[MD] (MD] Collective intelligence

[Horse]

Hi Ron

Ron Kulp wrote:
<SNIP>
> [Ron]
> I think I opened up a 50 gal (4.5 litre)drum of worms with this thread,
> but glad I did in retrospect.
> A lot of questions were answered and suspected views affirmed, all in
> all, several great posts from
> both sides of the fence. Like Horse, I feel the terminology and the
> understanding of the terms
> in regard to preconception makes this topoic a game of golf using 50
> pound sledge hammers, tedious,
> heavy and tiresome and when taking broad strokes the possibility of
> injury to self and others
> Increases the longer you play. The term "collective intelligence" is
> clumsy and and prone to assumption
> I think everyone agrees that knowledge has the ability to connect and
> collect and as Arlo suggested,
> An interplay of related experience both dynamic and static on a shared
> level of understanding.
> 
> The big question and the one I sense Ham railing against is the idea of
> the whole being greater
> Than the sum of it's parts. He sees this as a loss of individuallity and
> free agent status
> Yet when asked if the brain works in this manner to achieve conscousness
> I tend to get the
> Idea he views consciousness as a seperated entity from the "colletive"
> processes of the brain.

The whole being greater than the sum of its parts is what emergence and 
self-organisation is all about. This doesn't mean that individuals lose 
their importance and this seems to be what both Platt and Ham rail 
against. Being an individual AND part of a community are not mutually 
exclusive states. F'rinstance, a nation is greater than just a bunch of 
folks milling around. I really don't understand why people get so bent 
out of shape about this idea.

> 
>  question:
>  Do we tend to view ourselves as a collective? We certainly seem to
> define ourselves this way
> Ie.
>  "one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind."-Niel Armstrong

I think the word collective is what scares certain people - especially 
in your neck of the woods where it is almost synonymous with communist 
or socialist. If you replaced collective with 'club' or 'society' or 
similar there aren't the same connotations. Any social network is a 
collective where you share whatever it is that causes you to be a part 
of that group. Most people do see themselves as part of a collective and 
consider it pretty weird if others aren't part of similar associations. 
A family is a collective, as is a stamp collecting society or chess 
club. One bunch of guys that I've hung around with at various times in 
my life - en extremely well known biker organisation - are fiercely 
individualistic. But if you insult the club or wear the colours 
inappropriately you could end up with a serious health problem.
Being part of a collective is the usual state of affairs for humans and 
for other animal groups. Often, those people who don't, won't or can't 
be a part of social groups are called sociopaths.

Cheers


Horse