[MD] Collective intelligence

[Ham Priday]

Hi Horse --


> You seem to have a problem with the idea that 'knowledge'
> can exist outside of the confines of the human being as it
> appears that you consider it a property of self-awareness.
> So try this on for size.
>
> Knowledge - i.e. the formation and flow of information - can
> and is quite independent of what you are seeing as intelligence
> and self-awareness. Within the levels of the MoQ there are
> at least 3 different forms of knowledge. There is biological
> knowledge, social knowledge and intellectual knowledge.
> For the moment inorganic knowledge is irrelevant.

I am not concerned with "types" of knowledge.  You folks are obsessed with 
parsing labels and concepts to the nth degree without a fundamental 
understanding of what you're trying to explain.  Knowledge is defined as: 
"the fact or condition of knowing something, with familiarity gained through 
experience or association."  Whether your knowledge is historical, social, 
scientific, or mathematical, it is something you know.  In other words, 
until you know something you have no knowledge.

> Information is formed, stored and transmitted over time
> and space in all three of these levels but in qualitatively
> different ways. In addition, all these forms of knowledge
> are also dynamic - i.e. acted upon by DQ.
> It really is obvious when you look at it carefully and
> without prior assumptions.

But information is not knowledge.  What is formed, stored and transmitted is 
raw data in the form of words, symbols, or their numerical equivalents. 
These are objective representations of information which can (potentially) 
become knowledge once they have been interpreted and acquired by the 
subjective mind of the recipient.  Until then, they are simply words or 
numbers that the originator has typed on a sheet of paper or a PC screen. 
Without "knowing" there is no knowledge; without "thinking" there is no 
intelligence.

[Ham, previously]:
> I assume that by "biological means" you refer to whatever
> knowledge may be innate to the subject, such as "self-awareness"
> or value-sensibility.

[Horse]:
> Nope.
>
> There are other sorts of knowledge than that which can be
> converted to the written word or even spoken language.

Understood.  (That's raw "information", as discussed above.)  But what did 
you mean by "forms of knowledge that persist from one generation to the next 
but are not transmitted by biological means"?  If you're referring to DNA 
information a la Dawkins' 'memes' or gene theories, this is certainly 
biological.  If you're talking about behavioral norms through the 
generations, that's inferred value rather than information.

> Also, knowledge need have no connection with what I assume
> you mean by 'proprietary awareness'. Knowledge, as I said above
> is the formation and flow of information.

No, knowledge is what we know, not what flows through wires or is published 
in print.  Technically, the formation of knowledge is a function of the 
intellect.  (I call it "intellection".)  Intellectual judgment, value 
sensibility, kinesthetic sensibility (proprioception), creativity, objective 
experience, and memory recall are all part of the process of becoming aware 
as a subjective self.  That's what I mean by proprietary awareness.

[Ham, previously]:
> Cognizant knowledge resides solely in the memory
> and intellectual awareness of the individual subject.
> Absent the subject and there is no intelligence.

[Horse]:
> See, you're confusing intelligence and the flow of information again.
> You need to get past your pre-conceptions. Neither intelligence nor
> self-awareness are necessary for the existence of knowledge.

On the contrary, it is you who are confusing knowledge with information. 
Granted, "intelligence" has been construed to mean objective information. 
But you pose an unnecessary semantic problem.  You have twice used the 
phrase "flow of information" rather than "flow of knowledge" in this post. 
Why?  Because information that is not known cannot be "knowledge" by any 
common understanding of the term.  In order to substantiate the notion of 
"collective knowledge" you stretch the common definition of knowledge [i.e., 
knowing] to something that it is not -- an extra-human level.  That may be a 
Pirsigian "preconception", but it isn't supported by neuro-physiology or any 
pyschological theory since Karl Jung's "Collective Unconscious" at the 
beginning of the last century.

[Ham, previously]:
> 'Insensible knowledge' is a meaningless absurdity.

[Horse]:
> No, it's an objective fact, if by insensible you mean not
> produced by what are commonly referred to as 'the senses'-
> i.e. sight, sound etc. as in humans or other similarly equipped creatures.

All experience comes from the senses and is integrated by the brain.  Human 
knowledge is derived from experience and includes information received 
through the auditory and visual sense receptors of the knower.  That's an 
objective fact. Whatever is not processed by the brain and nervous system 
remains unknown, hence can not be knowledge.

[Ham, previously]:
> I can and do accept Sensibility (esthesis) as an absolute, but not
> knowledge or intelligence which, like value-sensibility, are finitely
> differentiated (relational) attributes of being-aware.

[Horse]:
> Well that's a problem for you to sort out Ham.  As I said,
> knowledge and intelligence are separable. Knowledge is not
> attributable to either intellect or self-awareness although
> intellectual knowledge is perfectly acceptable along with
> biological knowledge and social knowledge.

You seem to be arguing against Kant's theory of  'a priori' or 
pre-intellectual knowledge which I haven't mentioned, so I don't know what 
problem I have to sort out.  Since knowledge is what we know from experience 
and intelligence is the capacity to comprehend what we know, they are indeed 
separable.  I would hope "intellectual knowledge is acceptable", although I 
fail to see why this doesn't encompass "biological", "social", or any other 
kind of knowledge.  I've known biologists and sociologists who are just as 
intellectual as philosophers and logicians.

Cheers,
Ham