Wed, Jul 15, 2009
Space Collective always draws me in with ideas— thoughts that seem to be just blossoming in my own mind. Only recently have I begun to delve deeply into the truths surrounded by Buddhism. A post like this resonates strongly within me, tying together my own thoughts of intelligence, fractals, Buddhism, non-duality.
The word intelligence to me means a form of “here and now” static information. The word wisdom may carry more meaning in a timeless dynamic context. “The collective wisdom” sounds good. But aside from semantics, the words only form barriers when attempting to communicate something deeper than language. Indeed oversimplification destroys the inherent beauty and complexity of infinity.
“The process of intelligence is both fractal (resonating across scales of contexts) and scalable (can be applied across scales and dimensions).”
Thanks again wildcat.
Sat, Jul 18, 2009
Those are not Buddhas. It is the grand KiamiokaNDE experiment for detecting neutrinos.
Neutrinos are the "cough" in "atoms are made of protons, neutrons, electrons and cough". They usually cough, because the particle is mysterious. It can pass through entire Earth without interaction - most do, but some hit tiny little Buddhas who burp for antineutrinos and wink for neutrinos.
I like to live in the center of culture. (Currently in a city). I see cities giving opportunities for intelligence. I still need to graduate "Sex and the City" though. Most of the years, I spontaneously missed the series/concept, but I rediscovered the wit and problems on a reality tv I watched for a brief while. Intelligence is made of variety, good memory, and programmable neural networks. Intelligence shuffles fixed patterns and re-applies procedures on an ever emerging tree of information channels.
Intelligence reminds me of bundles of fiber optic cables. Their ends are tricky, maybe like stars, maybe like cities or just streaming arrays of data, and our conversation is part of the bundle.
(Kamioka is a city in Japan. KamiokaNDE is a photomultiplier catching tiny lights in clear, distilled water tank.
So very sorry.)
Sun, Jul 19, 2009
Thanks wildcat for a fresh and enriching perspective concerning intelligence.
Yet the context of collective here above is not clear enough.
Is it that intelligence by its own definition is an emergent property of a collective? With whom or with what does ‘intelligence’ "share" its collectiveness??
'Collective', if I understood you clearly, does not necessarily mean collaboration with other humans, as I have thought before, but a re-orientation in the abstract space of potentialities, "evolutionary path", "an entering into partnership with the world, a collaboration of conscious activity".
If "collectiveness", is a collaboration with the flow at play, within the context of the moment, can we relate to this intelligence as a particular case of meditation??”
Mon, Jul 20, 2009
veilde : "
Is it that intelligence by its own definition is an emergent property of a collective?"
yes and no, it is not so much that intelligence is an emergent property of a collective but that a collective of conscious aware intelligent entities fosters the space in which an intelligence can dance its exploratory flow. In this respect I am trying to disassociate the intelligence of the individual as a conceptual unique phenomenon from the intelligence of the collective which as I understand it belongs to a different class of events. (complex inter-subjective)
With whom or with what does ‘intelligence’ "share" its collectiveness??"
here again I understand that intelligence on the collective level is not directly correlated to the concept of sharing. We as humans, individual humans, use the term share. Intelligence is not a sharing and does not share in and of itself (for that it would have been described as an independent entity- whatever that may mean). Intelligence on the collective level stands for a co-created/emergent event. In this sense, ‘intelligence’ in the term collective intelligence is less of a knowing state of the individual and more akin to a field that can be tapped into. In other words the individuals can tap into the intelligence of the collective, but the intelligence of the collective does not manifests its sharing unless the individual conscious aware mechanism taps into it.
Put differently, since intelligence is both fractal and scalable , we my say that the event of intelligence appears differently and is thus subject to different rules according to the level in which it is being described. On the level of the collective then (and even here we may need define the extent of said collective in order to describe accurately how intelligence manifests) the intelligent event manifests as the correlated transformational /metamorphosis reality it stands for.
Collective', if I understood you clearly, does not necessarily mean collaboration with other humans, as I have thought before, but a re-orientation in the abstract space of potentialities, "evolutionary path", "an entering into partnership with the world, a collaboration of conscious activity".
If "collectiveness", is a collaboration with the flow at play, within the context of the moment, can we relate to this intelligence as a particular case of meditation??”"
actually this is an interesting correlation I haven’t thought about, I am not certain what you mean by “collectiveness” (a property/ability/capability?) but if I take it to mean the property arising from “entering into partnership with the world” in an open ended, non rigid format, then yes it could be that the collective “feel” of the flow, is a particular case of meditation.
That is fascinating proposition, for which I thank you much, for it implies that just as intelligence is fractal and multidimensional, so is meditation. Thus if we enter into a larger territory of experience, extended via other individuals, influencing the intelligent event, our conscious awareness transforms in the process. That our personal description of ourselves transforms via social interaction is obvious and well known, what may be new in this description however is the possible fact that being part of an intelligent event collective, changes/transforms our own exploratory powers of depth perception in a manner that we probably could not attain individually.
It appears that when as individuals we take part in a larger intelligent event the correlated benefits to our sense of being, expand dramatically.
I believe that a certain level of resonance within a given culture, especially as concerns the language used for description is necessary for that to happen. However if and when an initial agreement as to the semantics implied by our language is reached I think that yes, in this case intelligence as an event with no fixed point of origination or goal can be called meditation.
My own experience in social networks of interests on many levels definitely correlates to this idea. Cross-fertilization is definitely the main benefit, but a deep sense of extension through others into the larger reality we inhabit but rarely perceive is definitely there as well. In this sense I understand the term meditation. (does that make sense to you?)
Mon, Jul 20, 2009
"Moreover since intelligence is always in motion, by definition it will disturb the silhouette of the context in which and to which it is applied. That in fact is the meaning of open ended (ness), for by eliminating the conceptual rigidity of the context, intelligence (by its very motion), opens, as it were, the context to fresh paths of potentialities."
This, to me says that intelligence, first and foremost is
"intelligence can be defined as the engine of meaning creation and meaning application."
I think these descriptions are seated at the most convenient abstract level to start an intelligent discussion of intelligence.
Earlier today, on
Wildcat said in response to this comment:
’yes that was the intent, to lay out the foundation of distinction between intelligence on a personal level and intelligence on a collective level, I think they belong to two very different classes of semantic objects.’
I turn to the ending paragraph of this post:
"In this case the comprehension and understanding resulting from the application of the process of intelligence will always occur later than the actual re-description (implying a delayed reaction between intelligence and comprehension”.
I wish to make a point that this (semantic) distinction sheds some very relevant light on the relation Intelligence - Application of intelligence in the comprehending unit, or individual.
We humans have a relation with our intelligence, so to speak, where we don’t always fully bring into consideration the motion of intelligence and the changes in the environments (of our minds mainly) that influence its ebbing and flow. I think that the idea of ‘owning our intelligence’ which is associated with the process of application is one of the reasons for confusion about intelligence. I further believe that accommodating the notion of collective intelligence involves a release of the idea of ownership. For in order to indeed
immerse in the flow of intelligence, the very disentanglement of representations from the urgent senses
begins with an open attitude or better still, open or beautiful mind.