[MD] Collective intelligence

[Platt Holden]

Quoting Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net>:

> 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".

Common knowledge (not intelligence) is being attributed to social level
patterns because it is found in the memories of many people who comprise a 
society. It is also found in such repositories as libraries and cities 
which are social institutions. (I don't know where you got genetics and 
vaccines.) 

> 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.

Yes, to "experienced" reality. But that is a redundancy. But, I am not an
Idealist like you. A termite depends on many things for its existence, but
my experiencing it is not one of them. 

> 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"?

A piano by definition is not unplayable unless hopelessly out of tune. As
for music, I hear a cardinal singing. Who is the 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.

Who says knowledge has to be constant? As for "exact value," do you 
presume it exists without anybody knowing it?  
 
> > 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.

I don't suggest everyone can absorb all the knowledge in an encyclopedia
at all. But, there's nothing misleading about the knowledge being there. 
Further, knowledge has little to do with intelligence. 

> > 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. 

Before the mind can do that, the patterns of distinctions must be learned. 
That's what "growing patterns" refers to -- learning. 

> The dissemination of "knowledge patterns" is an objective 
> process, like distributing newspapers. 

Better called "education."

> 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.

Some of it will, some of it won't, depending on the individual, her mind 
and her environment.

> > 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'm sure your Essence philosophy "feels good" to you. 
 
> I fear the end is nigh.

I fear it is too, although the election of a conservative in France who is
not afraid to call Muslim rioters "scum" offers a glimmer of hope. :-)

Best regards,
Platt