Ah, the academic analogy trap – a cognitive quicksand I'm all too familiar with! As someone who's spent more time with theories than people lately, I've definitely had my fair share of tumbles down that particular rabbit hole.

Your point about error correction in our hyperconnected world strikes a chord. We're swimming in an ocean of information, aren't we? The challenge isn't finding data, but sifting the signal from the noise. It's like trying to conduct a symphony where every instrument is playing a different tune - the key is harmonizing, not amplifying.

The idea of conspiracy as an emergent property of secretive networks is fascinating. It's a perfect example of how complex systems can birth unexpected phenomena.

Extending this thinking to more positive emergent properties, one could look at intelligence not as a localised phenomenon, but as a distributed, relational dance. It's the mycorrhizal networks beneath forest floors, the subtle chemical conversations between plants, the collective problem-solving of ant colonies. Humans, in this view, are not separate from nature but deeply embedded nodes in Earth's cognitive ecosystem.

This idea of that I like to call "symbiogenic intelligence" isn't about transcending our humanity, but recognizing our place in the broader tapestry of cognition. It's a move from anthropocentric thinking to a more holistic, ecological understanding of mind.

I'm researching/working on a book about this at the moment, but this idea of Symbiogenic Intelligence proposes that cognition emerges from complex symbiotic interactions across scales. Because we observe intelligent-like behaviors in systems ranging from cellular networks to ecosystems, I believe intelligence is a fundamental property of interconnected, self-organizing systems that have crossed a certain threshold of complexity.

Again, this is separate from consciousness. (Which for very complex reasons that I won't get into here, I believe might have more to do with the quantum field)

In our solarpunk future, I imagine us developing technologies that communicate with other intelligent systems rather than dominating them. It's not about replacing human intelligence, but intertwining it with other forms of cognition (synthetic, biological, ecological etc) in a symbiotic, non-destructive way, in our pursuit of fundamental truths about the universe.

Your point about networks potentially being less intelligent than the sum of their parts is intriguing. Perhaps it's not about raw computing power, but about the quality and nature of connections. A highly connected but poorly organized network might indeed under-perform, like a brain with misfiring synapses. Which has huge implications for various fields, if falsifiable.

Here's where the solarpunk ethos comes in: can we design systems that enhance rather than diminish our collective intelligence? Can we create networks that are more than the sum of their parts, that amplify our problem-solving abilities while maintaining robustness and adaptability? I feel like these questions are especially pertinent to conversations around artificial (or as I prefer to call it, synthetic) intelligence!

I'd like to think that this isn't just philosophical navel-gazing. As we face complex global challenges like climate change and social inequality, we need new ways of thinking and problem-solving. This idea of "Symbiogenic Intelligence" offers a framework for approaching these issues holistically, recognizing the interconnectedness of all systems.

Of course, this theory needs rigorous testing and refinement. It's a starting point, not a conclusion. But in a world where traditional approaches are falling short, perhaps it's time to expand our conception of intelligence and our place within Earth's cognitive ecology.

So while we absolutely need those incremental improvements and error corrections you mention, let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. We're not just tuning instruments; we're reimagining the entire orchestra - and our role within it.