This is in reply to a line from the Wikipedia article on Collective Intelligence linked.
*"...is an intelligence <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence> that emerges from the collaboration and competition of many individuals, an intelligence that seemingly has a mind of its own."* This is similar to many of Hofstadter's ideas on ant colonies and this is also described by Pirsig (perhaps in a more romantic way) as the Giant. I wonder if the "manager" of us all has some nice agenda too or that what we do has no relation to any "plans" at the higher level of abstraction. In the Vedas, there is the idea that the Vedas are periodically revealed to "rescue mankind". Well, if that's true, then that adds a lot more support to determinism. -- Akshay On 5/9/07, Akshay Peshwe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is an interesting topic since it relates to the dichotomy between > creation and evolution. Scientific knowledge is primarily the result of > evolution -- the works of thousands of men and women throughout history who > tirelessly did science. However, religion seems to be primarily a result of > creation. For example, by Christian tradition, all basic Christian beliefs > are based on what Jesus Christ taught. Islam is based on the teachings of > Mohammed. Hinduism, though, is unique in this regard as it bases its beliefs > wholely on the Vedas (which includes the Upanishads), not associating it > with a single person but with "seers modern and ancient". > > The question is whether any group of ideas can ever be the result of > creation. Can God ever just send in His man at the Beginning and have his > Words written immortally? I think that when religious leaders express their > belief in creationism, they're either very intelligent (because they're > using some kind of remote metaphor) or very stupid (obvious because of lack > of evidence). In a way, Eastern philosophy reveals its transcended state of > mind that the West has only recently begun to realise (refer to Hofstadter > and Pirsig). Surely enough to transcend science, one first needs to know > science. So does this mean that Eastern philosophers knew and practised > science long before their Western counterparts even came to exist? An > example is Panini, the grammarian of the fourth century BC, whose highly > advanced grammar book (the Ashtadhyayi) on Classical Sanskrit is respected > even in today's "scientifically advanced West". Maybe the West only took a > longer time to evolve to an intellectual stage; I'm not sure how bad that > is, because it depends on whether you're a Westerner or not. > > Probably at the time when organized knowledge first came to exist, there > weren't communalist ideas to separate "our" knowledge from that of the "less > civilised". Everybody just contributed to the growing knowledge and helped > mankind progress. Although social patterns are necessary to reach the > intellectual level, racial discrimination certainly isn't a mandatory thing > for social patterns to exist. > > -- Akshay > > > On 5/8/07, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > General concepts > > "Howard Bloom traces the evolution of collective intelligence from the > > days of our bacterial ancestors 3.5 billion years ago to the present and > > demonstrates how a multi-species intelligence has worked since the beginning > > of life. [2] > > > > Tom Atlee and George Pór, on the other hand, feel that while group > > theory and artificial intelligence have something to offer, the field of > > collective intelligence should be seen by some as primarily a human > > enterprise in which mind-sets, a willingness to share, and an openness to > > the value of distributed intelligence for the common good are paramount. > > Individuals who respect collective intelligence, say Atlee and Pór, are > > confident of their own abilities and recognize that the whole is indeed > > greater than the sum of any individual parts. > > > > >From Pór and Atlee's point of view, maximizing collective intelligence > > relies on the ability of an organization to accept and develop "The Golden > > Suggestion", which is any potentially useful input from any member. > > Groupthink often hampers collective intelligence by limiting input to a > > select few individuals or filtering potential Golden Suggestions without > > fully developing them to implementation." > > > > Full text > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence > > > > 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/
