The internet admidedly is a good candidate for a superorganism, this big brain. But let me remind you however that super, only means above. So a superorganism would be, a bigger organism than us? The sentence does not make sense. This language however riddles the article in question.
I can se where he gets his ideas. A brain can be seens as a trillion small modules, more or less strongly connected to one another according to traffick. In neuroscience the general rule about neurons is that "neurons that fire together, wire together." In other words, what get's used is more likely to get used again. The complexity of the brain is beyond what we currently understand, but we are getting some pretty good ideas. Let us for the sake of argument say that this is the only biological trait we'll worry about for now, and then move on to the internet.
Googles search algorithm also moves in mysterious ways, as much if the companies technology are obviously a trade secrets. However we do know that sites that have many other sites link to it, get an increased ranking when people search for it. This, in turn, means increaced popularity, and even more links. The BBC website, can today be concidered a hub with links in all directions. Or in the language of neurons, a central ganglia. This on a superficial level, one can see similarities between the internet and the brain, and the computer and the neuron.
And what the heck, I'll throw in another treat for the sceptic. Antti Revonsuo tells us that our attention (I.e. cosciousness) functions as a gateway to higher processing powers in the mind. From a socio- technological perspecitve, one can liken this too the google search site as directing people (the processing units) to central sites. The principle is slightly different but the effects are the same: the areas in the spotlight, get moderated with seeming intelligence.
But no matter how intricately the web becomes meshed in this way, and "controlled" by our google consciousness, there is no force beyon that which selects for aptness to a third source. Let me see...A brain is wired to perform a specific task for the whole organism. If the brain doesn't work, it is selected away by natural selection. And although there is no intrinsic direction in natural selection, there is only an narrow path that actually works. We know that only small changes in DNA can have horrible consequences. To name a few authism, schizofrenia, and more. But this fine- tuning of direction doesn't apply to the web. An equally good analogy for the web would be the big bang. It happened (in a social sence) extremely quickly. It's expanision also means the expansion of the space it is within, and after only a short time matter (or information) starter to form larger nexi, like wikipedia and youtube, which other material now has started contracting towards.
Just because something sounds good, it doesn't mean it is sound. If this last section seemed a bit convoluted, consider this. Your brain has only one goal, reproduction. Internet is goalless. It has no direction. Whatever path is carved out for it, there is no intrinsic metaphysical reality- twister that spurres it onwards towards sentience.
Bonus:
If one is looking for influences on the net, I'd rather look to powerful ideas. Trends, movies and other cultural artifacts seeps through the web, taking it in new directions.
Image by Suewhite
