While taking neuroscience it occurred to me that one could make an argument - depending on what one wants to show, the usefulness of a model is always limited by the intended use - to see a similarity between neurons and humans: The system outcome is not the sum of what each neuron "knows", and each neuron is really "ignorant" and "stupid".

For example, why are people bothered that there are people who are into conspiracy theories? Or some who see dangers everywhere, while for others everything (everyone) is good? Maybe that's their role in the "humanity computer"! Some neurons' (humans') task is to be extra-paranoid so that the majority don't have to. and others are the opposite, nothing bothers them. What seems "crazy" is, when looked at from a higher plane, quite possibly a very reasonable organisation. Maybe "humanity" does not - should not - make sense on an individual level (i.e. ever single human be "sensible", "reasonable"), but on the level of "humanity". Why this obsession that everybody has to agree, and people who don't are vilified? If all neurons in the brain were to agree you'd have a very dysfunctional brain. What it needs are complex connections and (feedback) loops that enhance and suppress output depending on the overall input. "Overall" is important - not "what an individual (human or neuron) sees", but the sum of all inputs into the system. It does not have to make sense on an individual level.

I like how Sherlock Holmes says it (short, 30 seconds): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuIMmwJbnco

The attempt to understand "humanity" and what's going on on this planet on an individual human level is doomed to fail. The most you can get is a "feeling" that you get it -but if you do, it's wrong, and it's really bad. If you also happen to have some "power" (individuals having too much power is a bad construct) the outcome can be disastrous.

The things the linked article talked about I use to mention in the context of "magic". You know, what the fantasy books and movies are all about. They have "magic items" - whose main property is that nobody knows what they actually are or how they work, where they come from. Sounds familiar? I don't even have to look at an iphone.

This wonderful story sums it up very well I think (and please ignore the object that it uses, here "Coke", it's not about Coke, so no need to discuss the merits of overpriced unhealthy sugar-water): https://medium.com/@kevin_ashton/what-coke-contains-221d4499...

Quote:

> The number of individuals who know how to make a can of Coke is zero. The number of individual nations that could produce a can of Coke is zero. This famously American product is not American at all. Invention and creation is something we are all in together. Modern tool chains are so long and complex that they bind us into one people and one planet. They are not only chains of tools, they are also chains of minds: local and foreign, ancient and modern, living and dead — the result of disparate invention and intelligence distributed over time and space.

And look, I don't even have to explain my thoughts myself! Which, if I had been born in the forest away from thousands of years of human experience and exchange with other humans in time and space, I would probably never have developed in the first place. Instead I can go and use a few words of "glue" to link to pieces written by others - that they themselves owe to others.

Think about that in the next discussion about high-earning people "they earn it"! Do they? Back to the example "born alone on the forest". If someone develops a Facebook or a Tesla or a Dell computer from such roots, then I agree, they deserve billions. For clarification: I'm not talking about the 1%, I'm talking about the 0.01% (The Economist: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21631129... Some charts in a short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM)