[Micah] > It would be proper to say - "I think my cat sees a bird". The key being, "I > think".
1) My cat sees a bird. 2) I think my cat sees a bird. 3) I believe my cat sees a bird. 4) I know my cat sees a bird. If I say any of 1) - 4), then (unless I'm lying) I think my cat sees a bird. So it's not the particular phrasing that is key. What's at issue is whether it is possible for my cat to see a bird & if so, is it possible for me to have (good) evidence that she does. My view is that it is possible for my cat to do (what I call) seeing & in particular, for her to see (what I call) a bird. My evidence is that she is very good at (what I call) stalking a bird & unfortunately occasionally (what I call) catching one. A cat that could not see would not have such (unfortunate) success. Of course, the phrase 'what I call' can be eliminated above, since it is obvious that it is me doing the calling. Craig -------------- Original message -------------- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Send moq_discuss mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of moq_discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: David Hildebrand (David M) > 2. Re: Collective intelligence (David M) > 3. Re: Collective intelligence (Granger) (David M) > 4. Re: Social Darwinism (David M) > 5. Re: Collective intelligence (Granger) (Krimel) > 6. Re: Collective intelligence (David M) > 7. Re: (MD] Collective intelligence (David M) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 22:32:33 +0100 > From: "David M" > Subject: Re: [MD] David Hildebrand > To: > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hi DMB > > RE: your essay: > > http://www.robertpirsig.org/Buchanan.htm > > I have recently been chatting with David Hildebrand who you mention in your > essay > on Rorty, he has confirmed he has read and enjoyed ZMM. Have you seen his > essay: < BR>> > http://davidhildebrand.org/articles/hildebrand_putnam.pdf > > Take a look because I think he says some interesting things in > this about truth that differs from what you say in your essay > and where I think you are making similar errors to Putnam > (not bad company but I would side with Hildebrand over > Putnam on his approach to truth). > > Enjoy > > David M > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 22:54:10 +0100 > From: "David M" > Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence > To: > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hi Craig > > great to see the spirit of scie nce and experiment is alive and well > > David M > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 3:00 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence > > > > I've been holding my 2 female cats up to the mirror to see if they show > > any signs of self-recognition. One seems either uninterested or > > uncomfortable. The other is sometimes interested in looking at herself, at > > other times looks at me in the mirror. Similar results if I hold them > > both up together. > > Craig > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 22:46:09 +0100 > From: "David M" > Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence (Granger) > To: > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > unless we can out smart them > > David M > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Krimel" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:06 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence (Granger) > > > > [David M] > > So no government no protection for individuals from tyranny? > > Therefore no individuals only subjects withou t society/govn. > > > > [Micah] > > No government, means no subjects. Tyranny doesn't exist without a > > government/ruler. > > > > [Krimel] > > No government means the strong take what they want. > > > > 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/ > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 23:04:41 +0100 > From: "David M" > Subject: Re: [MD] Social Darwinism > To: > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/pl ain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hi Ian/DMB > > Above and beyond survival I would add abundance and variety > and flourishing, as long as you are around to live (i.e. survive) > you are free to indulge, excel, create and excess! > > David M > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ian glendinning" > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:40 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] Social Darwinism > > > > Hi DMB, probably no space for the rigor you'd like, so if you can put > > up with the (well intentioned) drivel a little longer ... > > > > Anyway. OK we agree on the core point. > > > > And yes, you are correct, selfish-memes can be used to mischaracterise > > social (and intellectual) evolution in exactly the same way as t he > > survival (and expansion) of the selfish-gene has in evolution > > generally. (We agree we recognise the slippery slope to the many > > dangers.) > > > > For me the problem arises when mixing up an expalantion of a single > > mechanism (genetics or memetics) with some simplistic causal, > > determinist description of outcomes. Even with genes and memes, the > > processes of mutation, and preferential selection are many - there are > > whole books on each mechanism, and long-running academic debates. > > Every one of those myriad of possible mechanisms is happening amongst > > zillions of individuals, in zillions of situations across all the > > levels, all at once. Outcomes are complex, recursive and emergent .... > > > > Mental leap .... one possible model to which I subscribe, a metaphor, > > is that "we" are entirely memes, a bove the physiological - everything > > socio-intellectual is made of memes. (That's the Dennettian line you > > referred to already.) The reason therefore to take an interest in > > understanding memes - both what makes them good and what makes them > > successful - is to understand how it is possible to influence the > > direction of evolution of reason itself. (But in doing that, nothing > > could be further from my mind than a simple reductionist / atomist > > view of how things as complex and unpredictable - free-willed - as > > human psyche are "built from" memes, any more than I would suggest > > that understanding how three quarks interact, explains how humpback > > whales evolved their ability to navigate in groups on long migrations > > was "consructed" from quarks, even if they are.) > > > > Meme is just a word I use, loaded with possible misr epresented > > connotations, but a private language is just not possible, I use it > > and look out for the misunderstandings and misrepresentations. > > > > Ian > > > > On 5/17/07, david buchanan wrote: > >> Ian said to dmb: > >> ...No brainer that it is seriously misguided stuff, leading to all manner > >> of > >> evils. The problem that gives us, though, is the danger of that label and > >> no-brainer argument making (intellectually valid) evolutionary arguments > >> appears taboo in any social context. Sometimes, as you have chastised me > >> before, a little intellectual rigor and clarity is important ;-) > >> > >> dmb says: > >> If you're saying that social level evolution can be distinguished from > >> the > >> doctrine of social darwinism , I'd agree. But I would challenge you to > >> re-examine your Dennettesque scientism especially as that sort of > >> worldview > >> informs the notion of "memes". I mean, doesn't that idea apply that empty > >> and stupid motive of mere survival to meaning itself? Doesn't that idea > >> remain silent with respect to "any substantive excellence in WHAT > >> survives"? > >> It's been a while since you praised the notion, but I think so. I mean, > >> it > >> seems to me that you do not quite realize the extent to which you've > >> absorbed that cold and cruel version of darwinism. But you tell me. Go > >> ahead > >> and give me "a little intellectual rigor and clarity" on this point. That > >> would be the very opposite of drivel... > >> > >> Hey, there's an idea. Let's say that on the fourth level, drivel leads to > >> (well justified) extinction. But seriously, the objection centers around > >> a > >> very simple question. Why survive? Is it not meaningless to assert that > >> mere > >> existence as the goal of existence? Doesn't the MOQ's idea of betterness > >> as > >> the engine of evolution reduce survival to just one kind of betterness > >> whereas classic natural selection makes survival the whole point? I think > >> so. > >> > >> dmb > >> > >> "The entire modern deification of survival PER SE, survival returning to > >> itself, survival naked and abstract, with the denial of any substantive > >> excellence in WHAT survives, except the capacity for more survival still, > >> is > >> surely the strangest intellecual stopping-place ever proposed b y one man > >> to > >> another." William James > >> > >> _________________________________________________________________ > >> Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You'll love Windows Live > >> Hotmail. > >> > http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM > > _mini_outlook_0507 > >> > >> > >> 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 > &g t; Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 18:05:40 -0400 > From: "Krimel" > Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence (Granger) > To: > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Exactly! > > So do you think it is "better" to be strong or smart? > Krimel > > > unless we can out smart them > > David M > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Krimel" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:06 PM > Subject: Re: [MD ] Collective intelligence (Granger) > > > > [David M] > > So no government no protection for individuals from tyranny? > > Therefore no individuals only subjects without society/govn. > > > > [Micah] > > No government, means no subjects. Tyranny doesn't exist without a > > government/ruler. > > > > [Krimel] > > No government means the strong take what they want. > > > > 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/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 23:12:39 +0100 > From: "David M" > Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence > To: > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > I have noticed that sheep in Yorkshire really can't see cars. > > David M > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 1:53 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Collective intelligence > > > > [Micah] > >> you were describin g what you thought [your cats] were thinking, > >> essentially "thinking" for them. > > > > Start with a simpler example: my cat is doing what I call (correctly or > > incorrectly) "seeing a bird". > > Q1) Does the cat see anything? > > A1) Yes, it is not blind. > > Q2) Does it see a bird? > > A2) Well, it sees something rather than nothing & the something it sees is > > a bird, not something else. > > Q3) Does it see the bird AS a bird? > > A3) Probably not. > > Q4) So then it isn't seeing a bird as I do when I see a bird. > > A4) Right. My cat sees a bird like cats do when they see a bird, not like > > I/we do when I/we see a bird. > > Q5) So shouldn't you specifically say "My cat sees a bird like cats do > > when they see a bird" & not "My cat sees a bird like I do when I see a > > bird"? > > ; A5) But why can't "My cat sees a bird" mean the same thing as the former, > > since I never use it to mean the latter? > > When I hold my cat up to the mirror, it sees a cat & not a bird. Which > > brings us to (a rephrasing of) the original question: does it see a > > different cat or itself? > > Craig > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 23:07:28 +0100 > From: "David M" > Subject: Re: [MD] (MD] Collective intelligence > To: > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > luckily slavery was never complete and was much resisted, long live DQ > > David M > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Heather Perella" > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:51 PM > Subject: Re: [MD] (MD] Collective intelligence > > > > [Micah asks] > >> What is the compromise between life and death? > > > > Life lives and death dies, mu. > > > > [Micah] > >> What is the compromise between freedom and slavery? > > > > complete freedom is chaos, and complete slavery > > is what it is > > this is a mu point. > > > > [Micah] > >> What is the compromise good and evil? > > > > this world > > > > > > [Micah] > >> What is the compromise between Intellectual Quality > >> and Biological Quality? > > > > Quality > > > > > >> I want a room painted blue, you want it painted red > >> - we both hate purple > >> what is the compromise? > > > > kill or live with the other person - figure out > > what's more important, friendship or the color of a > > room, please... > > > > [Micah] > >> Compromise doesn't exist. Neither does "collective > >> Intelligence". > > > > Neither do I exist according to you, so, just mu > > me. > > > > woods, > > SA > > > > > > > & gt; > ________________________________________________________________________________ > > ____You > > snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck > > in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. > > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_html.html > > 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 > [email protected] > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > End of moq_discuss Digest, Vol 18, Issue 8 2 > ******************************************* 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/
