[MD] Collective intelligence

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt --

> Knowledge presumes a knower, just as a piano presumes
> a pianist.  There's no need to emphasize the obvious.

Apparently there is such a need here.  Knowledge and intelligence are being 
attributed to libraries, cities, genetics and vaccines, none of which are 
"knowers".  I'm sorry Platt, but conscious awareness is the 'sine qua non' 
of experienced reality, and I can't let this distorted word usage pass 
without voicing my objections -- even to Horse, who has yet to respond to my 
latest post.

Incidentally, I wouldn't say that a piano necessarily presumes a pianist. 
One could conceivably constuct a device that is "unplayable".  How 'bout we 
say, "music presumes a composer"?

> You restrict information to raw data, putting to fine a point
> on the difference between knowledge and information.
> Both presume a knower, as in, "Do you know the price of
> gasoline today?".

No.  The price of gasoline, as you well know, is a variable piece of 
information determined by the market.  Its exact value at any particular 
time is probably not known, hence does not presume a "knower".  Information 
coming in over the news wires is known only to the originator until it is 
acquired and interpreted as knowledge by those who receive it.  The 
distinction is a very important one, especially when presenting an 
epistemology.

> A world of knowledge exists in my encyclopedia although
> there is much there that I don't know.  Fortunately, the
> existence of that knowledge doesn't depend on me.

"World of knowledge" is a euphemistic expression which suggests that 
everyone can absorb the totality of information printed in your 
encyclopedia.  Of course this is impossible, and the expression is 
misleading.  As you would argue, individuals put this information together, 
and not one of them knows it all.  A body of information is not intelligence 
until it becomes part of an individual's knowledge.

> You miss the point. Biological knowledge is what my cat, UTOE,
>  knows.  Social knowledge is aptly described by Pirsig:
>
> "Elementary static distinctions, between such entities as "before" and
> "after" and between "like" and "unlike" grow into enormously complex
> patterns of knowledge that are transmitted from generation to generation
> as the mythos, the culture in which we live." (Lila, 9)

It is the conscious mind, not "growing patterns", that discerns differences 
and similarities.  The dissemination of "knowledge patterns" is an objective 
process, like distributing newspapers.  Publishing information, or passing 
it down from one generation to the next, is no assurance that it will be 
transformed into knowledge.
You of all people should realize this, Platt.

> That's why Horse's suggestion to substitute "common knowledge" as
> a social level pattern instead of arguing about "collective consciousness"
> and "collective intelligence" is valuable. It fits the MOQ to a tee, not
> to mention that it harmonizes with common sense.

Common sense, no, though it may feel good.  But you've just explained why 
the MoQ author found it expedient to promulgate a myth.

I fear the end is nigh.

Thanks, and best regards to you,
Ham