[703 words]

As is my wont, I’m throwing together a bunch of semantically charged bits, following an an only partially conscious, mostly intuitive process, a kind of ADHD fluttermind effect that arises from neural activity in my brain. To nail down some of these flighty connections and intuitions, it is my intent to explore it further here and, as much as possible, to make the gist of my “associative trail” meaningful for others.

Part of the way that I’m thinking about this is old-school analogy. I know that brains work through a complex mechanism of dynamic networks. We still don’t know exactly how consciousness and thinking arise from large numbers of interconnected neurons stimulating each other in certain ways, but that seems to be how our brains — our mind-generators — work. Connections that are dynamically managed and networks that collectively produce a certain minimal cognitive functions, collaborating and connecting with other networks to produce more complex cognitive functions, iterated and reiterated dynamically, scaling up until we have those effects or results or entities that we identify as “thought,” “learning” and “mind.”

Learning takes place by making new connections, by building networks of meaning, by noting and reiterating the way in which certain stimuli produce a kind of “pow!” that is impactful and meaningful. If, in my analogy, individual human beings function as if they were neurons, what they do, then, is respond to stimuli. Once a stimulus reaches a certain level, the person/neuron unit acts in a way that stimulate one or more others in network. Or perhaps nodes or concepts within that unit’s mind interact with other nodes or concepts or other bits and pieces. Over time, connections are forged, then strengthened or pruned, leading to a dynamic but reasonably stable set of learning.

What I’m trying to suggest is that there may be ways in which learning is both individual, but also collective. There may be ways in which this whole process of associative trails build significant patterns over time, patterns that represent the dynamic but stable results of collaborative learning. Individual learning, intuitions and associative trails count. But they are all the more impactful when they connect to others. It is for this reason that tools that facilitate collaborative learning over time — from traditional scholarship, for example, to online learning communities and web-based annotation tools like Hypothe.is — have deep and resonant value. They help construct layers that may ultimately result in more complex, more meaningful, more impactful learning. I guess the question to ask is how one goes about pruning those associative trails or those connections that are not helpful or productive. How does one choose or discern? A difficult question.

Another way to think of it is as a kind of learning ecosystem. Each part of that system can function individually, but the true beauty of the ecosystem is the way in which everything is interconnected in a kind of dynamic but generally stable system of interchange, mutual benefit, exchange, stimulus and reaction. I think of the vast mycorrhizal networks, loosely connected with tree root systems that help regulate forests, for example. (One suggestive video to watch on this topic is Susan Simard’s TED Talk on “How Trees Talk to Each Other.”) This way of thinking about it — seeing analogies and correspondences between neural networks, mycorrhizal networks, communication networks, networks of learners — resonates in significant ways with Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s  Mille Plateaux (Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1980) [A Thousand Plateaus, trans. Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: U of Minnesota, 1987)].

If we are growing complex, multilayered, interconnecting and interpenetrating ecosystems of thought, of learning, of mind, my earlier difficult question can be rephrased to wonder what mechanisms regulate the complex system? What dynamic will select the strong and meaningful connections for building resiliency? What processes will target the connections that are destined to be pruned because they do not contribute usefully to the long-term survival of the complex system?

Is there, in fact, a way in which learning, technology and connection are weaving themselves together for the construction of some greater entity? (Teilhard de Chardin’s noosphere?) Is this thread of thinking simply a delusion? The answer to those questions merit further thought. I’d be interested to hear other perspectives on these random musings.