Ashay Does DNA contain knowledge of how to construct proteins?
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Akshay Peshwe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 3:30 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence > *Knowledge - i.e. the formation and flow of information - can and is > quite independent of what you are seeing as intelligence and > self-awareness. Within the levels of the MoQ there are at least 3 > different forms of knowledge. There is biological knowledge, social > knowledge and intellectual knowledge. For the moment inorganic knowledge > is > irrelevant. > * > I think what you mean by knowledge there is something close to "units of > experience" and not know-ledge per se. Knowledge is something you know, > therefore it carries an intellectual tag. Feelings can be said to be > experiences on the planes of biological and social static patterns of > value. > One has to be careful about classifying inorganic static patterns. An > electric shock can be said to be an inorganic static pattern, however, it > is > not experienced per se, but by office of biology; but biology we > experience > purely. > > -- Akshay > > On 5/12/07, Horse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi Ham >> >> You seem to have a problem with the idea that 'knowledge' can exist >> outside of the confines of the human being as it appears that you >> consider it a property of self-awareness. So try this on for size. >> >> Knowledge - i.e. the formation and flow of information - can and is >> quite independent of what you are seeing as intelligence and >> self-awareness. Within the levels of the MoQ there are at least 3 >> different forms of knowledge. There is biological knowledge, social >> knowledge and intellectual knowledge. For the moment inorganic knowledge >> is irrelevant. >> >> Information is formed, stored and transmitted over time and space in all >> three of these levels but in qualitatively different ways. In addition, >> all these forms of knowledge are also dynamic - i.e. acted upon by DQ. >> It really is obvious when you look at it carefully and without prior >> assumptions. >> >> >> >> Ham Priday wrote: >> > Greetings, Horse -- >> > >> >> Before we get into another pointless political debate about the >> >> wonderfulness of the magnificent individual versus the marvelous >> >> collective could we try and think about this maybe from a slightly >> >> better perspective - i.e. mine! :) >> >> >> >> The term 'collective intelligence', IMO, is probably a misnomer in >> terms >> >> of the MoQ as it, incorrectly, appears to conjoin social and >> >> intellectual patterns. >> > >> > First, I would suggest that questioning whether intelligence exists >> > independently of man >> > is an important philosophical concern, not a "political debate." I >> don't >> > see that politics has anything to do with it. >> >> The political debate I was referring to was the usual one that springs >> up between Platt, sometimes yourself and various others when these kind >> of comments appear. I can spot it coming a mile off and wanted to calm >> it down before it started. We've been over it a hundred times and I >> wanted to try looking at the debate from a different angle. >> >> > >> > Also, can you tell me if Pirsig actually used the term "collective >> > intelligence" in his writings? I don't recall seeing it in my perusal >> of >> > ZMM and LILA. If he hasn't specifically cited it, perhaps the concept >> of an >> > intellect-infused Quality is apocryphal. >> >> Yeah - only he refers to it as social patterns of value. >> >> > >> >> It may be better to think of it as 'collective knowledge' which >> >> can then be placed at the social level as patterns that accumulate >> >> and persist over time within a social context. >> >> All learned behaviours and other forms of knowledge that persist >> >> from one generation to the next but are not transmitted by >> >> biological means can now be neatly placed in this holder. >> > >> > I assume that by "biological means" you refer to whatever knowledge may >> be >> > innate to the subject, such as "self-awareness" or value-sensibility. >> >> Nope. >> >> > Transmitted knowledge may then be considered "objective" in that it is >> > converted to the written or recorded word for interpretation by other >> > subjects. In this way, knowledge becomes "universal intelligence". >> >> There are other sorts of knowledge than that which can be converted to >> the written word or even spoken language. >> >> > Although I understand "patterns" as existential relations, I can accept >> this >> > epistemology because it doesn't reject the experiential source of >> knowledge >> > (proprietary awareness) and basically makes the universal body of >> objective >> > knowledge, as Micah more precisely defines it, "collected" as opposed >> > to >> > "collective". >> >> Also, knowledge need have no connection with what I assume you mean by >> 'proprietary awareness'. Knowledge, as I said above is the formation and >> flow of information. >> >> >> >> Anything from how to crack an oyster open to the mangled >> >> grunts that constitute primitive language can be included, >> >> as can more complex language and whatever other social >> >> patterns you choose to include. ... >> >> Awareness and contemplation of these patterns gradually >> >> gives rise to ordering and restructuring which leads to >> >> intellectual activity and the emergence of the intellectual level. >> > >> > I agree, but only up to the point where you posit the emergence of an >> > "intellectual level." That throws us back to square one. >> >> Not in my book - or either of Pirsig's come to that! >> >> > >> > If the intellect is fundamentally the cognitive process of man's >> biological >> > brain, and objective knowledge is what the individual transmits >> > (non-biologically) to other individuals, where does this "level" (of >> DQ?) >> > come from, and why is it necessary? As you know, I have never accepted >> the >> > idea of a "communal reservoir" of intelligence. As far as we know, >> neither >> > the physical universe nor ultimate reality is made of intelligence. >> > Cognizant knowledge resides solely in the memory and intellectual >> awareness >> > of the individual subject. Absent the subject and there is no >> intelligence. >> >> See, you're confusing intelligence and the flow of information again. >> You need to get past your pre-conceptions. Neither intelligence nor >> self-awareness are necessary for the existence of knowledge. >> >> > >> > As I said to Ron: " 'insensible knowledge' is a meaningless absurdity." >> >> No, it's an objective fact, if by insensible you mean not produced by >> what are commonly referred to as 'the semses'- i.e. sight, sound etc. as >> in humans or other similarly equipped creatures. >> >> >> > If what you call the "intellectual level" precedes man, it is clearly >> > insensible. If it emerges from the "intellectual activity" of man, it >> is a >> > human creation, and therefore cannot be primary in the sense that >> Quality is >> > primary. In either case, the notion of an external Collective >> Intelligence >> > is illogical. >> >> Well you seem to be the one talking about collective intelligence. I >> quite clearly stated that it is a misnomer and that the term collective >> knowledge is more appropriate. You have made this mistake because you >> are unable to separate out intelligence from information flow or >> knowledge. >> >> > >> > Sorry to have to disagree, Horse. I can and do accept Sensibility >> > (esthesis) as an absolute, but not knowledge or intelligence which, >> > like >> > value-sensibility, are finitely differentiated (relational) attributes >> of >> > being-aware. >> >> Well that's a problem for you to sort out Ham. As I said, knowledge and >> intelligence are separable. Knowledge is not attributable to either >> intellect or self-awareness although intellectual knowledge is perfectly >> acceptable along with biological knowledge and social knowledge. >> >> Cheers >> >> >> Horse >> 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/
