Hello,
I found somewhere reading internet the following distinctive definitions of collaborating and cooperating that I quote non exactly :
- Cooperation could be understanding for solving a problem by dividing it in one or more "operations" like the addition needing 3 things : 2 operands + 1 operator ; 1) = A ; 2) = + ; 3) = B make ( A+B ). Rem.: I don't know any unary operation ; that could avoïd to distinguish between at least two things ; the thing or operand on one hand and what as any influence on it on the other hand, like enabling or selecting. Because even time action on things seems to need a physical interaction ( if we admit time as a non existing thing ).
- Collaboration could be taking account or notes ( memories activity ) for solving the same problem, ( having the same goal ) by different entities trying to solve it.
All that must be thought of at the material acting level.
But this could be available at biological level and social one too as influencing our meditations.
Quite frankly, I don't understand the question, or rather, the differentiation given between cooperation and collaboration. Surely, both require splitting tasks into subtasks. Do you mean that collaboration is cooperation with a mental model?
As for the question "Isconsciousness when cooperation = collaboration?" I'd say that you certainly cannot reduce it to that, since consciousness arguably is possible when you have no others around you to collaborate with.
Hello Prof. Tallet,
Cooperation is more focused on working together to create an end product, while successful Collaboration requires participants to share in the process of knowledge creation.
(Dillenbourg et al. 1996; Roschelle and Teasley 1995).
In cooperation, all individuals perform their specific works separately and take their outcomes to the same table.
In collaboration, direct nexuses among individuals to perform one work that involving negotiations and discussions.
In my point of view, Collaboration has more deep definition and more powerful than Cooperation.
Nowadays, most of the people are performing the Collaboration.
I would like to share one paper regarding the study of Cooperation and Collaboration on Education.
Regards,
http://www.olgakozar.com/uploads/2/6/0/0/2600791/48_2-etf-towards-better-group-work-seeing-the-difference-between-cooperation-and-collaboration.pdf
Hello,
I realize now I had to be more precise to evoke you what I had in mind.
My operative definition of consciousness is the greatest mobilisation of facts, rules and functionning parameters in a living system ( futur computer or Artificial Being or Global Earth Society ) toward problems solving as if all becoming a whole and next the first move like the chess game problem, could be concentrated in a single but necessarily first but anticipating response to external conditions. It' s rather a strategical way of conceiving consciousness, isnt it ? So for such vital questions as preservating life on Earth as a multi selves behavior problem it is logically important to ask question of what to do first at any time for any part/one. And what to do first could be what to do first at any time for any part of the system sharing goals as if it was reduced to a same single one for each.
So with the goal of studying improvement of intelligent lifes ( pleonasm ) knowledge I supposed it was a good challenge to give to researchers community this introducing problem/question as a federative one.
But I would agree if you say to me/us this is a beginning more than an end.
Some must have had already the same idea but do they read this everywhere on Earth to participate ?
Regards,
Aung Ze Ya, you're right, nowadays Collaboration is more popular: in academic literature, cooperation is used in many ways, but few texts talk about "collaboration" as a "principle", more treat it as an actual action or process.
The sharing economy movement, more divulgative books and common language uses collaboration and "let's collaborate" more often.
Usually "thanks for your cooperation" is preferred to "thanks for your collaboration".
Why all these differences?
The words overlap, that's for sure. What I can tell you is that collaboration is more connected to the idea of a generic work done togerher, like when you collaborate for some time and agree to do it with some people because you work on something together.
Cooperation seems to be more technical, wider in its time perspective, conceptual before becoming factual, sometimes connected with the idea of helping each other, sometimes mistakenly used instead of collusion in the economic market ("two nations cooperated/collaborated against a third to win the war): cooperation should be never used to do something together "against" someone else, as it's not in its principles.
We're studying the differences and we set that collaboration is a generic, time related work or identified action actually done together. It can be a wonderful interaction or also a conflictual, (collusive, etc.) one. The importance seems to be more related to a specific time and a specific operation.
Cooperation is defined in our model as "acting together with mutual enjoyment". No mutual enjoyment, no cooperation. "With" and not "for" is important, as the enjoyment is not the "why" but the "how". This means cooperation has a concept of doing the thing not necessarily for a specific goal or operation, not only because you want to achieve something, but because you want a common benefit and a common satisfation when you think to start cooperating, similarly like the cooperative type of company. Finally, you can use cooperation as the concept behind the actual acting together or as the ideal balance to pursue when you do something together. Something like the "value", "equilibrium" or "feeling" when you do a collaboration.
So cooperation: acting together with mutual enjoyment. Collaboration: general acting together, usually in determined time and operation.
In any case, besides the terms, I invite you to try to enjoy both! ;-)
You can also compare what you cited with Tuomela's concepts of i-cooperation and g-cooperation, or start the path of Axelrod's work, passing through Bowels and Gintis and probably ending up in Nowak Supercooperators :-).
Dear Tallet, please look at Tuomela's work if you think goals should be joint and common throughout all the world or for a "real cooperation". But remember: form a neuroscience perspective, this is quite impossible and everyone of us thinks about the same goal in different ways. Moreover, homologating goals destroys diversity and collective intelligence potential.
To be brief, I guess you should focus of harmony amongst diversities, like in musical harmony, rather than finding how to create consent over one single action in a system that is based on a list of coordinated actions.
Our best chance are differences, like in nature :-)
The granularity you talk about for coordination and cooperation is useful, but I guess it refers more to context-oriented tasks, therefore is more related to Aung Ze Ya suggestion of the "collaborative world". A cooperation perspective would say: let's do all those tasks, but what are the principles we refer to when we do that? Will there be equivalence at the end? Are the tasks instrumental for an individual benefit or the community's one?
Hello Palo,
Great Day!
We have same opinion. So, I am very delighted for it.
Also, thanks a lot for your valuable comments regarding "Collaborative World".
Regards,
Eheh, okay, just my name is Alessandro :-)
Have a good day, Ya! (?)
Jean-Yves,
for both you need consciousness but it is not consciousness.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction