You really do not want this. At all. I can understand the benefits, but we can get most of those without actually getting a hive mind. Not to mention loss of individuality and loss of mental privacy, the one place you have to yourself. And do you really want to know what other people think of you? I mean, it would be nice once in a while: does he really love me? Did she commit the murder? But constantly knowing what others think of me based on outward appearances is bad enough, let alone what they'll judge in my thoughts.

What benefits do individuality or mental privacy really have? And with a lost sense of individuality, would knowing what others think of you really matter? Of course people will judge your thoughts, but if we could always tell what other people were thinking, I think we would be more compassionate about what other people were thinking. More understanding of why people do what they do. If we fused our minds, wouldn't that make everyone more interested in the greater good instead of constantly worrying about trivial things?

If we fused our minds, wouldn't that make everyone more interested in the greater good instead of constantly worrying about trivial things? — MonfortS26

If we fused our minds (perish the thought) there wouldn't be "everyone" any more, just one big ME. There would be no "greater good", only MY good. And who would ever remind the great ME to waste less than vast amounts of time on trivial matters? Nobody. There would be no one else.

I like my infinitesimally small me. You do your unplugged, unfused, fenced off, small-minded thing, and I'll do mine. If, by chance we should have an occasional, tentative, guarded, quite limited meeting of our small minds, that is beautiful. If not, it can't be helped. And besides, mind-melds are not to be desired too often. It's what drives Vulcans crazy.

Ask the Borg how vulnerable hive minds can be. (They were not assimilated. Their resistance was futile. They were destroyed.) Humans turned the Borg hive mind against itself. Which is what would happen to our hive mind in short order.

If we fused our minds (perish the thought) there wouldn't be "everyone" anymore, just one big ME. There would be no "greater good", only MY good. And who would ever remind the great ME to waste less than vast amounts of time on trivial matters? Nobody. There would be no one else. — Bitter Crank

Would it be a bad thing if it were just one big me? I believe that most people are motivated mainly by self-interest. That's why capitalism works so well. It's a system that functions by exploiting people's selfish desires. But it is an imperfect system. Often times one's quest for personal gain comes at the expense of other people. The simplest way to fix that in my opinion, would be to combine all individual selfs into a single mind. It could be a utilitarian utopia and I can't come up with any actual downsides to it. It may be uncomfortable to think about a loss of individuality, but once it was gone I don't think you would really care.

it is an imperfect system — MonfortS26

because

It's a system that functions by exploiting people's selfish desires. — MonfortS26

And not even that, because most people are, and must be, on the "exploited" end of the stick.

Combining the alleged selfish motivations of 7 billion people into one mega-self might produce a hellish monster of cosmic-scale greed.

It could be a utilitarian utopia and I can't come up with any actual downsides to it. — MonfortS26

If you have not thought of any downsides to your utopia, than the task of imagining utopia is not even half done.

It may be uncomfortable to think about a loss of individuality, but once it was gone I don't think you would really care. — MonfortS26

It may be uncomfortable to think about being dead, but once you were dead, you wouldn't really care.

Same thing.

And not even that, because most people are, and must be, on the "exploited" end of the stick. — Bitter Crank

But is there anything better?

Combining the alleged selfish motivations of 7 billion people into one mega-self might produce a hellish monster of cosmic-scale greed — Bitter Crank

Would there be any negative consequences to that though? What is greed if there is no separate individual left for it to negatively affect?

It may be uncomfortable to think about being dead, but once you were dead, you wouldn't really care.

Same thing. — Bitter Crank

Exactly.

If humanity were to create a technology that could connect all of our minds to create a single mind, should it be done?

It may already exist. The Internet is kind of a hive mind.

To me it seems the internet is just the beginning. What happens when we start implanting technology into our brains? We already have governmental surveillance of virtually everything we do. If we were to start uploading our thoughts into computers the government would be able to see that too.And I think it's only a matter of time until we do this. Elon Musk is already trying to. The only way to stop the government from misusing that kind of power would be for everyone's thoughts to be accessible to anyone. I don't think that would be a bad thing. It could play a huge part in putting an end to unnecessary suffering.

But is there anything better? — MonfortS26

- There is no perfect system, but there are gradations of 'better'. A highly regulated capitalism, and tax law preventing excessive accumulation and intergenerational transmission is better than unfettered capitalism.

- Democratic socialism, the model of the democratic welfare state, allows the market economy of capitalism and maintains a very strong welfare (protective, supportive programs) state. Post WWII Europe has employed this approach.

- Socialism has been implemented in a number of places, but in a plainly authoritarian, dictatorial fashion wherein the downside of brute rule more than counterbalanced the upside of socialism. Cuba, China, Yugoslavia, and the USSR are examples.

- Workers Democracy would be, if implemented, the opposite pole of reigning capitalism.

The second option might be the best we can do.

Exactly — MonfortS26

What I meant is that the hive mind would be the equivalent of death.
-----

The Internet as a sample of "the hive mind" has one, critical essential feature: It's optional. One need not use the internet (just as one need not use a library) and the internet does not have direct access to anyone's mind, either for gaining or distributing information.

Hive minds figure into a number of science fiction stories. One I remember is about someone who enters a 'hive' of some sort and finds it quite comfortable, until the special Hive Mind is awakened by the workers to deal with this threat. The awakened mind is immensely powerful and very unfriendly.

The individual who would produced would be so far off from me that I might as well just kill myself. I would not benefit from the exchange if it becomes a complete hive mind, in the sense that my individuality is overridden.

If my individuality is maintained (i.e. I have a constant, reflexive perception on people's feelings and thoughts of everyone at once), then I wouldn't want everyone to know what I was thinking and feeling, and I wouldn't want to know their thoughts and feelings. Again, it's nice to fantasize and know if your partner really loves you in a deep way, or know if your boss likes you. But I would never want the power always on and the ability to turn it on and off always there.

I don't think this would be a utopia. It sounds rather bad.

Suppose at some point in the future we manage to create a 3d printer capable of printing on a subatomic level. Anyone would be able to use that device to create a nuclear bomb and immediately wipe out humanity. This is just one example of very dangerous theoretical technology. we are approaching a point technologically where eventually freedom of thought will be too dangerous to be considered. Is it really necessary in the first place? Why is freedom important? So that I am not oppressed by an unjust power? So that I have the freedom to do as I please? When the concept of freedom was first used, an idea like this would have been inconceivable. People demand freedom so that no one interferes with their quest to happiness. If we all shared the same happiness, would freedom still be a meaningful concept? Would individuality? Is anything more valuable than happiness?

Let me back up and ask a question about your 'hive mind' idea: is the hive mind "one mind" composed of all the previous distinct minds in a mental puree, or is it a like a hive, where each mind is individual in it's own cell but is coordinated with all the other (7.2 billion) minds?

What I imagine you are thinking of is the pureed mind, where all individual distinctions have been lost.

Suppose at some point in the future we manage to create a 3d printer capable of printing on a subatomic level. Anyone would be able to use that device to create a nuclear bomb and immediately wipe out humanity. — MonfortS26

It would take more than 1 bomb to wipe out all of humanity. Besides, now we have thousands of bombs and effective delivery methods (I'd like to see you print out a ICBM on your home office 3D printer) and individuals will be responsible for wiping out humanity. Your worst possible scenario is already history.

There is nothing that would prevent a giant hive mind from going crazy and killing itself--and all of humanity along with it.

You didn't get the argument then. If the hive mind is one puree mind, then joining it is, for all practical purposes, like death. I might as well kill myself because there is no benefit to me.

If the hive mind is not a puree mind and I just gain the ability to reflexively percieve everyone else's thoughts and feelings, then it is arguably not a uptopia or even may be a distopia. Ignoring how we would respond to, say, a person with chronic depression all the time and other such issues, I don't think we actually want this. I don't want everyone to know what I'm thinking and feeling at all times, particularly if it involves them. I don't think I actually want to know what other people think of my thoughts and I. I think there is a good chance most of us repulsed by one another.

You are trying to present this as a Nozick experience machine related thought experiment, but it is not clear that this hive mind is a utility machine.

What I imagine you are thinking of is the pureed mind, where all individual distinctions have been lost — Bitter Crank

That would be a correct assumption. What I am thinking of is a way of connecting ideas. Most of our problems in society today come about as a result of differing ideology's. What this give mind would do, by eliminating some aspects of the self, would provide a good way to meet in the middle. If the purpose of society is to promote harmony and cooperation, then this would be the perfect society. I think that a lot of people have a strong belief system that they hold as a part of their identity. Not everyone's belief systems can be true. The only way to effectively measure the truth is through scientific investigation. Before science, different ideology's evolved as a mechanism for survival. Good ideology's survived poor ones died out. Individuality was important to that process. It was the right way to do things. But there comes a point where individuality doesn't serve a purpose beyond self interest and we are approaching that point rapidly. What purpose does the concept of individuality serve beyond self interest? If self interest is the motivation behind the desire for individuality, wouldn't it be best to unite our self interests through the use of a superintelligent AI and connect ourselves to it? Wouldnt that solve an astronomical amount of our problems? If the sacrifice of individuality was necessary for a permanent reduction/elimination of long term suffering, isn't that the best option we have for our future? Wouldn't it be morally wrong to cling to our individuality under the belief that it makes us 'special' in some way?

You didn't get the argument then. If the hive mind is one puree mind, then joining it is, for all practical purposes, like death. I might as well kill myself because there is no benefit to me. — Chany

If you believe that it wouldn't benefit you in any way, and is equivalent to death, I'm curious what your purpose in life is now. In what way would the hive mind interfere with that purpose?

It is irrelevant. Even if it was hedonistic pleasure or some other utilitarian related ethics, your hive mind is akin to a utility monster. Even if the hive mind produces more net utility (which is arguable), the option is pretty much death for all who enter it, so it is no different then telling everyone to kill themselves by jumping into the maw of the utility monster. Again, if it requires sacrificing everything in the world to create a world no one in the world has a part of, the action is effectively immoral.

But there comes a point where individuality doesn't serve a purpose beyond self interest and we are approaching that point rapidly. What purpose does the concept of individuality serve beyond self interest? — MonfortS26

You are running in circles here.

First, it simply is not the case that individuality has no purpose beyond self interest. Most living things (plants, animals, fungi, etc.) are individuals, and it is through the lives of individuals and the myriad unique challenges with which an individual will cope, that each species, and life in general, progresses.

Individuals hold the key to species' survival, because individuals can be lost without threatening the survival of the species. (Except that if too many individuals are lost, the species can not survive.)

It is through the endless recombination of genes (through non-reproductive-sharing or sexual reproduction) that life becomes tougher, more resilient, more abundant.

Hive-bound animals, like bees, still are individuals with unique (even if quite limited) features and behaviors. Individual bees can adapt to changes in the hive. Individual bees serve the interests of the collective hive by being adaptable individuals. Further, bees reproduce sexually. Finally, hives do not go on forever. Starting over is not a biological disaster -- it's a great benefit.

Since the hive mind is a creature of science fiction, bear in mind that they always turn out to be grotesquely malevolent, which is (as a fiction) purposeful. Malevolent grotesque creatures serve the needs of drama far more effectively than benevolent, beautiful entities.

I actually suspect humanity is moving towards a hive-existence (only a few more small steps that those cell phones get embedded in our heads), but many of the problems you point out are real. As a collection of self-serving individuals, we're about as intelligent on a large scale as bacteria in a petri dish of nutrients, except worse, since we see the end of the nutrients but ignore it.
Yes, bees are individuals, but have self-interest only where it serves the hive. You don't have greedy bees trying to get the better of their fellow bees. They have not linked into one mind, but rather remain a distributed collection of mini-minds. Monfort seems to suggest one big mind. The bee analogy might be inappropriate.
Bees reproduce sexually as a hive, not as individuals. The queen serves the role of an ovary, not a ruler, and is as replaceable as any other member if she dies. There are always spare-queens in the pipeline, and they are killed immediately unless they need to keep one. There is internal communication, but the queen doesn't particularly partake in it any more than human ovaries are essential to a functioning nervous system.
There are multiple hives. Likewise, humanity would need to form multiple hive-groups, and a way to create new ones to replace the ones that die. So merging into one big mind indeed means it gets only one disaster.

Would a set of human hives (each with members of totally dedicated individuals) be better than the self-serving individuals we have now? It seems they still would try to serve the hive instead of humanity as a whole, and thus be as stupid as the bacteria. They'd compete with each other. Bees don't especially do that. They live in balance, not on a growth-model like maggots on a carcass, most of which must inevitably die when the carcass runs out. This is not a travesty for the r-strategist fly species, but it would be a travesty for any k-strategist species like us.

So perhaps we should concentrate on living in balance instead of on growth. I don't see the merged-mind thing being the solution to that problem, but I'm not exactly a fountain of good suggestions myself.