wrote about the fall of the Roman Empire back in Foundation...I just don’t think he was able to figure out how to write about the Cold War, since it was still taking place before he passed-on .
My vision of the next part of his saga involves an “us against them” story involving Humanities ‘third way’ (Gaia) and the invading species of Aliens (of which The Mule was retconned to be one of). The battle field of said war would NOT take place inside inter-galactic space, but would take place inside of historical time itself...I hope that makes sense. Asimov seems to hint at the idea in his book The End Of Eternity. Both of the ‘book ends’ of the entire Robot - Empire - Foundation Saga point in that direction. Again, I just think Asimov wrote himself into a corner and couldn’t figure how to write the next part of the story as I’ve just described it. Besides, he would have had to retcon a LOT of what he’d already wrote down in order to make it all work. The ‘book ends’ I’m referring to are The End Of Eternity and also Foundation And Earth.
I’ve never been a fan of Robots being the next big ‘Frankenstein Monsters’ of Sci-Fi...I think it’s time we moved on. I’m also totally down with ‘hive mind’ concepts being progressive influences upon humanity as a whole. Because, our individuality (or existence) resides in our Being, not our Identity. Shared identities are common among heard species and humanity is a heard species. That being said, Harvard has demonstrated that there are only a few different states to existence: experiencing (while we’re awake) and remembering and dreaming (while we’re asleep) being the most powerful of the handful of these states. I highly doubt being a part of a ‘hive mind’ would negatively impact any of the previously mentioned states of existence. Our individuality (or state of existence) would be left intact.
Interesting!
Also, may I ask when/where was The Mule retconned to be an alien?
It’s been years since I’ve read the saga...but if I’m correct The Mule is only suggested to be an alien somewhere in the Foundation And Earth book.
I may be remembering that incorrectly, but I’m confident that this is when it happens. It’s only mentioned in passing and nothing conclusive is stated. So, I guess that’s not quite a retcon...like I say, it’s been years.
@@joshuahelmeke It was stated that the Mule came from Gaia. I forget if Daneel says it or the old man on Gaia.
@@waltciii3 THAT'S RIGHT! It happens during Foundations Edge...the conversation with Daneel happens during Foundation & Earth, so...I do remember the old guy on Gaia saying that the Mule was born on Gaia and later kicked out or isolated.
I think it’s a pulsating continuum between individual identity and a union or fusion of mind and matter into one sense of being on the other. A pulsation that allows both at the same time or alternating from one to the other and back again over time maintain a balance in which life is able to manifest.
This Video is Gold
I just LOVE your videos, man! Thanks for everything!
I think merging into a single hive mind is either something we cannot truly imagine or understand. In and of itself this a concept that is hard to even define. Does it mean that suddenly everyone's will is deleted and then they are all become a completely new entity that is neither of the ones that started? How would that new entity be different? Of course the sum is more than its parts but wouldn't a mind like that be just a great chaotic jumble of the collective thoughts of its parts? Would the new entity's goals be the same as the two parent entities?
Then we also need to ask where is the line between being individual and hive mind? Is there an in-between state? One could argue that having something like the Internet is already something akin to that. Is it possible to reverse it? What would the merger even accomplish? What would be the purpose other than a precaution for basic survival against a theoretical future threat? Wouldn't that be a step backwards in an evolutionary sense since the new entity's goal is reduced to the level of basic survival with no higher purpose? And what will that new entity do while waiting for the theoretical future threat to come? Will just do nothing? Will it have new needs and desires to pursue? Will it decide that the best defense is offense so instead of waiting for a threat to come it will look for ways to visit other galaxies as a safety precaution and to eliminate any potenital threat that could become dangerous? Or it would try to absorb the consciousnesses of life in that galaxy as well? Wouldn't that be harmful to the other galaxy? Will this being turn out to be a monster, that is only looking to destroy any and all possible threat to its existence? Until it finds a threat that it cannot contest and be forced to either make peace with said threat or hid and return to an intergalactic arms race? What if said unbeatable enemy is too powerful and destroys the hive mind and thus everything remaining of its creators. Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of creating it, putting all our eggs into one basket and hoping it will solve the problem instead of staying scattered? Can we even tell which one is a better method for basic survival?
Will it this entity be lonely? Can a hivemind feel lonely? What if it decides that is impossible to imagine what new threats may come and decide that the only solution is not existing. Since it might no longer have a need to propagate itself and reproduce, since then it is no longer a hive mind, then is there a purpose for its existence? There are too many unknown variables and questions here.
How would this mind even exist? Does it have needs to fulfill to continue its existence? Does it need a physical medium to do its thought processing like a biological brain or a computer? Or it would just be a non corporeal ghost that can just exists in nothing because it can?
Great show!! Writers, especially sci-fi revels this time and time again. Star Trek "the classic" showed how Kirk fell in love...with a human android conflicted with emotions and..freedom to chose or choice...the remake or "new" showed how and...Picard noted a system of androids merging with humans..Spoilers Picard consciousness merged with an android tech.
And!! How can I miss the BORG!!
I finally had a reasonable concept of what a connected consciousness Galaxia might look like after finishing the 'Hyperion cantos' series.
That version is far more preferable than the idea used in 'End if Evangelion'.
Azimov's view reflects a similar view of mystics explaining we all are part of a one great consciousness (God?), still unaware of our connection, where enlightenment is the final epiphany of this fact. An awareness requiring many lifetimes to obtain, in Azimov's case many millenia for the entire human race to achieve.
Quinn, I'd love to see your reaction to the new Foundation series trailer
In the German series Perry Rhodan, societies eventually reach the point where they merge their minds to form a collective, disembodied intelligence called a superintelligence. This is a part of the "onion shell model." These superintelligences can then develop further into higher order beings.
There are also the Arisian fusions in Doc Smith's Lensman series.
Isaac Asimov seems to have been more optimistic than other writers on a variety of topics. It is interesting to compare his robots with Jack Williamson's humanoids. Both have the same primary objective: serving humans and protecting them from harm. Yet their approaches are very different, and the resulting quality of life for humanity is very different.
I was never comfortable with the idea of Gaia and the loss of individuality. I would prefer a variety of group mind where individuals retain some sense of individuality and can link up and separate at will. One could choose any level of immersion from complete isolation to complete fusion.
Also note that a group consciousness could contain both organic and electronic minds.
Been trying to answer this for a while. I believe there is no denying a personality when having consciousness and combining consciousness is the way for sentient beings to remain. Sci fi is a way to describe different equations.
I'm opposed to hive minds in general, but I'm intrigued by the idea of Gaia/Galaxia.
On the other hand I'm horrified by the idea that R. Daneel Olivaw, having reached the end of his physical life had his 'mind' along with the extensive psychic abilities that he acquired from fellow robot Giscard transferred to that Solarian orphan teke! Yeah, maybe Daneel's 'mind' can impose discipline on the child's mind but maybe it can't and what then about the future of humanity after we've learned how much Daneel has manipulated the progress of humanity?
"We live in a society." - Hari Seldon, probably
A very different and interesting video. I think that you made many good points and will make me do a lot of thinking on this subject. Thank you for the video!
The Foundation Algorithm is served.
I was thinking Evangelon human instrumentality when you discussed Hive minds
Love these videos...especially your analysis of the works
you make me want to read every time i listen to one of your videos. Already making my way through some Lovecraft!
I'd rather die than end up joining some collective. For example, lets say you need some material for a paper mache project. You shred some old documents and use the product afterwards. That document is no longer what its supposed to be, and its original use has been completely lost. Now lets up the stakes and say that document can think for itself and has its own goals to accomplish. Collective consciousness is just the most gilded genocide imaginable.
Great vid hive minds are a interesting topic I would love to see you do another vid about it
The only way for the Milky Way to not get colonized by Aliens from a distant galaxy, the entity Galaxia must be born. Asimov’s book ‘End of Eternity’ (great story btw) illustrates a “What If” scenario. In a parallel timeline, what if human expansion didn’t extend outside of our solar system but expanded through time? This scenario leads to the Milky Way being colonized by other beings in their future. Which made Humanity’s future uncertain. However, when the protagonist of the End of Eternity story realized the paradox and stagnation (I won’t give too much of the plot away) of humanity they chose to no longer support “Eternity”, which opened up potential alternative futures for humanity. I love Asimov and Galaxia is the correct choice. (Just like synthesis is the correct choice in ME3) 😊
My favorite version of merging of consciousness is the Human Instrumentality Project in Evangelion.
It doesn't show what happens after the merger, but the imagery leading up to it's occurrence is very cool.
Childhood's End is another positive example of humanity adopting a hive mind.
I don't remember If I read the whole series in junior high? I've been ordering old paperbacks to try and recapture, my youth! but some how it isn't working! as much as I loved Asimov's stuff, When I started the foundation series, I started at the beginning! and I had to ask my self, if we humans suffer from great hubris, to actually think that in 12 thousand years we would be able to establish, an empire as vast as the entire Milky Way! my favorite of Asimovs work, are "Night Fall" "The Last Question" and "Nemisis " after all earth is a living world, and I wonder if there is a conciousness that we punny humans may have missed ?
Dude! Thanks for this, great video.
There’s something very, very disturbing about Ga(lax)ia. We’re never given a sign of anything sinister about it and apparently are expected to consider it/they/Gaia to be as benevolent as it/they/Gaia claim. I utterly reject this notion.
Agreed. To me it sounds just like another centralized ideology that's inevitably condemned to fall into confortable senescence (at best) and a failure to adapt to changing circumstances. The latter is, of course, a guarantee of extinction.
Bottom line: let's not entirely turn our noses up at the chaos of letting "a thousand flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought compete" (ironic though that Maosist dictum is...)
@@PeloquinDavid I think the Mule’s retconned backstory, unsatisfying though it may have been, offers an insight into Gaia’s dystopia. I picture him being so disillusioned with their stultifying conformity that he can’t help become enamored with the intellectual diversity of other worlds. His heterodoxy gets him excommunicated. Gaia sterilizes him, deforms him so that he will die in his 30s (though he belongs to a race of people who die in their 300s) and sets him adrift in a galaxy he cannot understand (it makes me think of the Anglo-Americans in the 1930s who, with legitimate grievances against the capitalist pigs who made the Depression, believed that Stalin really was running a workers’ paradise till it was too late for them to escape). And they also leave him able to endanger others in that galaxy, not out of malice but out of pure fear.
Yet we’re told they’re radically pacifistic. But they lack the moral fiber to address the causes of suffering head on, so they simply push those causes just beyond the horizon, behind an intermediate step they did not deliberately enact, and pretend they’re innocent of the painful results. They’re not.
Resistance is futile and you will be assimilated...and like it.
Apparently...
It's hard to know as it is impossible for us to comprehend that kind of existence, so naturally we ascribe traits of creativity to individuality as that is all we know. And any perception of a group or collective means that creativity is then lost. What if individual ideas could be shared within a collective, so new knowledge can be made instantly available to everyone.
@@aperson22222 "believed that Stalin really was running a workers’ paradise till it was too late for them to escape"
Or believing everything 1930s propaganda tells you about Stalin at face value, with no reflections whatsoever.
Hive minds is a scary state to think about. While it would strip away individualism for a more utopian state, I prefer to have individualistic idea and be able share with others for civil debates.
Have you considered reading for audiobooks? Your voice is soothing and you are a good voice actor as well. I tried listening to mountains of madness today but the reader's voice gave me a headache immediately
I like your Style Quinn 👍👍
I perfectly remember the moment I read that Olivaw was in the moon operating the plan. Maybe I was shocked a couple of days...
Loss of individualism, in any form, is the greatest threat to humanity. Beware anyone who claims that homogeneity and conformity are desired goals; that's just another form of enslavement.
Like an ant
BUT: be careful not to go too far in glorifying individualism either!
No libertarian nirvana exists - or can exist: predation and parasitism are viable strategies in any large population of living things (both within and between species) and you need some form of always adaptable systems of social regulation to ensure that such a population has a future in competing with other systems that strike a different/better balance between the individual and the collective...
Bottom line: don't count ants out yet...
The source is man with a trillion faces.
On earth we are not one.
In spirit form, we are one.
Could also be seen as human evolution 🤷🏻♂️ depends on perspective
Imagine what we could create with a hive mind 🥴🤣
@@swatisquantumcorrect.. We are a single consciousness split apart into billions of individual meat vehicles
Galaxia always seemed like a suped up version of The Great Link from DS9. It isn't the point, losing your individuality, it doesn't matter anymore. You BECOME something greater.
This thread of comments was Asimov's goal. He succeeded.
I wouldn't go anywhere without my wonderful tawel
A meticulously erudite video as always. I love your videos.