Diagnosis in limbo: don’t eLearn now! Use time #blogphilosophy

Where a month ago I felt strange becoming 50, right at the moment of turning fifty I heard that I had malignant cancer in one of my breasts, possibly both. Well, let’s just say I was no longer worried about age, but about life in general. At this point in time I am still in limbo on what the next steps are, but an answer is soon to come.

Learning is the highest of life achievements

In my family (all sides) learning is considered the highest form of living. I live, therefor I learn. Without learning life has no meaning. Or, at the end of your life, a human being is considered to have obtained new knowledge that can be taken to the realm beyond or simply has to be used in this life (depending on the view of what death is).

However, the learning which makes up life is mostly informal learning, as most of my family (including me) are not that well equipped to learn formally. However, since a few weeks I now know that informal learning is not always an option. This is why: as the first indications started to point to cancer, I did not know that the eventual plan of action to tackle the disease would take so much time. And time – to me – is mostly spend on learning anyway. So, after hearing the bad news, I referred to my natural plan of action: learn … learn online. But, for first time in my life, learning was not the best option. Not in this case. It turns out that cancer, even a specific cancer like breast cancer is treated in many different ways, has multiple possible outcomes and each person’s body reacts differently to the chosen operations. Reading up on the subject, just gave me too many options, unclarity and anxiety. So… any type of learning I have ahead of me now, will be experimental learning, and on a highly personal note. And it would not be learning to be prepared, but learning to cope.

Change is gonna come

No matter what happens next, it is inevitable that change is happening more rapidly than in ordinary life: possibly coping with a new body, with a new timeline, with a new condition. I learned from my diabetes that it does not make any sense to linger for the past. That is gone, but can be a happy part of the new me. I guess, this change is going to be even more manifest now. So, the only thing for me to do is to find out what I can do, to at least make this transition more rewarding. I am scared, scared that I will no longer be able to add to anything related to online learning. I will write some long overdue papers (distilled from my phd), but I feel weary on whether I will be able to add anything relevant. The time to read everything that is happening might be scarce. I do have a small plan, but not sure if I can realise it. Apart from online learning, what else is there?

No bucket list, but a bucket (well one single) idea: Time

Most people seem to have a bucket list, I searched for mine, but did not find it. So, there is no list of things I want to do… I seem to be more of a person who just does it, or simply does not come up with large projects and certainly nothing high risk.

So, I wondered whether I had a bucket idea? I actually have, what is explored so little, yet enough to make a comfortable complex idea to tamper with for (possibly) the next few months? Time, time itself, for time to me is not linear, which has always intrigued me. Maybe, this is a good time to focus on Time. I will have to gather more information on this: what is time, how much has been mathematically analysed for linearity, multiplicity, …

So, not sure what online activities I will keep doing. But I sure hope to have ample time to enjoy thinking… learning and thinking for the coming weeks or months.

Turning 50 hoping for cards or letters, will reply. Inge

This is the 1001 post I write on this blog. As it happens I am turning 50 in about two and a half weeks’ time (14 July – Bastille day when the French population stormed the Bastille as the start of the French revolution, as well as La Fête de la Fédération – where peace was celebrated one year later). After contemplating what I would like best … the only meaningful idea sticking to my mind, is to ask you for any type of Postal mail you might want to send me.

I would love to come over to all of you I have (virtually) met over the years, simply sit down, and have a real talk… but I do not have that type of money. Otherwise, yes, I would go on a talk-about combined with a walk-about.

So, to all my (virtual) friends, family, and colleagues… if you find the time, it would really be wonderful to receive a postcard or letter.

Inge de Waard

Sterrewijk 58

9880 Aalter

Belgium

Europe

If you add your address, I will reply with postal mail in return.

The reasons I would like to receive postal mail are divers, so adding them for anyone who wonders.

Object traveling through physical space.

The reason I thought of this idea, is because a card or letter is an object, and you would have selected the paper or card, touched it, reflected… and put your selection of ideas, art or wisdom on to this to-be-posted-surprise. It would travel its own route, be passed on … until it reached my doorstep. So to me, it would feel like a handshake or a hug passed on through time and location to arrive and be given in order to tell me: you are 50, that’s okay.

50 seems rather strange.

I do not know where it came from… although I do have a lot of actions that I know I took. But, it feels like all of a sudden time is catching up on me and less options are available: no Olympic gold, less of a chance to become a celebrated neo-contemporary artist, no more thoughts on time being endless in this lifetime. I might be wrong cognitively, but it feels that way emotionally. I never had a limit on my potential (or the thoughts of my potential) like this before. I also really start to look old with grey hair and a beard increasingly appearing (yes, I come from old ancestors where all the women that grew old eventually had a beard… it is true, and part of a specific ancient Celtic region).

My life is mostly virtual, but I love cards and letters.

Although I feel most at home and at ease within virtual environments, I have this lifelong pleasure in sending cards and letters. There is something about it that I really like. Postcards are like time stamps… you see the buildings, the people, the dresses, even the timbre of the colors and you feel the time in which it has been made. Letters are personal, closed, more private, shared thoughts between individuals, close to the heart, with a potential to enter open hearted conversations on multiple subjects. Letters are what history is made off, the letters told historians what keeps us busy, what is going on, what type of people we are. They also have something tactile, they smell a particular way, the paper has a special texture… it is personal without an effort.

I suddenly feel I might know something.

This is also new, I might know something? Although admittedly, most is still far from known, but a bit, just a couple of things seem real. Or maybe they are only truths (truisms?) to me, maybe it is my mind playing tricks and just simply reassuring me that it all makes sense and at the end I will have learned a bit for sure. Let me share briefly, what I think I know by now:

• All people are the same, but we do not all live in the same worlds.
• Say yes, so opportunities can be lived (and trust your intuition). 
• Technology is just part of life, some like it, some don't.
• Take action early in life, early actions shorten the path to a personally satisfying life.
• No woman is an island, adapted from John Donne.
• I know little and it changes every day, but I learn.

It is the 1001 post … so immediately One Thousand and One Nights comes to mind, the set of folk tales gathered over centuries each originating from old and poetic civilizations (Persia, India, Arabia, Egypt, Mesopotamia…). Tales shaped by wisdom and fantasy to share amongst all of us, to exchange and recount those tales time and time again… I like that idea a lot.

The picture ‘all things are delicately interconnected’ is an interpreted, embroidered version of a Jenny Holzer Truism.

To end, a song I frequently play on my birthday: Aux Armes et Caetera by Serge Gainsbourg, the lyrics first, the song embedded thx to YouTube.

Allons enfant de la patrie
Le jour de gloire est arrivé
Contre nous de la tyrannie
L'étendard sanglant est levé

Aux armes et caetera

Entendez-vous dans les campagnes
Mugir ces féroces soldats
Ils viennent jusque dans nos bras
Egorger nos fils nos compagnes

Aux armes et caetera

Amour sacré de la patrie
Conduis soutiens nos bras vengeurs
Liberté liberté chérie
Combats avec tes défenseurs

Aux armes et caetera

Nous entrerons dans la carrière
Quand nos aînés n'y seront plus
Nous y trouverons leur poussière
Et la trace de leurs vertus

Aux armes et caetera

Recognising Fake news, the need for media literacy #digitalliteracy #literacy #education

I was working on a blogpost on books focusing on EdTech people (the woman, the tasks…), but then I opened up YouTube and I saw that president Trump had his first solo press conference.

I guess we can all benefit from Mike Caulfield's ebook (127 page) on web literacy for students (online version) or here for other versions including pdf), a fabulous book with lots of links and useful actions to become (more) web literate (thank you Stephen Downes for bringing it to my attention). 

After watching it, I thought there was a clear need (for me as an avid supporter of education) to refer to initiatives on the topic of real and fake news, because honestly I do not mind if someone calls something fake or real, as long is that statement is followed by clear arguments describing what you think is fake about it, and why. Before doing that, I want to share the reason for this shift in attention.

I love Amerika, for several reasons: where Europe stays divided, the United States have managed to get its nations to work together, while leaving enough federal freedom to adapt specific topics according to individual nation’s believes; I have worked and honestly like to work with Americans (of all backgrounds) and American organisations, truly I am in complete awe of the Bill of Rights, and the way the constitution is securing freedom for all. I know that a goal as ‘freedom for all’ is difficult to attain, but at least it is an openly set vision, put on paper. I mean, I truly respect such strong incentive to promote freedom for all citizens within a legal framework and the will to achieve that freedom. And due to this love for the United States, I felt that Trump is okay. In democratic freedom, the outcome might not be of anyone’s liking, but … history has shown that democratic freedom can swing in a lot of ways and that it this diversity nurtures new ideas and insights along the way.

However, while watching the press conference I got more and more surprised by what was said and how: there were clear discriminatory references, which I do not think befit a President of all the American people. But okay, to each his own and rhetorical styles can differ (wow, can they differ), but the ongoing remark and reference on Fake News that kept coming up as an excuse and used as a non-sequitur at any point during the press conference just got to me. Manipulation has many faces, and only education can help built critical minds that will be able to judge for themselves, and as such be able to distinguish real from fake news. To me, even if you refer to ‘this is fake news’, I want to hear just exactly what you mean: which part of what news is fake and why. Enlighten me would be the general idea.  

Fake news and believing it: status

A Stanford study released in November 2016, concluded that 82% of middle-schoolers couldn’t distinguish between an ad labeled “sponsored content” and a real news story on a website. Which seems to indicate that somewhere we are not addressing media or digital literacy very well. On the reasons why this lack of media literacy is occuring, I like the viewpoint of Crystle Martin who looks at misinformation and warcraft in this article; saying:

Teaching information literacy, the process of determining the quality and source of information, has been an emphasis of the American Association of School Librarians for decades. However, teaching of information literacy in school has declined as the number of librarians in schools has declined.

Luckily, there are some opinions and initiatives on distinguishing between fake and real news. Danah Boyd had another look at the history of media literacy, focusing on the cultural context of information consumption that were created over the last 30 years. Danah shared her conclusions in a blogpost on 17 January 2017, entitled 'Did media literacy backfire?' She concluded that media literacy had backfired, in part as it was built upon assumptions (e.g. only media X, Y and Z deliver real news) which often does not relate to the thinking of groups of people that prefer other news sites A, B and C.  

Danah describes it very well:

Think about how this might play out in communities where the “liberal media” is viewed with disdain as an untrustworthy source of information…or in those where science is seen as contradicting the knowledge of religious people…or where degrees are viewed as a weapon of the elite to justify oppression of working people. Needless to say, not everyone agrees on what makes a trusted source.

The cultural and ethical logic each of us has, is instilled in us from a very early age. This also means we look upon specific thinking as being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. And to be honest, I do not feel this cultural/ethical mind set will deter all of us from being able to become truly media literate. As long as we talk to people across the board. As long as colliding thoughts fuel a dialogue, we will learn from each other and be able to understand each other in better ways (yes, I am one of those people that think that dialogue helps learning, and results in increased understanding, thank you Socrates).

If this is the case, than we need to do a better job of improving media literacy, including listening to people with other opinions and how they see it. It is a bit like the old days, where the people from the neighborhood go to the pub, the barbershop, or any get together were people with different opinions meet, yet feel appreciated even during heated debates.  

Maha Bali, in her blogpost “Fake news, not your main problem” touches on the difficulty of understanding all levels of the reports provided in the news and other media. Sometimes it does demand intellectual background (take the Guardian, I often have to look up definitions, historical fragments etc. to understand a full article, it is tough on time and tough to get through, but … sometimes I think it is worth the effort). Maha Bali is a prolific, and very knowledgeable researcher/educator. She touches on the philosophical implication of ‘post-truth’ and if you are interested, her thesis subject on critical thinking (which she refers to in her blogpost) will probably be a wonderful read (too difficult for me). So, both Maha and Danah refer to the personal being not only political, but also coloring each of our personal critical media literacies. 

If media literacy depends on personally developing skills to distinguish fake (with some truth in it) from real (with some lies in it), I gladly refer to some guidelines provided by Stephen Downes, as they are personal. One of the statements I would think is pivotal to distinguish between fake and real news, is understanding that truth is not limited to one or more media papers/sites/organisations, it is about analysing one bit of news at a time. It is not the organisation that is authoritative at all times, it is the single news item that is true or at least as real as it can get. So, here is a list of actions put forward by Stephen Downes on detecting fake news : Trust no one, look for the direct evidence (verification, confirmation, replication, falsification), avoid error (with major sources of error being: prediction, relevance, precision, perspective), take names (based on trust, evidence and errors), and as a final rule he suggests to diversify in sources (which I really believe in, the pub analogy). 

Another personal take on detecting fake news comes from Tim O'Reilly who describes a personal story, and while doing so he sheds some light on how an algorithm might be involved. 

Thinking about algorithms, you can also turn to some fake news detectors:

The BS detector: a fabulous extension to the Mozilla browser. Looks at extreme bias, conspiracy theory, junk science, hate group, clickbait, rumor mill… http://bsdetector.tech/

Snopes: started out as a website focused on detecting urban legends, and turned into an amazing fact checking website (amazing as you can follow the process of how they look at a specific item and then decide whether it is fake).  ( http://www.snopes.com/

And finally, for those who like to become practical asap: a lesson plan on fake news provided by KQED http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2016/12/Fake-news-lesson-plan.pdf

In my view, the increase in accepting the idea of fake news is related to the increased divide within society. So, in a way I agree with Danah Boyd: we read and agree with specific people and news sources, and so we filter our sources to those people and media. Seldom do we read up on sources from media we do not agree with, or people we disagree with. It used to be different, as discussions around specific topics were discussed in our community, with a mix of ideas and preferences.

So maybe media literacy could be done on a community level, where everyone gets together and shares their opinion on certain topics. We recreate the local pub or café, where everyone meets and gets into arguments on what they believe (or not). Media literacy – to me – is about embracing diversity of opinion, listening, seeing the arguments from the other side and … making up your own mind again.

So, coming back to president Trumps referencing to fake news. In terms of increasing media literacy, I do not have a problem with referencing to something that is seen as fake news, I do have a problem with that fact not being explained: what is fake about it? Why? And again, with saying that, I mean a real explanation, not simply repeating ‘this is fake news. It is. I tell you it is’ (feel free to imagine the tone of voice that such a sentence might be delivered in), now give me the facts, because I do want to know why you or anyone else is labeling something as true or false.

(picture source: http://www.cyberlawcentre.org/unlocking-ip/blog/uploaded_images/wikipedian_protester-774177.png )

Call to action: academics should reclaim their voice in society, NOW

Enough is enough! Let's reclaim common ground, let's reclaim our voice in society!

These thoughts have been playing in my mind: why are academic voices hardly heard in contemporary societal debates? Why are there so many opinions, and so little facts? Why do we - as educators - promote lifelong learning, yet we are not reaching out to citizens in our own regions, nations, or across nations?

The reason why I ask these questions, is because I feel that a social world populated with superficial opinions is a world susceptible to populism, dichotomy ... and ultimately a mentally impoverished society. If we do not take action, than how can we take our societal role seriously. We, as scientists, as academics, as teachers have a huge societal goal.

I truly believe, that we - academics, educators, teachers - should start reclaiming our voice in society, in order to take back what we have lost: voices of reason, sound information (in all its nuanced diversity, not information delivered in black on white).

In this presentation I make a first attempt to organise my thoughts on the need to reclaim our voice in society. Let ourselves be heard across media, across groups and communities, across generations... in order to regain common sense and argument.

Academics should reclaim their voice in society, NOW! from Inge de Waard

Power Learners, #DavidBowie and Creativity

There is so much power in Learning. In the ongoing quest for creation, trial, error, and renewal. There is something mystic in those of us who keep on creating (learning) and exploring the new on top of the old. Heightened creativity inevitably leads to estrangement, and at the same time getting closer to pure understanding. Going out of every comfort zone, building on the immense knowledge and experience one has gathered during a lifetime, and then mold it into what only the minds eye can see, beyond the known. The learning process, in its full power leads to unknown territories, it makes us want to do, want to keep doing it, until the end of time.

The first time I saw personal, power learning, was when I was at a Picasso exposition in Spain. My mother has introduced me to Picasso's work early in life (we went to his atelier in Antibes, as we stayed nearby during our summer vacations), but I did not really feel related to much of his work (some exceptions). But then, in the attic part of the exposition, there were these seemingly endless erratic drawings of bulls.... just chaotic drawings. Again and again, trying to depict the perfect multiple viewpoints of a bull in a two-dimensional piece of paper. As I moved slowly passed these drawings (and at first with little interest) ... I suddenly was drawn into them. So I stopped. And started to look again. There it was. The master at work, for himself, by himself, relentlessly seeking something, sketching viewpoint upon viewpoint (those drawings were made at the end of his life). It suddenly became clear that this was not a drawing, this was a man at work. Dedicated to finding something, following a quest. For this to happen, fame, artistry... all of that was not necessary. Simply a dedication to a topic, for decades. Trying to find a clue in detail, that would explain the bigger picture. Power Learners seem to move beyond themselves, could it be said that they become the medium? Is there such a threshold, from where the personal learning journey for enrichment suddenly turns into the medium itself? Many artists have said at certain points that some work gave them the feeling of being more then themselves. They became the object of something invisible.

Power Learners have to keep creating: carpentry, engineering, programming, sculpting, writing, thinking, ... and of course making music. David Bowie seems to have done that, learning, power learning, and then moving beyond the sum of his learning. What a thrill that must be. Starting from a passion, and then becoming it. (picture: http://sloannota.com/blog/drawing-and-writing-with-light-2/ )

#Phd journey and shifts in punk identity

Learning is a constant journey, a lifelong journey and that is a true fact when I look at my life. But what I did not realize, was that learning - and the internal/external growth that comes with it - can push identity shifts. My current identity shift, together with my recent  job quest, has led me to rethink who I am, and who I would like to be. If I get my PhD, then who am I?

For years I felt I was the one that "had no diploma" and yet (somewhat against the odds) was "doing stuff with innovative tech in difficult settings", so in my minds eye that was me. No more, no less. 

Practically, that meant that I was the one who you could give a tech challenge, which would evoke enthusiasm instantly: "hei Inge, I want to build a really, really low cost solution for setting up patient records with basic cell phones in sparsely connected areas, any thoughts?" or "how do we hack current MOOCs to use them in non-English speaking high school classrooms?" or "do you have ideas on how to build a MOOC for highly experienced tech people that can be used both internally and publicly while using varied pedagogical options for high-end learners?"... Ah, a challenge! Gimme just a minute......*brain excited and filled with joy of exploration* 

But, my identity was ... (elearning) punk. The others had the degree, I had the solution against the odds. That was who I was. But now this (if I get the degree) will be different. Getting a master three years ago, allowed me to still ignore having a degree. It simply did not dawn on me that I was 'formally certified'. Once I go across the Phd threshold... would that mean I would no longer be an elearning Punk? Will I have succumbed to the system? Which identities did I have? I was at times a truly bad secretary, a moody waitress. I was (and I hope I still am) an activist! I fought for LGBT marriage, for gender equality, for education for all, I was (and am) part of the informal, outsider feminist movement... but it was all DIY, at every stage I was punk... so, who am I becoming, who am I now? Where is my place on this new earth? This might sound funny, but honestly, when looking for a job I just freeze... I do not feel I can charge forward like some lunatic Donna Quichotta, battling all the usual suspects/job seekers by mowing them down with my lack of formal education, and most of all raw energy. Being punk made me fearless. Now I am formal... or am I? 

Two days ago, a twitter friend called me a MOOC ninja. I could honestly have kissed her with oodles of gratitude. Can I still be considered a ninja? When I talked to Stephen Downes at Online Educa Berlin a month ago, he said "now you will be higher qualified then me"... I fell into the abyss when he told me. Completely impossible. Stephen Downes is the one to have several honorary doctorates at the same time, I am just me. I felt as if the ground beneath me was about to devour me for being unreal. It really shook me to the bone, like I was betraying my (old?) self. And for weeks it haunted me, this illusive new me to be.  

So, yesterday I needed to get out of this idea, holding me back. Holding me back from getting my chapters written (no, I do not want to leave my punk status), and keeping me from energetic job hunting. I need to understand the new me, and add her to the identities I have had in the past. I somehow need to find a way to merge this new me with my old one's. 

At this point in time I have been around for 48 years. I have used learning at a distance since 1999, which gives me about 17 years on that field. So quite a bit of time, using technology for learning purposes (either for myself, or with others). The learning technology I have been working with was/is used in low resource settings (eg. Sub-Saharan Africa; rural Latin America) and high resource settings (eg. Northern Europe/America). It spans high school settings and continued professional development (medical field, train-the-trainer options). It spans corporate, academic and NGO's. Financially, budgets of on average 100.000 EUR/Y to get new, sustainable projects, with sustainability and scalability at their core). On a technological side, the learning solutions varied from developing tech solutions for wap-enabled basic phones to smartphones, to mobile MOOC for any type of device, and embracing major MOOC platforms like FutureLearn right now as well. I worked with diverse target audiences from all continents (no, not the antarctic) and I am lucky to be friends with many of the people I work/ed with. The last couple of years I have written articles (academic and corporate style), I have authored one book on MOOC (in the process of another more philosophical/sci-fi) and co-authored one (thank you David Hopkins), and set up MOOCs, eg. MobiMOOC (low-fi), MOOCs on the Internet of Things (high-fi), used by iMinds, one of the top 5 business incubation programs out there. 

Looking back I am quite surprised, it looks like quite a bit of work... so I cannot ignore that I do something. At least I can still have 'I do stuff' in my identity. Maybe that is enough. The fact that I will keep on doing stuff... just doing, not thinking first, but doing ... immediately. No matter what the boundaries look like, just go out there, and make it happen. Just like I did before, but soon with another piece of paper in my backpack. But I cannot ignore that piece of paper. I asked Ellen Wagner whether having a PhD makes a difference. She said very clearly "yes!" and added "when I am stuck in an important meeting with high power people, I just throw my title in and it shifts the balance in the discussion". So, okay, if it is a tool for her, it can be a useful tool for me as well. 

So this is what I came up with (up to now, any suggestions welcomed): I need to ignore the side of me that is scared about getting a degree, and realize it will not destroy the punk in me. I need to set a new, ridiculous goal. That always worked in the past. I need to embrace this new phd reality. Why not set out to become the Susan Sontag of eLearning? Or a futurist, but with a twist?Maybe a bit like Audrey Waters (but, admittedly I am more positive minded). And I need to find a job that will enable me to keep up online shares (looking at the cost that Stephen Downes and the Brain Pickings site have... I need to built in a safety net for punk online activities), as well as looking for a job that will be utterly inspiring due to its many challenges. 

Now, just find an institute, university, or someone that wants to hire me... a love-to-do-and-write-stuff punk with a phd in online education and lots of solution-finding experience.... where art thou ye mind-blowing new job?! 

#DigiWriMo #Future from humans as micro-brains to Artificial Intelligence (part 2)

In my last post which paralleled neurons with humans, and which drew a parallel between curation and giving rise to new forms of being, I ended with the question what the next step into evolution from curation could be. It seems there are some nice new realisations which might possibly look into this. Enhancing learning into the next era.

While I was looking at another episode of Through the Wormhole (clip a bit further down), on quantifying consciousness (or the math of consciousness), an interesting similarity between the discourse on connected learning or networked learning, and consciousness arose. When I also added the hive mind, or swarm theory to it… all of a sudden I thought: this is a fun parallel if you look at the evolution of learning and plug it into an evolutionary, physics/math perspective.

Community of experts parallel specialized brain regions

I am part of online educators group, and I frequently reflect on what that means. In a way it means that my direct family does not always know what I am doing, I talk, but to them it is often gibberish as they do not have similar backgrounds and interests. On the other hand, because I am a firm believer in educational freedom (and Star Trek Society), I am also only part of that type of online learners. Although I can enter into conversation with people who are more of the powerful

This also means my endeavors and experiments are on the outskirts of the educational powerhouses. Yet, I do find that my research has been picked up by some of these powerhouses (I can see it the data stream, and sometimes in some of my reappearing content which is either attributed, or sometimes is not).

If you take the brain and zoom out, you can see areas of expertise. And within these areas you have very strong connected neurons (like the group of online educators I feel I belong too), and lesser connected neurons (eg. other areas of expertise). In between the brain regions, there are bridges and communication often moves from one region to the other, even on specialized tasks. The same happens if you look at interdisciplinary research, the field experts come together, build bridges, but at the end reinforce the new interdisciplinary knowledge that is assimilated into their own more specialized discipline.

So, looking from outer space, and visualizing the inter-connectivity of field experts, with an overlay of interdisciplinary researchers… what might you get? I would imagine a new type of consciousness will arise. The next evolutionary step. Admittedly, sometimes I feel this could be scary: if we humans are put in isolated spaces because of this (or become fertile fields that grow stem-cells for artificial beings who harvest us…. Mmm, should probably stop reading SciFi), or it feels comfortable, if we humans would be kept as ‘fun organic life’ and we humans were provided with endless leisure time in which we could learn whatever and from whoever (yes, my ideal world there).  

We learn at increasing speed

Each of us who loves learning has the potential to learn at bigger speed than ever before (Internet, MOOC, the shoulders of giants and peers). This results in stronger and more paths to more knowledge. Each one of us that has an interest and a cognitive capacity to use and add to the area of robotics can now do this (mentioned in a previous blogpost) which means the chances of someone in that group of practitioners being able to lift that field into a much higher level of expertise also becomes a reality. 

Then at what level does the next spark of consciousness appear? What level of information must be distributed across a network before it leaps out of the network to become the next level of consciousness?

Calculating Consciousness

When Integrated Information Theory came along (Integrated Information theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory), all of a sudden the mechanisms of consciousness were being quantified (article From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness: Integrated Information Theory 3.0

http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003588

), Phi (consciousness) became a formula, and all life on earth could be calculated for its amount of consciousness. A thrilling bit of research. The University of Wisconsin has done some pioneering work in that area (to that extend that I had a look at their job applications). In the series of Through the Wormhole,Season 5 Episode 8, they look into making consciousness quantifiable

Moving beyond the human brain

The way each of us evolves throughout life feels natural to us. We know we start out as babies, we then learn the basic human actions throughout our childhood, and eventually – if all goes well – we become adult with a place in society. In a way we know the path of raised consciousness each one of us passes throughout life. But this feeling of knowing how consciousness evolves is of course – up to now – not been reproduced in an artificial setting. We do make impressive progress, but none of us humans knows when the next leap in consciousness, the next leap in cognition will happen with artificial intelligence. We just move forward, and once it does happen we will observe this birth of autonomous artificial intelligence.

Referring to A network of artificial neurons learns to use human language

An interesting step along this way towards autonomous artificial intelligence was recently described in research from the University of Sassari (Italy) and the University of Plymouth (UK) who have developed a cognitive model, made up of two million interconnected artificial neurons, able to learn to communicate using human language starting from a state of 'tabula rasa', only through communication with a human interlocutor. Taking some info from an article in the NeuroscientistNews: The ANNABELL (Artificial Neural Network with Adaptive Behaviour Exploited for Language Learning) and it is described in an article published in PLOS ONE and described in this article.
ANNABELL does not have pre-coded language knowledge; it learns only through communication with a human interlocutor, thanks to two fundamental mechanisms, which are also present in the biological brain: synaptic plasticity and neural gating. Synaptic plasticity is the ability of the connection between two neurons to increase its efficiency when the two neurons are often active simultaneously, or nearly simultaneously. This mechanism is essential for learning and for long-term memory. Neural gating mechanisms are based on the properties of certain neurons (called bistable neurons) to behave as switches that can be turned 'on' or 'off' by a control signal coming from other neurons. When turned on, the bistable neurons transmit the signal from a part of the brain to another, otherwise they block it. The model is able to learn, due to synaptic plasticity, to control the signals that open and close the neural gates, so as to control the flow of information among different areas

How many humans does it take to spark AI?

It could be the start of a future joke, but at present it is something which interests me. Because if the brain sends out electric currents between interconnected neurons, then what happens if humans – working on the same field – connect using the electric currents of the Internet? Something to look forward to. 

(Image credit Bruno Golosio)

#DigiWriMo Curation and Consciousness #Future AI, neurons and humans (part 1)

One afternoon while letting my mind flow freely, it came to me that it is easy to see a parallel between the way humans seem to group together, and the way synapses strengthen each other while creating specialized regions in the brain. A fun analogy. In this blogpost I explore how to move from stem-cells to curated humans, to artificial neurons becoming conscious. Using references to Information Integration Theory, a selection of Through the Wormhole (mathematics of consciousness), and free creative thinking. And always stepping from micro, meta to macro-levels. Warning: this post is longer than usual. And although this week is Working Out Loud week, I am WOL fairly throughout the year, so I thought it would be fun to share Think Out Loud for this DigiWriMo-post.

Stem-cells and learning individualsIt is still amazing to think that we – as humans – come from stem-cells. Cells that can become anything (within the human body). At the start these cells seem similar, at the end they are differentiated, embedded in a web of equals, with bridges and communications to other groups of neurons. This reminds me of how humans evolve within their lifetime evolve from being fairly similar at birth, to being highly specialized depending on their surroundings, context, capacities… and at the end to fade away ready to be replaced with the next best thing (slightly adapted).

From each of our conception we are stem-cells, from their our bodies are formed. Once we are becoming more conscious, we start to filter information and people: we learn from our environment, our parents and peers, and from the guidelines embedded in our culture and the food which we have access to strengthens our physical being. All the while our mind expands, it becomes part of a group of people which we tend to ‘like’ and move towards, or ‘dislike’ and move away from. There is an active movement of us, as individuals to become part of a group which (seems) to fit the idea of where we belong to.

Curation in micro, meta and macro towards consciousnessThis situating of the self within a society (whichever society) can be seen as a curation. I wrote about curation in a previous post on how all of society and learning seems to be the result of some curation. But after having written that post, I got some comments (Laura Gibbs, Geoff Stead) and those comments triggered further reflection. Curation happens on several levels, but it can be simplified to be happening on three levels: micro, meta, and macro-level.

Micro-level: individual selection of each person screening information they come across. E.g. Stephen Downes, with his self-developed (written software) and self-sustained OlDaily/OlWeekly. This newsletter provides insightful information on a variety of open learning related topics (including magazines, individual bloggers, institutional interviews…. Another wonderful individual curation initiative is the selection of books covered and described by Maria Popova in her brain pickings, again solely possible thanks to people supporting her in her writing/blogging endeavors.
Meta-level: social curation (a topic covered to great extent by Julian Stodd) where networks of people in their connected world select information from the group and for the group. A bit like conferences and journals (from formal options), and knowledge clouds created inside of organisations or fields of experts. There are people who manage to deliver a course build upon content that is chosen and organised by learners/participants. I feel that is also part of meta-level curation. Dave Cormier manages to do this with his Rhizo-MOOC, which I guess is one of the most influential MOOCs out there (possibly together with DS106 and one of the MOOC that started the concept: CKK). What Dave manages to achieve is to start from a blank canvas, the MOOC is nothing. The topic will be chosen by the participants, then get populated with information from theses participants, and suddenly the dialogues move towards creating more knowledge within each of the participants, including Dave himself. Why do I feel this is one of the most influencial MOOCs? Because, looking at the vast outputs of that MOOC, the high level of expertise of participants gathered in those yearly MOOCs (with multiple influencial bloggers), it is hard to underestimate the impact of that MOOC on online educators across the world.
Macro-level: this level is being impacted the most by the society in which it is created and institutional symbolic capital, together with its gatekeepers, and accepted cultural norms. Where the micro- and meta-level still have some autonomous freedom, on the macro-level that freedom is becoming increasingly pressured by those in power. In a way each one of us individually adds to this power bastion, due to money being part of the sustainability of the macro-level (eg. Leading research institutes, leading magazines…). Whereas on the micro- and meta-level some autonomy can be kept no matter which societal philosophy is guiding or allowing the Way Forward.

A bit like Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic capital. Eg. Where people mention an experts/artists name as a way to heighten their own importance (yes, mentioning Bourdieu would be part of that :D But on a macro-level this means that the symbolic capital is also pushed by the gatekeepers (those who are keeping in eye out for maintaining and reproducing power). This means at that level the government and recognized (or established) institutes make the selection of information that will be disseminated.

How does this translate from humans into neurons?As individual neurons, it does not seem to matter at first with whom we connect, but once a communication is set up, those neurons with multiple communications throughout time are being reinforced. A preference of communication is happening, and that repetition is creating stronger bridges between the neurons. On a meta-level, the groups of neurons are specializing, becoming more important for specific tasks (eye sight, feelings, deductions…). Impulses from contexts are influencing the strengths of these connections. (eg. Western society pushing linear thinking, Eastern society emphasizing horizontal thinking).
On a macro-level the full human is becoming apparent. It is no longer the connections of the neurons, but the result of these connections as drivers of the bigger neuron temple: the body and externalized mind of that particular human. The body and mind of us humans is the macro-level of neuron activity, just like our institutions seem to be the drivers of our society.

In search for the spark into consciousness
So I wonder, when does consciousness happen? In a way, I feel, that Rhizo-MOOC has created a higher consciousness in terms of what online education is like. All of its participants have become more than the sum of their parts (in terms of previous knowledge).
Could it be that by putting people together, you have the same effect as putting neurons together. Given a communication is actually happening. I think heightened communication does indeed result in higher consciousness. But if neurons linked together manifest life (or in the above-mentioned paragraph, result in manifesting the human), then what happens if humans are put together for a long period of time, and at such a momentum that they become more and more connected across the globe? Will this evolve into a superhuman or into an artificial intelligence which relies on humans, yet is more than all the humans put together? Maybe even to the extent that we as humans will become just another step into evolution. Redundant once a more accurate, speedy evolutionary step is reached.

In my next post I explore moving from Consciousness into Artificial Intelligence, while comparing communities of people to regions in the brain, "#DigiWriMo #Future from humans as micro-brains to Artificial Intelligence (part 2)"

(Image credit Bruno Golosio)

#DigiWriMo on curation and MOOCs loosing individuality

It seems that there is no structure, without it being the result of curation. Looking at the world wide web, at first there was the content of scientists, the long discussion boards, and lists with scientific knowledge. Then knowledge from other individuals started to seep in, and more people started to put more information on the web. The web got populated by more people than before. I remember my father pointing me towards some compuserve mailing lists (wonderful news clip sharing the 1981 version of an electronic, dial-in newspaper). At a certain point this distributed knowledge seemed to be in need for being structured, or curated so ‘the best’ information could be found more easily. And when you look at online learning now, with the emergence of MOOCs, social media… you can see how information is curated and/or marketed to some extend to make it easier for people to find ‘the best’ (whether that best is paid for or not by algorithm pushing companies).



MOOC from freedom to norm
Whatever this best might be. The same happened with oral stories that turn into print, then into encyclopedias or specialized magazines… and now the curation is happening in the knowledge sphere. So where at first some scattered enthusiasts and experts shared their knowledge and felt free to do so, MOOCs are now sharing specialized knowledge from people related to big knowledge institutes, that have the money and partners to build and disseminate information. We are roped in by the gravity of big societies.

But if everything moves towards curation, then individualism moves towards cooperation and swarm dynamics as well. Which also means that individuals are only good in exploring new areas (not as much impact) and that – in this day and age – only big institutions can be the curation masters (impactful). True, sometimes curation ends up to be used by an individual again, e.g. the visualisation or the histography that Matan Stauber built with Wikipedia running as a feeder in the background of this visualisation http://histography.io/

Can one be an individual?
Where does that leave us as individuals? You see, I have always been told that I should think independently (and I admit I am not that good at it, but I try to be). But maybe the idea of individuality is actually non-existent in the long run? If one of the reoccurring historical dynamics seems to be curation, humankind is much more like a bee hive or amoeba where the individuals only have freedom at the start of a new exploration, but never beyond. Individuals always get pulled back in.

Curation picking up online speed
Once a new type of product, or habit, or knowledge, or technology is formed, with which eager people (early adopters) are going to play. For instance psychology, or medicine… at first it is something some curious people play with. Some of them get good at it (witches, druids to stick with the medicine part). Then it becomes more known and some sort of structuring takes part. Curation is taking up speed. In a connected world we depend on curation, as more content is being produced by more people in parallel amount of times than ever before. As more of us know where the shoulders of giants are situated (giants being the experts in our field/s) and more people Working Out Loud to share what they do and how they do it, it becomes inevitable that more of us stand on those shoulders to reach new heights ourselves. But this increased content creation, also comes at a prize (I think, could be wrong). Suddenly that which gave some of us a sense of freedom (like first mooc being the forerunners of education for all, or internet allowing us to connect freely with all the people in the world) turns into a commodity, a mass product.

Nothing makes us free, we all get reeled back in
This is why I think Higher Education institutes, the Maker Movement, … any new type of seemingly new movement inevitably will be taken over by the curation directed by the norm. Freedom and experimentation is only there for a brief moment. Whether we like it or not, we collectively seem to want to go to a bigger movement… With this in mind, I wonder how diverse diversity can be? How different is the distance between two different people in reality? Maybe none of us can escape this cohesion of the masses?