[MD] Collective intelligence

Fri May 18 17:13:27 PDT 2007

[Micah]
> It would be proper to say - "I think my cat sees a bird".  The key being, "I think".

1) My cat sees a bird.
2) I think my cat sees a bird.
3) I believe my cat sees a bird.
4) I know my cat sees a bird.

If I say any of 1) - 4), then (unless I'm lying) I think my cat sees a bird.  So it's not the particular phrasing that is key.
What's at issue is whether it is possible for my cat to see a bird & if so, is it possible for me to have (good) evidence that she does.  My view is that it is possible for my cat to do (what I call) seeing & in particular, for her to see (what I call) a bird.  My evidence is that she is very good at (what I call) stalking a bird & unfortunately occasionally (what I call) catching one.  A cat that could not see would not have such (unfortunate) success.  Of course, the phrase 'what I call' can be eliminated above, since it is obvious that it is me doing the calling.
Craig

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: moq_discuss-request at moqtalk.org 

> Send moq_discuss mailing list submissions to 
> moq_discuss at moqtalk.org 
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit 
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org 
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to 
> moq_discuss-request at moqtalk.org 
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at 
> moq_discuss-owner at moqtalk.org 
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific 
> than "Re: Contents of moq_discuss digest..." 
> 
> 
> Today's Topics: 
> 
> 1. Re: David Hildebrand (David M) 
> 2. Re: Collective intelligence (David M) 
> 3. Re: Collective intelligence (Granger) (David M) 
> 4. Re: Social Darwinism (David M) 
> 5. Re: Collective intelligence (Granger) (Krimel) 
> 6. Re: Collective intelligence (David M) 
> 7. Re: (MD] Collective intelligence (David M) 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> 
> Message: 1 
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 22:32:33 +0100 
> From: "David M" 
> Subject: Re: [MD] David Hildebrand 
> To: 
> Message-ID: <001701c79994$0c569980$0200a8c0 at acerj8huoxixku> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; 
> reply-type=original 
> 
> Hi DMB 
> 
> RE: your essay: 
> 
> http://www.robertpirsig.org/Buchanan.htm 
> 
> I have recently been chatting with David Hildebrand who you mention in your 
> essay 
> on Rorty, he has confirmed he has read and enjoyed ZMM. Have you seen his 
> essay: < BR>> 
> http://davidhildebrand.org/articles/hildebrand_putnam.pdf 
> 
> Take a look because I think he says some interesting things in 
> this about truth that differs from what you say in your essay 
> and where I think you are making similar errors to Putnam 
> (not bad company but I would side with Hildebrand over 
> Putnam on his approach to truth). 
> 
> Enjoy 
> 
> David M 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------ 
> 
> Message: 2 
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 22:54:10 +0100 
> From: "David M" 
> Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence 
> To: 
> Message-ID: <003f01c79997$11347370$0200a8c0 at acerj8huoxixku> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; 
> reply-type=original 
> 
> Hi Craig 
> 
> great to see the spirit of scie nce and experiment is alive and well 
> 
> David M 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:00 AM 
> Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence 
> 
> 
> > I've been holding my 2 female cats up to the mirror to see if they show 
> > any signs of self-recognition. One seems either uninterested or 
> > uncomfortable. The other is sometimes interested in looking at herself, at 
> > other times looks at me in the mirror. Similar results if I hold them 
> > both up together. 
> > Craig 
> > 
> > moq_discuss mailing list 
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. 
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org 
> > Archives: 
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ 
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_ discuss_archive/ 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------ 
> 
> Message: 3 
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 22:46:09 +0100 
> From: "David M" 
> Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence (Granger) 
> To: 
> Message-ID: <002101c79995$f24d5680$0200a8c0 at acerj8huoxixku> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; 
> reply-type=original 
> 
> unless we can out smart them 
> 
> David M 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Krimel" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:06 PM 
> Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence (Granger) 
> 
> 
> > [David M] 
> > So no government no protection for individuals from tyranny? 
> > Therefore no individuals only subjects withou t society/govn. 
> > 
> > [Micah] 
> > No government, means no subjects. Tyranny doesn't exist without a 
> > government/ruler. 
> > 
> > [Krimel] 
> > No government means the strong take what they want. 
> > 
> > moq_discuss mailing list 
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. 
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org 
> > Archives: 
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ 
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------ 
> 
> Message: 4 
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 23:04:41 +0100 
> From: "David M" 
> Subject: Re: [MD] Social Darwinism 
> To: 
> Message-ID: <005601c79998$8945cc00$0200a8c0 at acerj8huoxixku> 
> Content-Type: text/pl ain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; 
> reply-type=original 
> 
> Hi Ian/DMB 
> 
> Above and beyond survival I would add abundance and variety 
> and flourishing, as long as you are around to live (i.e. survive) 
> you are free to indulge, excel, create and excess! 
> 
> David M 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "ian glendinning" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:40 PM 
> Subject: Re: [MD] Social Darwinism 
> 
> 
> > Hi DMB, probably no space for the rigor you'd like, so if you can put 
> > up with the (well intentioned) drivel a little longer ... 
> > 
> > Anyway. OK we agree on the core point. 
> > 
> > And yes, you are correct, selfish-memes can be used to mischaracterise 
> > social (and intellectual) evolution in exactly the same way as t he 
> > survival (and expansion) of the selfish-gene has in evolution 
> > generally. (We agree we recognise the slippery slope to the many 
> > dangers.) 
> > 
> > For me the problem arises when mixing up an expalantion of a single 
> > mechanism (genetics or memetics) with some simplistic causal, 
> > determinist description of outcomes. Even with genes and memes, the 
> > processes of mutation, and preferential selection are many - there are 
> > whole books on each mechanism, and long-running academic debates. 
> > Every one of those myriad of possible mechanisms is happening amongst 
> > zillions of individuals, in zillions of situations across all the 
> > levels, all at once. Outcomes are complex, recursive and emergent .... 
> > 
> > Mental leap .... one possible model to which I subscribe, a metaphor, 
> > is that "we" are entirely memes, a bove the physiological - everything 
> > socio-intellectual is made of memes. (That's the Dennettian line you 
> > referred to already.) The reason therefore to take an interest in 
> > understanding memes - both what makes them good and what makes them 
> > successful - is to understand how it is possible to influence the 
> > direction of evolution of reason itself. (But in doing that, nothing 
> > could be further from my mind than a simple reductionist / atomist 
> > view of how things as complex and unpredictable - free-willed - as 
> > human psyche are "built from" memes, any more than I would suggest 
> > that understanding how three quarks interact, explains how humpback 
> > whales evolved their ability to navigate in groups on long migrations 
> > was "consructed" from quarks, even if they are.) 
> > 
> > Meme is just a word I use, loaded with possible misr epresented 
> > connotations, but a private language is just not possible, I use it 
> > and look out for the misunderstandings and misrepresentations. 
> > 
> > Ian 
> > 
> > On 5/17/07, david buchanan wrote: 
> >> Ian said to dmb: 
> >> ...No brainer that it is seriously misguided stuff, leading to all manner 
> >> of 
> >> evils. The problem that gives us, though, is the danger of that label and 
> >> no-brainer argument making (intellectually valid) evolutionary arguments 
> >> appears taboo in any social context. Sometimes, as you have chastised me 
> >> before, a little intellectual rigor and clarity is important ;-) 
> >> 
> >> dmb says: 
> >> If you're saying that social level evolution can be distinguished from 
> >> the 
> >> doctrine of social darwinism , I'd agree. But I would challenge you to 
> >> re-examine your Dennettesque scientism especially as that sort of 
> >> worldview 
> >> informs the notion of "memes". I mean, doesn't that idea apply that empty 
> >> and stupid motive of mere survival to meaning itself? Doesn't that idea 
> >> remain silent with respect to "any substantive excellence in WHAT 
> >> survives"? 
> >> It's been a while since you praised the notion, but I think so. I mean, 
> >> it 
> >> seems to me that you do not quite realize the extent to which you've 
> >> absorbed that cold and cruel version of darwinism. But you tell me. Go 
> >> ahead 
> >> and give me "a little intellectual rigor and clarity" on this point. That 
> >> would be the very opposite of drivel... 
> >> 
> >> Hey, there's an idea. Let's say that on the fourth level, drivel leads to 
> >> (well justified) extinction. But seriously, the objection centers around 
> >> a 
> >> very simple question. Why survive? Is it not meaningless to assert that 
> >> mere 
> >> existence as the goal of existence? Doesn't the MOQ's idea of betterness 
> >> as 
> >> the engine of evolution reduce survival to just one kind of betterness 
> >> whereas classic natural selection makes survival the whole point? I think 
> >> so. 
> >> 
> >> dmb 
> >> 
> >> "The entire modern deification of survival PER SE, survival returning to 
> >> itself, survival naked and abstract, with the denial of any substantive 
> >> excellence in WHAT survives, except the capacity for more survival still, 
> >> is 
> >> surely the strangest intellecual stopping-place ever proposed b y one man 
> >> to 
> >> another." William James 
> >> 
> >> _________________________________________________________________ 
> >> Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You'll love Windows Live 
> >> Hotmail. 
> >> 
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM 
> _mini_outlook_0507 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> moq_discuss mailing list 
> >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. 
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org 
> >> Archives: 
> >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ 
> >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 
> >> 
> > moq_discuss mailing list 
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. 
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org 
> &g t; Archives: 
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ 
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------ 
> 
> Message: 5 
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 18:05:40 -0400 
> From: "Krimel" 
> Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence (Granger) 
> To: 
> Message-ID: <20070518220546.945088E064 at spunkymail-mx3.g.dreamhost.com> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 
> 
> Exactly! 
> 
> So do you think it is "better" to be strong or smart? 
> Krimel 
> 
> 
> unless we can out smart them 
> 
> David M 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Krimel" 
> To: 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:06 PM 
> Subject: Re: [MD ] Collective intelligence (Granger) 
> 
> 
> > [David M] 
> > So no government no protection for individuals from tyranny? 
> > Therefore no individuals only subjects without society/govn. 
> > 
> > [Micah] 
> > No government, means no subjects. Tyranny doesn't exist without a 
> > government/ruler. 
> > 
> > [Krimel] 
> > No government means the strong take what they want. 
> > 
> > moq_discuss mailing list 
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. 
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org 
> > Archives: 
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ 
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 
> > 
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list 
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. 
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org 
> Archives: 
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ 
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------ 
> 
> Message: 6 
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 23:12:39 +0100 
> From: "David M" 
> Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence 
> To: 
> Message-ID: <007501c79999$a6422ff0$0200a8c0 at acerj8huoxixku> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; 
> reply-type=original 
> 
> I have noticed that sheep in Yorkshire really can't see cars. 
> 
> David M 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:53 AM 
> Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence 
> 
> 
> > [Micah] 
> >> you were describin g what you thought [your cats] were thinking, 
> >> essentially "thinking" for them. 
> > 
> > Start with a simpler example: my cat is doing what I call (correctly or 
> > incorrectly) "seeing a bird". 
> > Q1) Does the cat see anything? 
> > A1) Yes, it is not blind. 
> > Q2) Does it see a bird? 
> > A2) Well, it sees something rather than nothing & the something it sees is 
> > a bird, not something else. 
> > Q3) Does it see the bird AS a bird? 
> > A3) Probably not. 
> > Q4) So then it isn't seeing a bird as I do when I see a bird. 
> > A4) Right. My cat sees a bird like cats do when they see a bird, not like 
> > I/we do when I/we see a bird. 
> > Q5) So shouldn't you specifically say "My cat sees a bird like cats do 
> > when they see a bird" & not "My cat sees a bird like I do when I see a 
> > bird"? 
> > ; A5) But why can't "My cat sees a bird" mean the same thing as the former, 
> > since I never use it to mean the latter? 
> > When I hold my cat up to the mirror, it sees a cat & not a bird. Which 
> > brings us to (a rephrasing of) the original question: does it see a 
> > different cat or itself? 
> > Craig 
> > 
> > moq_discuss mailing list 
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. 
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org 
> > Archives: 
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ 
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------ 
> 
> Message: 7 
> Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 23:07:28 +0100 
> From: "David M" 
> Subject: Re: [MD] (MD] Collective intelligence 
> To: 
> Message-ID: <006501c79998$ecc3c480$0200a8c0 at acerj8huoxixku> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; 
> reply-type=original 
> 
> luckily slavery was never complete and was much resisted, long live DQ 
> 
> David M 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Heather Perella" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:51 PM 
> Subject: Re: [MD] (MD] Collective intelligence 
> 
> 
> > [Micah asks] 
> >> What is the compromise between life and death? 
> > 
> > Life lives and death dies, mu. 
> > 
> > [Micah] 
> >> What is the compromise between freedom and slavery? 
> > 
> > complete freedom is chaos, and complete slavery 
> > is what it is 
> > this is a mu point. 
> > 
> > [Micah] 
> >> What is the compromise good and evil? 
> > 
> > this world 
> > 
> > 
> > [Micah] 
> >> What is the compromise between Intellectual Quality 
> >> and Biological Quality? 
> > 
> > Quality 
> > 
> > 
> >> I want a room painted blue, you want it painted red 
> >> - we both hate purple 
> >> what is the compromise? 
> > 
> > kill or live with the other person - figure out 
> > what's more important, friendship or the color of a 
> > room, please... 
> > 
> > [Micah] 
> >> Compromise doesn't exist. Neither does "collective 
> >> Intelligence". 
> > 
> > Neither do I exist according to you, so, just mu 
> > me. 
> > 
> > woods, 
> > SA 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> & gt; 
> ________________________________________________________________________________ 
> ____You 
> > snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck 
> > in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. 
> > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_html.html 
> > moq_discuss mailing list 
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. 
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org 
> > Archives: 
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ 
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------ 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> moq_discuss mailing list 
> moq_discuss at moqtalk.org 
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org 
> 
> 
> End of moq_discuss Digest, Vol 18, Issue 8 2 
> ******************************************* 