[MD] (MD] Collective intelligence

[Ham Priday]

Hi Ron --

> I think I see your beef with the term "intelligence"
> but I must ask you then, what of this information
> that is commonly held in the human mind?
> Does a collection of communicating minds have
> more success in it's value assessments than an individual
> mind? Does this then qualify it as an evolutionary step?

Your question is fundamental to the issue, but the wording is ambiguous. 
I've found that if there's a chance for ambiguity to confuse, it will; and 
since I've already unnerved some anti-SOMists here, please accept these 
suggestions as my attempt to clarify rather than nit-pick.

When you say "information commonly held in the human mind", I think you mean 
"universal information held in human minds."  That gets rid of "common", as 
well as the suggestion that an individual's knowledge has a collective mind. 
Secondly, "minds" don't communicate; people do, and people only communicate 
information or ideas, not mental images or values.  Thirdly, I'm frankly 
confused as to the meaning of  "evolutionary step" in this context. 
(Perhaps you could explain that to me.)

Since I believe that value perception is proprietary to the individual, any 
assessment of value is a survey to determine the "majority opinion".  This 
is the basis of our justice system, as you know if you've ever served on a 
jury of your peers.  So, yes, pooling ideas in a collective effort is often 
more effective than individuals working alone in achieving certain goals, 
particularly where a project calls for multi-tasking or value assessment.

The point in contention is that intelligence and/or knowledge is a community 
reservoir from which individuals pick fragments in some "hit-or-miss" 
manner.  All knowledge comes from experience, and only individuals 
experience.  Therefore, "collective knowledge" is a misnomer.  The knowledge 
isn't collective, only the information communicated is.  A pool, or 
collection, of facts, ideas or values is only a reflection of individuals 
who lend their expressed thoughts to the pool.  That societies and cultures 
can adopt common behavior patterns or belief systems does not mean that 
knowledge is collective.  Even what we call "universal knowledge" is no more 
than the experiential observations of individuals that have been accepted by 
the community of mankind at large.

One final note: The reason you see "collective intelligence" bandied about 
here is that MoQ's author early on was obsessed with eliminating the 
mind-matter dualism of philosophy.  He came upon Quality as an aesthetic 
property that seemed to transcend the duality because it was neither 
subjective (mental) nor objective (material).  [If you haven't yet done so, 
I suggest you read Pirsig's SODV essay in the archives.]  After this 
epiphany, he sought to remove everything from the inorganic, biological, and 
societal world and attribute it to Quality.  That of course included human 
consciousness, intellect, love, creativity, judgment, freedom, and evolution 
itself, all of which were defined as "patterns" of his "primary empirical 
reality".  By this abstraction, Pirsig believed he had resolved the duality 
problem.  There is no subject or object.  There is only a monism: Quality. 
It replaces God, mind, matter, and spirit.  And, if you can't accept this 
radical new idealism, you'll eventually find yourself as disappointed as I 
am.

Thanks for what may be my last opportunity to expound here, Ron.

Essentially yours,
Ham