[Akshay] 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.
[Ron] Alexander the great (a student of Aristotle) had some influence in the Punjab right around that time. I think the ancients mixed and influenced each other more than what is commonly realized. Influences from China, Greece and Persia combined for short periods of time before religeos, political or catastrophic circimstances stepped in and isolated these cultures once more. Created or revealed knowledge vs. accumulated knowledge seems largely a matter of how/whether information is controlled. The advent of the printing press In the west freed people from church controlled created knowledge and opened up a new era of free exchange Of literacy, thought and ideas regardless of caste. -- 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/ 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/
