Fred Nickols writes:
> I think the silicon-based world you envision has a few problems, Doug.
> Me? I prefer carbon-based systems
Fred is absolutely right -- and I too have a bias toward carbon-based
systems. The fact of the matter is that we (humans) face a huge number of
potential problems with regard to the emerging computer-networked world
that is in the process of becoming. I don't promote, exhault, or even
particularly like some of the things I see coming. I used the word,
"envision", very precisely. I limit my meaning to "I see it coming".
Being a realist and believing strongly that my vision of the emerging
silicon-based "smart systems" is accurate, I am devoting a great deal of
my time to studying how people fit into the coming evolution (revolution)
of, what we casually refer to, as the "learning organization." I look at
it this way, if my view of the future is even moderately correct, then I
think it is important for professionals involved in defining and creating
learning organizations to keep at the fore front of how organizations
structure the relationship between networks and people. Fred's vision of
a potential growing gulf between silicon-based, intelligent systems and
humans is not pretty, and is unfortunately very possible. (NOTE: we talk
of this with some tongue-in-cheek mixed with some seriousness, but don't
take a hard look twenty years down the road, it may scare you silly). I
prefer to see the emerging relationship between people and their
increasingly "smart machines" as a positive evolution in this arena of the
"learning organization."
I did some work for a hospital several years back, so I draw this example
from that field. Years ago, doctors would turn to books and to each other
as the primary sources of help in learning (diagnosing) what was wrong
with a patient. In the 60s, mainframe computer systems began to add the
ability to access databases of medical information to help in digesting
the "presenting symptoms" and arriving at a plausible diagnosis. In the
70s, and especially in the 80s, "expert systems" started to come on-line
in hospitals. An "expert system" is created when "learning rules" are
added to knowledge databases. After years of research into how the very
best diagnosticians arrived at their conclusions, these rules were put
down into a form that a computer could use to successfully navigate the
vast medical knowledge databases, order additional tests to discriminate
between conflicting possiblities, and ultimately arrive at a viable
diagnosis. The computer "expert systems" had been programmed to mimic
the diagnostic practices of a human doctor. That's pretty neat. We now
had moved forward from books and each other, to include computer databases
and "expert systems" with which we can interact to increase diagnotic
effectiveness. Mimicing is not learning, But the really fun stuff is only
just beginning.
The latest "expert systems" are not just the static "rules and tools"
logic/decision trees of the early expert systems. Now, the best "expert
systems" are very dynamic, continously evolving systems that grow in
capability with every interaction. A crude form of artificial
intelligence is now part of expert systems -- the rules and tools are
constantly being changed and updated -- and not by the people, but rather
by the "expert system" itself. Things are happening here that are
definitely not just at the individual level of activity. As people
interact with the system, change is occurring in both directions. There
is change going on that is above (outside) of the cognitive space of any
single person; i.e. there is a group (organizational) gestalt that
surrounds all players in this scenario. Is this scary stuff? -- Maybe.
But if this line of thinking bothers you, hold on -- because as the old
expression says, "you ain't seen nothin yet." Where will this lead? Is
it a good picture or a bad one? Hard to say. Where do you (the learning
org professional) want to fit into the scheme of things. An old saying
goes something like this. There are three types of people in the world.
Those that make things happen; those that know what's happening; and those
that are constantly wondering, "What happened?"
I know that I ran a bit far afield with my comments and that this is but
one narrow focus on the very large issue of "learning organizations". Just
though it would be fun to take a peek at what I think is just around the
corner.
Best regards
--Doug Jones <djones@asheville.cc.nc.us>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>