Arlo, Platt, Horse, DM, Krimel, Ashkay et al ... At least two overlapping debates here ...
Firstly the usual social vs intellectual dividing line - pretty woolly as ever. My view it's all social, just that some is accepted and spread more widely (more common) than others. Common is a relative term. If Platt knows it, it's common (social), if he doesn't it's intellectual, would be Platt's classification; and we'd all have different views. Math we may "classify" as intellectual, but 1 + 1 = 2 is a socially accepted piece of knowledge. Secondly - aspects of knowledge itself. DM asked earlier does not memory reside in all kinds of patterns ? and Krimel accuse him of animism. I think calling that animism is just our perspective from which we choose to use words like "know" and "experience". Inanimate objects experience forces, inanimate objects contain patterns of information Horse described different kinds of knowledge, one of which was basic "information", and mentioned all different ways it persists (is stored) in patterns in inanimate objects. One thing is sure, collective or otherwise, knowledge as information is quite a different subject to consciousness of meaning and application (to value judgements and will, say). I see a recurring social-intellectual vs individual-collective debate clouding all these knowledge and consciousness discussions. Ian 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/
