[MD] (MD] Collective intelligence

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net>:

> >> There are plenty of examples of self-organization and not a single one 
> >> has anything to do with god or ghosts or some mysterious self. 
> >> Self-organization simply means that there is no central system which 
> >> plans the organizing from the top down. 
> > 
> > Right. Not only is there no central system organizing from the top down
> > but there's no known organizing system of any kind that can be identified.
> > Where I come from, that's called "Oops."
> 
> Where I come from this is called complex systems theory and is a growing 
> body of work. It has nothing to do with "Oops" or "Aha" or anything of a 
> similar nature. Because you don't personally understand it Platt doesn't 
> make it wrong.

I guess Wilber doesn't understand complex systems theory either. Oh, well. 
The fact that you and others do doesn't make it right either. 

> >> You know, like those nasty 
> >> socialist systems you purport to not like very much, but here you are 
> >> saying that this is how the world works. Oy Ve!!!
> > 
> > Socialist systems with their planned economies are self-organizing? Yeah,
> right.
> 
> Planned economies are explicitly not examples of self-organising bottom 
> up systems. They are exactly the opposite - top down and planned. This 
> is a case of you understanding neither what I have said or the ideas of 
> self-organization.

Your right about not understanding what you said. 
 
> >> It can be observed in 
> >> biological and social systems all over the place and the causes are well 
> >> known.
> > 
> > What are the causes of self-organizing systems? If there was a cause they
> > wouldn't be self-organizing. They would be organized by a cause, not a "self."
> 
> It depends upon what self-organizing system you're looking at. There are 
> far too many to generalize upon. The whole point here is that the cause 
> is not pre-planned or top down. Slime-mould, ant-nests, bee-hives, 
> termites and a free-market economy are some examples of self-organizing 
> systems.

Please tell us what causes slime-mold. ant nests, bee hives, termites and a 
free market economy.

> >> So well known that computer simulations can model self-organizing 
> >> structures. The system within which I work at my place of employment 
> >> utilizes a form of self-organization and it works a whole lot better 
> >> than having a top-down structure imposed upon it. In general, 
> >> self-organization works from the bottom up following simple rules. It 
> >> really isn't rocket science.
> > 
> > Last time I looked computer simulations modeling self-organizing systems
> > are caused by a human programmer who turns out to the be the "self."
> 
> Most of the software that runs on your computer works as you suppose but 
> cellular automata is an example of computer modeled self-organization.

If computer modeled, the cause is the modeler (programmer).

> >> And what's all this about chance and Darwinians? Have you been reading 
> >> the creationist literature again? Many in the fundamentalist god-squad 
> >> try and pass of this sort of garbage but this is because they either 
> >> don't understand the first thing about natural selection of they are 
> >> deliberately trying to confuse those with little or no idea about it. 
> >> Natural selection in Darwinian evolution has as much to do with chance 
> >> as sexual activity has to do with plate tectonics. Natural selection has 
> >> nothing to do with chance and any advocate of Darwinist or neo-Darwinist 
> >> theory would not seriously entertain such a notion. You really pick the 
> >> most outrageous things to say sometimes Platt - it's almost as if you 
> >> want to start an argument!
> > 
> > What an outrageous thing to say yourself, Horse. Of course Darwinian evolution
> > depends on chance mutations. Are you suggesting perhaps that mutations do not
> > occur by chance but are directed by a designer?
> 
> Your original statement was "Or "chance," the favorite of Darwinians." 
> Nothing said about chance mutations and this is certainly not a 
> favourite of the Darwinians as the majority of mutations cause death. 
> Why would a process that will almost certainly cause death and thus 
> prevent evolution be favoured by Darwinians? Your statement was straight 
> out of the creationists handbook.

Are you saying chance, as in chance mutations, plays no role in Darwinian
evolution? Without it, the whole theory collapses. 
 
Best to you, Horse



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/