[starlogo-users] Re: starlogo-users Digest, Vol 39, Issue 2
wholesomepictures at earthlink.net
Tue May 22 13:42:25 EDT 2007
Thank you for this. I will research materialism and try to avoid traps. So then if not evolutionarily materialistically, and not spiritually, how would you suggest viewing decentralization? I did not intend to suggest, though it's true I did say it outright, that the human brain is the first capable of thinking. But it is the most advanced of its kind. Thanks for the correction.
We ought to have confidence in our abilities to look at reality without falling into social-eugenics, etc. One radical element to this is the level of scale involved. What are the possibilities for a decentralized system in which humans (not ants, not molecules) are the individual units? Are we too afraid of traps to discuss? Surely it doesn't encompass the totality of the human experience, but it is becoming a legitimate facet. Surely we can't transpose the dynamics observed on the molecular level. Or the social insect level. But can we look there for clues? This is all nascent, and already involves multiple disciplines. But now, as we arrange and implement organizational structures that people will participate in and which participation will, it seems logical to project, feedback on some overall aspect of our lives, now is the time to discuss! Organization has a lot of influence on form but there is a two-way street between them. Should we, out of fear of misuse, ignore that pathway? Again I believe that those who understand this have a responsibility to discuss ways in which to promote peace and generosity among our species. For our sake and for the sake of the planet.
Consciousness exists through the filter of organization. Organization of neurons, of interactions between individuals. And what is organization but a structural influence over interactions? What I'm trying to bring up is, there's a present and a future in which the interaction of human beings will be differently influenced within the decentralized paradigm. Not just immaterially through information networks, but physically as well. What are the possibilities? It is impossible that the expression of human intelligence, adaptable as it is, will not be somehow affected by our new (even if unconscious) familiarity with and participation in decentralized systems. (It's worth noting that the interior organization of the brain itself is decentralized) The point of discussion is organization and the possibilities therein as this collection of humans moves together through time.
I am asking questions. Hierarchy meets heterarchy?
This is intriguing: "Starlogo and modeling within it can put us forward in directions of even a new paradigm based on decentralized mindset."
>From: starlogo-users-request at media.mit.edu
>Sent: May 22, 2007 9:00 AM
>To: starlogo-users at media.mit.edu
>Subject: starlogo-users Digest, Vol 39, Issue 2
>Send starlogo-users mailing list submissions to
> starlogo-users at media.mit.edu
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> starlogo-users-request at media.mit.edu
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> starlogo-users-owner at media.mit.edu
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of starlogo-users digest..."
> 1. Re: philosophical inquiry (RIB)
> 2. philosophical inquiry (Milos Blagojevic)
>Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:24:13 +0430
>From: RIB <ribowers at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [starlogo-users] philosophical inquiry
>To: starlogo-users at media.mit.edu
> <f75aa840705220454s5c6998f2k6488b1d29ce8db4b at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>On 5/21/07, RIB <ribowers at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Some qualms about your comments, Danielle...
>> 1. You seem to be assuming that a super-brain will be smarter than the
>> ones we know. I'm having troubles seeing what that might mean. (I
>> guess it will at least be politically smarter, and on this point it
>> gives me hope for the future...)
>> 2. I strongly doubt your claim that "The human brain is ... the first
>> capable of Thinking..." There have been many forms of thinking brains
>> some more connected than ours (though loosely, through social
>> behaviour, like in your example, the ants). Are you denying that other
>> brains think? What do you think they're there for?
>> I appreciate your enthusiasm. I think its great too. Lets see what we
>> can make happen,
>> On 5/21/07, Danielle Parsons <wholesomepictures at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > I'd like to put this post out to the Starlogo community for discussion:
>> > This moment in time is massively interesting, combining
>> > the structuralities of the planet's most powerful centralized intelligence
>> > with its most powerful decentralized intelligence.
>> > The human brain is exciting because it's the first capable of Thinking.
>> > Forming associations, being aware of more than meets the eye, being rational,
>> > making considered choices. Now imagine linking all of these thinking brains
>> > together in the way that ants are connected in a colony, in a system of distributed
>> > intelligence. The possibilities for intelligence are exponentially
>> > increased.
>> > This linkage is already underway. We are building decentralized, emergent systems into our
>> > lives and participating in them on various levels: the world-wide-web, traffic flow, city sidewalks.
>> > They inform our technology, computer programs, and our economies,
>> > the stock market.
>> > There's no question that the results will be amazing - many will believe
>> > they are metaphysical. In reality, if we can understand how distributed
>> > systems work then we'll know that the magic of the age of aquarius is partly
>> > humanity expressing ant intelligence.
>> > Many people will simply participate. Those with the pleasure of being aware have a mandate to direct the expression of this intelligence explosion toward peace generosity and cooperation.
>> > Look to the Ant!
>> > Are any of you thinking about this convergence vis-a-vis human evolution?
>> > Thank you,
>> > Danielle
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > starlogo-users mailing list
>> > starlogo-users at media.mit.edu
>> > http://education.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/starlogo-users
>Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 13:13:40 +0000
>From: "Milos Blagojevic" <spearsatanas at hotmail.com>
>Subject: [starlogo-users] philosophical inquiry
>To: starlogo-users at media.mit.edu
>Message-ID: <BAY22-F2428E09B9C526A4256F9D7C1360 at phx.gbl>
>Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>Interesting phenomenon was always that of human evolving, just as it once
>came into being from animal regnum into the light of consciousness. This
>view suggested brings me to a next-step conclusion about evolution as a
>process of better (however arbitrary that would be) adaptability to
>environment consisting nowadays of many informational networks, primarily
>changing environment. So I can't escape the feeling that no evolutionary
>process can be expected spontaneously to occur but that be induced somehow.
>The fact that there is a "wish" for evolution precedes all thinking about
>progress. That I think would inevitably lead to some form of
>social-eugenics-models which are non-satisfactory. So by only viewing
>decentralization as a concept of evolution in somewhat materialistic way (as
>you put it "ants") can not fall far apart from old-fashioned centralized
>materialism. Of course I am not suggesting any spiritualistic or religious
>solutions but we must always be aware that live matter has something unique
>in all of the universe so it can evolve and change by itself. Consciousness,
>on the other hand brings us to story of social biology or something like
>that, but it can also be viewed from within chaos and self-organization
>theories which are, I think still in their infancy. That evolutionary
>novelty presents us with one more puzzle of complexity as interaction of
>constituents but as we travel (in modern molecular biology ) deeply into
>microscopic/physiological world we are more and more distant from its
>wholeness and ever much fallen in materialistic traps.
>All I'm saying is that knowledge of complex phenomena might not entirely lie
>within grasp of modern rigorous evolutionary science, and that Starlogo and
>modeling within it can put us forward in directions of even a new paradigm
>based on decentralized mindset. Just stay away from materialism and thinking
>like an atomist Democritus or Lucretius...but be Heraclitus or Zenon in
>science...That's my message
>Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
>starlogo-users mailing list
>starlogo-users at media.mit.edu
>End of starlogo-users Digest, Vol 39, Issue 2
More information about the starlogo-users