Arlo/Horse Thanks for below, very useful and on right lines I think.
David M ----- Original Message ----- From: "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 6:15 AM Subject: Re: [MD] (MD] Collective intelligence > [Horse] > I think in general we agree on most things - but maybe the way that we > express > our ideas causes some disagreement. > > [Arlo] > This is the way I see it too. > > [Arlo previously] > Not so simply. What we have is a particular type of bodily-kinesthetic > experience. This is the "awareness" we would possess growing up on a > deserted > island. But this is not the "Self", which is often what we mean when we > talk > about "awareness/consciousness". In short, there is a triad, not a > duality. > There is not man-over-here and knowledge-over-there. We are not apart from > our > "shared body of ideas", we ARE our "shared body of ideas". > > [Horse] > I would probably express this as we are patterns of value responding to > DQ cos > that makes more sense to me. I think that knowledge and information, > awareness, consciousness etc. are part and parcel of those patterns of > value > and not separate from them so we are probably agreeing here more than > disagreeing. Just using different terminology. > > [Arlo] > Saying the "self" is "patterns of value responding to DQ" is fine by me. > What I > am trying to do is tease out how those patterns co-evolve, and how > collectivity > on one level gives rise to the ability to respond to DQ on the next. For > example, biological patterns are incapable of directly "creating" > intellectual > patterns. There needs to be a social level first, and it is through these > social patterns (dialogic interactivity) that intellectual patterns can > emerge. > > And I am doing so trying to avoid the typical S/O dichotomy Platt (and > others) > continuously bring to the discussion. The "self" is not apart from > social-intellectual patterns, it is created (or emerges) out of these > patterns > and (as an embodied biological being) its unique "proprietary" > bodily-kinesthetic experience. (As I said to Platt, of course, we are also > "inorganic beings" and have a certain inorganic experience as well. But I > contend our inorganic experience (response to gravity, e.g.) is fairly > universal and so I don't bother to mention it always). > > [Horse] > Personally, I don't share Platt's view of the individual and neither does > the > MoQ. > > [Arlo] > Agreed. > > [Arlo previously] > It doesn't "gain" social knowledge, the "self" emerges when the babies > "biological experience" intertwines with the social patterns it > experiences. > Thus it "becomes", it does not "gain". > > [Horse] > OK - more shorthand. It's repertoire of patterns of value expand to > include > different patterns of value - new patterns of value are formed in the > process > of becoming. Any better? > > [Arlo] > Ah, you see, gonna nitpick. When you say "it's repertoire of patterns of > value"... I have to back away. The self does not "have" a repertoire of > patterns of value, it IS a repertoire of patterns of value. The former > implies > again a removed self interacting with external patterns, S/O in my book. > The > latter does not separate the self from the patterns, but merely says the > self > is a reference point that emerges out of self-referentiality (to bring in > Hofstadter). > > [Arlo previously] > Again, I'll have to disagree. It does not "gain" knowledge, it constructs > knowledge dialogically, and in doing so "becomes" something new. I keep > emphasizing this because I think its falling prey to another empty > dichotomy to > posit some external homunculus sitting back apart from what is interacts > with. > Indeed, this is simply another face of the S/O divide. > > [Horse] > More shorthand - similar to the above. No homonculii around here! > > [Arlo] > Good to hear it. We have enough homonculii worshippers around. :-) > > [Arlo previously] > Agree. But the process by which they arise is similar. That is, collective > activity on a lower-level creates "individual" patterns on a higher level. > These "individual" patterns then, in turn, collectivize which gives rise > to yet > other "individual" patterns on higher levels. Seen this way, whether > something > is an "individual" pattern or a "collective" pattern is simply a matter of > focus. > > [Horse] > Careful - your use of the term individual is highly provocative. The > overall > process is similar in overview terms but the qualitative difference is > still > present. > > [Arlo] > I think both "individual" and "collective" (in terms of patterns) is > nothing > more than a matter of focus. A human body is on one view an "individual > biological pattern", on another its a complex collective of biological > patterns, on still another is a very large collective of inorganic > patterns... > a collective complex enough (on the inorganic level) to allow for higher > levels > of complexity (qualitative evolution, if you will). > > [Horse] > There is a pattern of, effectively, simple to complex to simple, but the > higher > order simple is of greater complexity than the lower order simple due to > those > qualitative differences. > > [Arlo] > Agree. Thanks for emphasizing this. > > [Arlo previously] > What would an example of a intellectual pattern of value that is not > shareable? > > [Horse] > I had in mind something like dreams. Or the moment of epiphany. Could be > wrong > though. > > [Arlo] > We can share dreams, can't we? And I'd venture that a moment of epiphany > is > "pre-intellectual". The whole purpose of making it intellectual is to > share it. > ... Here I slipped into S/O language. ;-) > > [Horse] > I'm hoping that this is more terminology. My interpretation is that the > collective consciousness is at the social level. I say this because I > don't see > any reason to assume that consciousness is a property of intellect - or > however > you wish to phrase it. > > [Arlo] > Yes, the terminology is always problematic. Years and years of S/O > discourse > and here we are. But I'd put the collective consciousness as a term for > social > and intellectual patterns available to the biological agent. Math (our > cultural version of it), an intellectual pattern of value, is as > dialogically > intwined with the "self" as social patterns such as particular linguistic > metaphors. > > [Horse] > I also don't think that the idea of self-consciousness need to be purely a > 'human' characteristic. > > [Arlo] > Agreed. > > [Horse] > Intellectual knowledge is not shared via intellectual patterns of value or > the > intellectual process but passed down and along via the social level. > > [Arlo] > Which is precisely why intellectual patterns are part of the collective > consciousness. > > [Horse] > I'm not using these terms in the sense that this knowledge is something > external to us in the sense discussed above. Memes come to mind here. > > [Arlo] > I'm not too familiar with memes. But from what I can tell, we are on the > same > page. > > [Horse] > I think we're both trying to do this, along with others on this list, but > still > having a hard time with the terminology. Still, it's certainly fun going > about > it. > > [Arlo] > Fun with some. (Present company included). > > > 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/
