It only requires that one hundred monkeys learn something useful and the entire population of monkeys will use it?

This is, apparently not proven, but information propagation IS exponential:

1:2, 2:4, 3:8, 4:16, 5:32, 6:64, 7:128, 8:256, 9:512,

10:1024, ...

100:1267650600228229401496703205376, ...

You can see that with just a fan-out of 2 the whole world can be reached in a tree of well less than 100 disseminations.

A lot of people believe in the 100 monkey effect. I do, largely due to my view of Consciousness as a collective phenomenon of the CollectiveIntelligence.

Here is an example extracted from Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things":

"For many years (Shermer) heard stories about the 'Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon' and (he) was fascinated with the possibility that there might be some sort of collective consciousness that we could tap into to decrease crime, eliminate wars, and generally unite as a single species. In the 1992 presidential election, in fact, one candidate- Dr. John Hagelin from the Natural Law Party-claimed that if elected he would implement a plan that would solve the problems of our inner cities: meditation. Hagelin and others (especially proponents of Transcendental Meditation, or TM) believed that thought can somehow be transferred between people, especially people in a meditative state; if enough people meditate at the same time, some sort of critical mass will be reached, thereby inducing significant planetary change. The Hundredth Monkey phenomenon is commonly cited as empirical proof of this astonishing theory. In the 1950's, so the story goes, Japanese scientists gave monkeys on Koshima Island potatoes. One day one of the monkeys learned to wash potatoes and the taught the skill to others. When about one hundred monkeys had learned the skill-the so-called critical mass-suddenly all the monkeys knew it, even those on other islands hundreds of miles away. Books about the phenomenon have spread this theory widely in New Age circles.

An exercise in skepticism started by asking whether events really happened as reported. They did not. In 1952, primatologists began providing Japanese macaques with sweet potatoes to keep the monkeys from raiding local farms. One monkey did learn to wash dirt off the sweet potatoes in a stream or the ocean, and other monkeys did learn to imitate the behavior. Now let's examine Watson's book (Lifetide published in 1979) more carefully. He admits that ?one has to gather the rest of the story from personal anecdotes and bits of folklore among primate researchers, because most of them are still not quite sure what happened. So I am forced to improvise the details.' Watson then speculates that ?an unspecified number of monkeys on Koshima were washing sweet potatoes in the sea' - hardly the level of precision one expects. He then makes this statement:'Let us say, for argument's sake, that the number was 99 and that on 11:00 am on a Tuesday, one further convert was added to the fold in the usual way. But the addition of the hundredth monkey apparently carried the number across some sort of threshold, pushing it through a kind of critical mass." At this point, says Watson, the habit (of washing potatoes) 'seems to have jumped natural barriers and to have appeared spontaneously on other islands' (1979, pp. 2-8).

Let's stop right there. Scientists do not "improvise" details or make wild guesses from 'anecdotes' and 'bits of folklore'. In fact, some scientists did record exactly what happened. The research began with a troop of twenty monkeys in 1952, and every monkey on the island was carefully observed. By 1962, the troop had increased to 59 and exactly 36 of the 59 monkeys were washing their sweet potatoes. The ?sudden' acquisition of the behavior actually took 10 years, and the 'hundred monkeys' were actually only 36 in 1962. Furthermore, we can speculate endlessly about what the monkeys knew, but the fact remains that not all of the monkeys in the troop were exhibiting the washing behavior. The 36 monkeys were not a critical mass even at home. And while there are some reports of similar behavior on other islands, the observations were made between 1953 and 1967. It was not sudden, nor was it necessarily connected to Koshima. The monkeys on other islands could have discovered this simple skill themselves, for example, or inhabitants on other islands might have taught them. In any case, not only is there no evidence to support this extraordinary claim, there is not even a real phenomenon to explain."

Get out of the Ideal or Conceptual world. You have forgotten disinterest, and basic entropy. Information can, when no counter forces present, spread ideally at a geometric rate. But that isn't what tends to happen. Otherwise, everyone would know how to program in COBAL, C, and BASIC. And no human would be illiterate.

---StarPilot

IQ increases every generation. It is not explained by generic natural selection. It can be explained by meme selection in the CollectiveIntelligence. Intelligence IS increasing geometrically. Unfortunately so is stupidity or viral memes that destroy information. Thankfully we can eliminate these memes by SkinnersLaw and win the EvolutionaryGameTheory game.

ObjectWiki will support all programming languages (e.g. via http UNIX primitive and WebServices) so that anyone can program our shared objects in any language they want and share their programs with us.

IQ increases with every generation? You talking about the current SumKnowledge of a species (like HumanBeings, HumpBackWhales, Ecoli, etc) or the Universal Knowledge or what? In Humans, our IQ is not increasing. It is dropping. Has been since at least the introduction of TeleVision (although that could just be because that's when somebody decided to start tracking it). While we have the capability for knowing more then our ancestors, the truth is that we don't. As a race, we seem to have forgotten as much as we learn. When Knowledge stops being of immediate use (and drops to Information), we loose it within a few generations. The Romans had concrete... but that knowledge was lost. The ancient Celt farmers had as high an agricultural yield as America's Breadbasket (Modern Farming and Irrigation techniques using genetically altered crops) without our Technological Knowledge. The Greeks had the SteamEngine and AtomicTheory, yet they had to be rediscovered, again and again before they entered our current SumKnowledge. The Ancient World had a world wide trade, with proven regular trade between South America and Africa and Asia, yet we forgot quickly about 'The New World's existence very quickly.

If we are talking about biological knowledge (genes, etc), we still find the same thing as with 'Human Technology' or Human SumKnowledge. Only the scale changes.

Now, Terra is only one small speck of dust in this great big universe, and it isn't good to use just one data point to make projections, however we can see in reality in the various systems around us that: When Knowledge loses its relevance, if it does not regain its relevance within a certain threshold, it is lost. While that knowledge may be reacquired at a later time, there is no guarantee that it will be.

---StarPilot

Better check your information sources....

Research shows that IQ gains have been mixed for different countries. But in general countries have seen generational increases between 5 and 25 points. There was the largest gains on the tests that measure fluid intelligence (reasoning)(Gf)over crystallized intelligence (learned) (Gc). %%% http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/flynneffect.html The trouble is that scientists are not quite sure exactly how to explain the gains, which have occurred on a wide variety of intelligence tests. Better nutrition, the increasing complexity of daily life, "smarter genes, video games and computerseven, goes one theory, the prevalence of mazes and word games on fast-food placemats and cereal boxesall may have played a role in boosting IQ power across time. %%% http://www.edweek.org/ew/newstory.cfm?slug=19iq.h21

There is clearly some social phenomenon involved and the potential for CollectiveIntelligence is rising.

And I think you'd better research your sources Statistical Methods. Studies are showing that extended use of computers, video games, television use... all such things "decrease" your IQ.

   'Breaking News'- IQ doesn't increase every generation. Or rather, the general intelligence isn't actually increasing significantly every generation. However, due to our current digital/information revolution, the basic problem solving skills that are highly valued on the IQ tests is being practiced more and more by each new generation with each video game and new interface (microwave, tv, vcr, dvr, etc etc etc). Check out the story at: http://http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/flynn.html   ---StarPilot

Then again, I think IQ is a crock. And studies have shown them to be aimed more towards measuring how well someone can do at test taking then actual problem solving or knowledge. And no, I do not say that as a person who scores 'low'. I say that as someone who scores 'off the top'. And being able to compare that experience against friends, family, and associates, my personal experience and observation is that they fail to measure anything except test taking.

-Our general cognitive abilities, when measured in how fast you learn, are going down in the First Nations. -Our general recall/memory abilities, when measured in how long you can recall a particular manner, are going down in the First Nations. -Our general knowledge of communicating, when measured in how easily we get a particular concept/thought/emotion across, is going down in the First Nations.

The reason? We practice those abilities less and less. We need them less compared to previous generations, and as a consequence, those abilities are just not being developed as much.

For a case study, investigate the Ghurkas from pre World War One to Now. While their general IQs have been coming up, as they've gone from sustenance living to a more modern living, their ability to learn, problem solve, and communicate have dropped, generation by generation. But boy, are they ever scoring better at test taking==== And this cycle is shown with any people that have been tracked as they have been 'Westernized' or 'Modernized'. (Whatever you want to call it.)

==

Its Statistical Games versus real world living and its known effects.

Both intelligence and stupidity are propagated in the world of memes. There are more KindsOfIntelligence than we can imagine. Currently we only measure a few, and those are increasing, including problem solving ability measurements. I don't deny that some are most likely decreasing or increasing more or less depending activities like TV or reading or test taking abilities. The studies I reverence are comprehensive in their scientific rigor and clearly not statistical aberrations. If you have real evidence to the contrary you must produce it. Words alone cannot negate the body of proof.

For much of the last century psychologists thought people got stupider throughout their lifetime because the test percentiles were adjusted to the new crop of kids. Flynn's work showed what the numbers really meant. Measurable intelligence does not drop throughout your lifetime the kids just get smarter. (Intelligence does drop generally after 50 mostly due to various age related maladies.)

It is important that we don't confuse real intelligence with measurable intelligence as more forms of intelligence are to be discovered. The point here is that these intelligences (and stupidities) are like computer programmes that are unconsciously communicated socially amoung people. Ideas have power and no ideas are more powerful ultimately than truth, for in the very long term the facts become self-evident. If WE can envision a successfully collaborating humanity based on sound principles, simplicity, and practicality we can actualize it by sharing it with others.

Intelligence is communicated? Then we are not even discussing the same 'concepts'.

Intelligence is the pure thinking ability of your big grey Delco in your head. While the thoughts you think using your Intelligence can be communicated, your Intelligence cannot be. It's a primary trait of your mental housing. Intelligence cannot be communicated any more then any other Primary Trait (such as Athletic Ability, Natural Coordination, Constitution, Artistic Ability).

As far as the IQ tests I've seen and familiar with... they are tests which are designed to be answered in a specific way by a specific bio-cultural group. This is a known problem with generating Metrics. First you have to decide what your Metrics are going to be. And in IQ tests, that Metric is a very skewed and narrow one. If we were to take all Mensa members and drop them in the Australian Outback and give them a Bushman's IQ test, they'd all fail completely. Unless you are talking about some other form of QUOTE intelligence UNQUOTE tests? I've never seen anything else other then very basic problem solving (Square Pegs, Round Holes, etc) test. Measuring known 'information' is not measuring 'Intelligence'. Remember that. I can craft a basic conversation program that can 'communicate' some basic form of 'information'. But that does not render 'Intelligence' into a software construct. I can code a basic algebra solving ability into a software program. Again, that does not render real 'Intelligence' (although at least it is some form of problem solving, but it's only a basic reflection of the algorithms I coded, no real 'Intelligence' entity).

A fly has 'Intelligence'. It might not be much, from our point of view, but it's there. A dog, cat, horse, and pig have 'Intelligence'. Significant enough, we use them as a general measure on our 'Intelligence Meter'. And they communicate, between individuals, and generations. Are you going to try and claim that each generation is smarter then the last? Or are you going to accept the truth... the children simply start with more current 'information' then previous generations?

'Truth' The Truth has no power. People choose to believe what they want over the Truth constantly. Truth isn't even viewed as a valuable thing by most of the World's cultures. If one views the World's Cultures as the mental entities of their participants (members), then the World Cultural's form Humanities Collaboration, as each member of humanity collaborates to some degree in that culture, and all human cultures collaborate (communicate, process, grow) with the World Culture... in viewing the World Culture/Humanity's Collaboration, Truth is an undesired and irrelevant happenstance of existence, and is more commonly treated as such then used in Humanity's Thought Processes.

Now, how are we going to get on close enough wave lengths and concepts that we might discuss this issue of test taking measuring how close an individual gets to expected results?

Or would you rather discuss Belief is Power or Truth versus Belief?

Now, aren't 'WE' already successfully collaborating? Via Humanity's Collaboration? So what 'WE' are after is what? A more direct collaboration between the individual and World Culture/Humanity's Collaboration? A less destructive means for settling disputes? More equal resource sharing? Our world collaborates every day. The Modern World Cultures are extremely collaborative (indeed, are extremely dependant on World Collaboration), and collaborate with the less industrialized nations/cultures as well (although in Dominate-Submissive roles, rather then as Equals). So what exactly is 'YOUR' goal then?

---StarPilot

I expect you think a person deprived of communication will be as intelligent and one in society. You want to maintain your notion of individual intelligence despite the evidence. I can't help you there. As long as you concede that collective intelligence is possible there is no reason to continue that battle over words.

But on reconsideration, it would be very wimpy of me to concede. We think we have said everything, we have started repeating ourselves, and want to give up. WAH==== Collaboration is too hard... but we can agree to disagree, that's CooperativeDiversity, no? No! The issue will continue to haunt us and we have the opportunity to resolve it now and grow as a result. A Vulcan mind meld might work. An impasse is a good opportunity to become the other. Om. Ah Ha! There are so many aspects to consciousness and intelligence being a collective or social phenomenon that I have not communicated, the words I have shared can't possibly convey the message!

==

First of all, the issue of increasing scores on IQ test can be disposed of. That is just scientific fact, but the interpretation completely subjective and not central to the issue. It has been a distraction. The data involved is from dozens of countries and hundreds of different tests measuring different types of intelligence some of which was knowledge based and some that was not. Your definition of Intelligence is that is not learned so the results are irrelevant. The same test results that show the intelligence increase also show the link to heredity. You statements that influences such as TV can affect intelligence contradict your definition but we can overlook that for now.

Your definition was popular until about 20 years ago and indeed heredity does play a large role in some forms of a larger class of mental skills that include what you call innate intelligence. If I describe some of these processes perhaps we can come up with an agreement on what to call them.

If someone learned a thousand problem solving techniques and could then solve lots of problems that would not be intelligence by your definition because it was learned. What should we call it?

If an algorithm solves some class of difficult problems using adaptive learning algorithms what do we call it?

If we write a computer program that can solve general problems what do we call it?

If WE can solve problems effectively together getting better solutions together than as individuals what do we call that? It clearly has little to do with heredity. I call it CollectiveIntelligence but it surely doesn't meet your criteria for intelligence.

Problem solving skills can be implemented in hardware or software. If they are hardware they are intelligent and if software they are not? How is the capability any different?

And what would you call cellular intelligence? http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/cellint0.htm

If we choose a different word or you can relax your definition to include all forms of problem solving capabilities then them we should be able to agree that the memes representing these processes can be communicated through genes or any other communication channel. Certain skill might require some brain rewiring to be accomplished real time but we are close to having the technology to do that too. Viruses, chemicals and cosmic rays reprogram our DNA all the time.

"Now, aren't 'WE' already successfully collaborating?"

No. Science is a farce, politics is a farce, and truth is a farce. Our economic system is in turmoil with per capita value in a down hill slide. I believe WE are headed for another major war and global devastation. WE are not the collective intelligence, WE are the collective stupidity. I suppose it could be worst, but what is worse than war and devastation?

Software development and general medical practice are in the dark ages. If your program crashes it doesn't kill anybody, but when the ubiquitous operating system everybody uses crashes constantly tremendous value is lost overall and the potential of the computer is not realized. ExtremeProgramming and Agile methodologies can help in this regard, but when your doctor treats you as a statistic rather than a unique organism, it can kill you.

Medical science, as opposed to general medical practice and the social and theoretical sciences is making great strides through effective scientific methods. WE are understanding more and more of the processes of the human body at a fantastic rate. We are even delivering genetic updates to specific organs by employing viruses to cure genetic defects. WE also engineer things magnificently, buildings, bridges, aircraft and even replacement body parts and can control single atoms and electrons. WE engineer so well it is getting very scary.

Unfortunately WE do not apply those successful engineering methodologies to other areas because we have not agreed on objective criteria.

The only hope I see is if WE can change the way WE think about things and work together objectively. I realize this is a long shot since everyone has already made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts, but it is worth a try. The SocialContract and DeclarationOfInterdependence along with better collaboration tools is the only hope I can see. I'm sure there are other good paths being taken by others and I hope to join with them.

WE need to proactively think in a manner that facilitates effective collaboration.

Memes propagate by logical progression, if it propagates to absurdity it is lost. If it propagates to truth it is reinforced. If you believe that if you drop something it will fall up, you will hopefully change your mind after it falls on your foot enough times.

Let us not deny the power of truth, let us grant truth its throne.

You can try, but it won't succeed against the common stupidity. That's our history. Not unless we can teach a lot more of the young ones...

'There are areas of success'
  And I would like to continue to focus our various World Cultures on improving on this.

When I speak of Intelligence, I do apply a narrow definition to it. I mean Innate Intelligence. The ability to self perceive (Self Awareness), self motivate (able to decide to 'get up and go'/'get up and do' on its own), and self analysis/recognize (inductive and deductive reasoning). I do not differentiate between Software and Hardware. I used Software as an example because I have in the past, and still occasionally, code data massagers. They manipulate information based on algorithms and then do something with that information, based on the results of algorithmic tests. That is not Intelligence.

'Does your narrow definition allow for CollectiveIntelligence?  So, by your definition a machine could never be intelligent, it must be programmed after all, it could not have any innate intelligence. But aren't humans exceedingly complex machines?'
   I find it funny you say that. I clipped out a response stating that I don't care if you call it Hardware, Software, or a combination, and that I'd be happy to admit that a self aware construct is alive.

   I consider us a bio machine. A complex one. Our awareness is our soul. Or at least, our Soul made manifest. It's probably silly, but it is what I think. In my viewpoint, any and all beings that are truly aware have souls. Some are merely larger then others. You are welcome to pick on me for that, but I'm pretty firm on that.

   My computer is not very Intelligent. In fact, it has no Innate Intelligence. One day, I may be the owner/parent/sponsor of a self aware computer (one that meets my requirements for Intelligence), but this is not it. It's a simple Turing device. It has no innate awareness. Nor self motivation.

'I must be pretty stupid, my self awareness was remedial at best.  I always have worn my feelings on my sleeve, but I was generally unaware of my own feelings.  It's taken a lifetime to become as aware as I am of myself today, but that is different than innate ability so it can't be intelligence?'

   You can practice, which sharpens your skills, yes? But that doesn't increase your Innate Intelligence. Just like practicing shooting basketball improves your skill at shooting a basket, but does not increase your ability to shoot a diver's spear gun.

   And as for you having to learn to be more actively conscious of your emotions and their effect on your conscious thinking... so? You've always had emotions. You become emotionally aware before we become casually aware. We are extremely adaptive beings. Since you've always had them, since before your conscious reached its logical functionality, you've had no reason to be aware of them. I have found in my own personal life experiences that it takes a very long time to become truly aware of the effect my emotional state has on my thinking. When I'm happy, I'm super optimistic (not quite manic, but still very up ;-). When I'm sad, I'm pessimistic. Took a lot of paying attention and self analysis for me to learn that though. No telling what I don't know, because my emotive element works on a different speed (much slower) then my casually aware layer.

I can take information and impart that information. That is not Intelligence. 'You can teach a cat to crap in a commode, but that doesn't make the cat more Intelligent.'

Now, I can help a cat achieve a (in my viewpoint) preferable behavior. Such as, don't eat my plants (or at least, don't eat my plants in front of me or any other humans). Again, this is not making the cat more Intelligent.

I taught one of my cats to play Fetch. It taught the young kittens that it was exposed to as well. I now have a small 'pride' of cats that will play Fetch, with each other or humans, when it amuses them. This is what you call 'Intelligence'? Yes. But the cats are no more Intelligent then before they learned to play Fetch.

 'Can you be sure that the learning exercise did not impart some problem solving capability? Oh never mind, your definition does not include that anyway.'

   'Because problem solving is the least element that makes up a 'Human Intelligence'. What's the largest portion? Well, if you've ever known people with the lack of serious problem solving ability, you probably didn't notice it. It's our emotional and general awareness that is what makes us seem 'Human' to each other. Emotive beings that respond and initiate. That's Self Awareness and Self Motivation. Logic Manipulation is the least aspect of Humanness. And what do we use for testing Human Intelligence? The least aspect of what all humans consider Intelligent Beings. If I had zero Logic Manipulative ability, people that deal with me would still find me Human. Just not very 'book smart'.'

   'Look, I love puzzles. So I've got a large mental storehouse of general puzzle pattern solutions. It's surprising how many puzzles use the same general lay out. When I solve such a puzzle, one based on a pattern I already know, I am not using my Innate Intelligence. There is no logic manipulation going on. Just memory recall. While such an exercise helps keep the puzzle pattern strong in my memory, it does not improve my Puzzle Skills, let alone improve my Intelligence. That puzzle pattern, when not being recalled to solve puzzles of its pattern, is just random information in my brain. It probably helps form part of my subconscious trash heap, since our brains are closed, 3 dimensional/holographic memory and computing systems (well, that's what I've been told, I don't know. I take the experts word for it).'

   'Math is the same way. What's 3 + 5  ? 8. What's 3 * 8  ? 24. That's simple rote, not logic manipulation. We get faster at recalling the information. We burn a brighter recall circuit, if you like. (it's higher up in our memory system for recall then say, your combination for a lock you had seven years ago, and only used for a year.) We still haven't improved Intelligence, have we?'

   'So, when do we improve Intelligence? When is it that you learn something that actually improves your innate Logic Manipulation? Self Motivation? Self Awareness? Anything that improves those improves your Intelligence. Anything that is just a change of information is not an improvement of Intelligence.'

Knowledge is not Intelligence. Intelligence is innate ability. Knowledge is just information that we think is relevant. Irrelevant information is called trivia, until you play a Trivia game and that knowledge becomes relevant. ;-) But in no cases does having more information mean your Intelligence has grown. It hasn't.

'True.  But do you think it is impossible for someone to learn how to think and solve problems?  Clearly some learn easier than others, but no one learns problem solving without life experiences.  Newborns and isolated sensory deprived animals and humans do not exhibit innate intelligence.'
   'Incorrect. Newborns, isolated sensory deprived animals (including humans) do not communicate, or communicate as well as their peers. A Newborn has the same Intelligence as when they are 30 (as long as they are alive at 30). A newborn simply cannot communicate to you in the same fashion as the average 30 year old human can. A newborn can communicate a few things. Other then that, they are busy being flooded with all the new sensory input. They just got all their hardware installed, and aside from hearing and a bit of touch, have zero experience with it. Makes a lot of difference. We are more then Intelligence. But even a Newborn can demonstrates it is Self Aware and is Self Motivating (I'm hungry. Crying sometimes fixes it. Therefore cry.) Remember, it takes experience with the hardware (body), as well as experience with the outside (Mom, everything else) for a Newborn to progress to a young Infant, to Toddler. They have to learn to mimic how we communicate to communicate with us in a way we perceive as more desirable/more intelligent, but they are as smart as they are ever going to be when they are born. To a small child, Mom is merely an extension of their self.

   You can make a case that learning to communicate improves Intelligence. And I'll agree with that. Learning to communicate improves one's Logic Manipulation. But very little else is shown to be able to do so. (I can recall nothing else at this time, but I know that I only have the smallest portions of What Is Or Can Be Known. :-)'

Trying to claim my Intelligence grew because I studied Trig is ridiculous. My brain does not resolve issues faster overall because I've learned a few mathematical/geometrical tricks.

One can improve one's personal information base. But that does not make you any more Intelligent. Remember... you can teach a cat to use the commode. But the cat isn't any more Intelligent because of it. Nor are you. You merely are more 'Socially Acceptable' to other humans.

Intelligence ===== Wisdom.

==

Wisdom is the knowledge gained through remembering the outcome of what was done before. Put hand into blazing fire, hand got hurt. Wisdom: Putting hand in fire hurt.

To use your implied defination of Intelligence means: Everything is intelligence. Information ===== Intelligence. Information is merely information.

==

'No.  information can contribute to effective problem solving and the ability to handle a lot of information is a kind of intelligence I would say.'
   'Then your definition is for Intelligence sounds ill-defined, or confused with other things to me. Intelligence is an Innate Ability. It is not knowledge, not is it anything of the realm of knowledge. Problem Solving is an easy thing to mistake as Intelligence, as it is : Easy to Measure (Solve these problems), and one can make it require Specialized Knowledge (If the Battery supplies 120 Volts in Diagram 1, Resistor X  15 Ohms, Resistor Y  1000 Ohms, Resistor Z =25 Ohms, and Pot AA is set at 400 Ohms in parallel first with Resistor X (serial to Y serial to Z back to battery), what is voltage drop on Resistor Y ?). Anything easy to measure is what we tend to use to do so, and to compare. (Remember... lines of code per day? That's a silly metric====). It sounds like you are after the Logic Manipulation of Innate Intelligence, combined with general information database. But when we talk of Human Intelligence (or for that matter, Whale Intelligence, Pig Intelligence, etc etc etc), I find WE mean: Logic Manipulation, Self Awareness, and Self Motivation.

==

   Again, anything displaying those three traits, WE recognize as 'Intelligent'. Regardless of the form it takes. We do not recognize ants as truly Intelligent. Why? They are a SuperOrganism, after all. Colony/Hive cooperating for the betterment of the entire hive. We can find the things ants do to be amazing (such as farming, herding, etc). All tasks we recognize as 'intelligent'. Yet, WE do not find ants Intelligent. Why? Lack of significant Logic Manipulation (compared to ours)? Our inability to communicate with us? WE seem to be deciding Bees are Intelligent. Why? Bee scouts communicate to the other Hive members where the food is. Why Bees and not Ants? Ants follow a chemical smell of food trail. We do not recognize chemical smells as a conscious way of communicating. So perhaps I need to re-appraise my Intelligence. Only, I believe the communication (Bee telling others at Hive) signals to us that the Bee is truly Self Motivating, rather then a Simple Turing Machine. WE know chemicals can be a stimulus on Simple Turing Machines, so therefore there isn't the communication to us of Self Motivation.

   Yeah, I know I'm just hanging out flame bait. But that's my current viewpoint. I do re-appraise on new information. :-D

Having Intelligence does not mean acting in an intelligent manner. That's because acting 'intelligent' is acting in a subjective matter that is more acceptable to a person who is judging the manner being acted. Subjective matters are not shared equally because they are not empirical, and hence, universally acceptable into each human's personal information base.

Truth has no bearing on memes. Accept where applied to you, specifically, as you place value on what you perceive as truth. But you understand that there isn't such a thing as truth, if I followed your ClassicalLogic. Strange, isn't that? However, you should be aware that the general HumanAnimal doesn't place that value on truth, and hence, when memes are going through those beings, a memes that is appealing to them is much more likely to 'replicate' then one based on 'truth'. Unless it appeals to them.

'It's more appealing to think that if you put your hand in the fire it will feel good.  So why doesn't everybody believe that.  It is only in the long long term that truth wins.  Someone who believe the only way to save our planet is to rid the planet of the human infestation won't believe otherwise unless we actually implement a sustainable future.'
   Is it? I think the first time or three someone sticks their hand in the fire is to experience what it would feel like. Small flame can be interesting, visually. Flowing/falling water is interesting, after all. Why wouldn't fire be similar? That's expectations of future are based on past performance. :-D Just as with the stock market, it isn't a reliable guide. But it is one we use consistently. What else could WE learn?

I do not see our world about to destroy itself. Maybe I'm an optimist? Or maybe, I just don't want to accept it. Only time will tell. :-D However, I am quite happy to continue on here, helping to form a better system then what was in place when I was born. I suppose this is the best we can hope for?

'Turn on the news, read the papers, people were in denial before both world wars.  What is different now?'
   For one thing, we are doing, rather then going, oh, that's way over there. Our government wasn't even taking much of a hand for a long time on the matters proceeding WW1. For another, no one is really concerned with territory. There is no new Hitler grabbing up some land here, some land there. And the Japanese are trying to copy our current method of Imperialization, rather then using war to take of the raw resources to make it easier/cheaper to turn raw materials into worked goods for exporting.

   Need more examples of how this is different from before?

If we cannot agree, is that because: There is nothing to agree to? It's not really important in the first place? We haven't enough experience with the problem?

'But IamAnAsshole. Actualizing a CollectiveIntelligence requires agreement on terminology at least. WE can't even agree what intelligence is. I think your definition is outdated and misleading.  It's a remnant of the psycho-physiological models of the first half of the last century.  It is a myopic view that lacks functional value.'

per capita value ? That's a statistical game. You aren't supposed to buy into statistical games. Too easy to put on the presentation of 'truth' when not coming anywhere near it.

'The statistics ARE scary, but my belief here is routed in life experience not statistics.  In the 50s a family lived were on the income of one laborer.  They bought a house that they actually paid off, had a car, refrigerator, radio, washing machine, toaster, etc. etc. etc.  The first house I lived in cost $10K, a two to 5 year salary for the average person.  That same house today sells for $350K, 7 to 20 years salary for the average Joe working 9 to 5.  Logically, with economies of scale and improved technology we should be working 3 day weeks as we all expected.  Instead, the opposite has happened, two household members must work long hours to attain even sustenance living.'
   I don't trust statistics, to be honest. I'm quite willing to use them in a debate, but they are generally more sleight of hands then they are distilled truth or amalgamation of how it is/was.

   And what you are talking about is called... Greed. Pure and simple. That's human self interest and capitalization at work.

Software Development is in the dark ages? Now that, I think is just plan dog doo. My SoftwareMoJo is just fine. And I pass it along to others. I am always looking to improve my MoJo, but that's because the fun for me is in the journey, not the destination. However, when I employ my MoJo, my software works (and generally robust), is maintainable, and takes human users into consideration. A far cry from cave paintings or a yeoman's wood carving. Maybe not up to Da Vinci... but then again, maybe it is. What Software Artist dares say otherwise? My customers are very happy. ;-)

'and so are the patients of witchdoctors, lol.  I'm not saying people don't write good programs, though they don't even teach computer science in schools anymore, they teach the computer programming trade instead.  Groups write bad software.  Your programs are the exceptions, most programs are buggy, hard to use, any only marginally useful for the task at hand.  The more they spend on them the more huge and monolithic they become requiring bigger and faster computers the more they crash.  In 1967 we ran complete businesses, payroll, accounts payable, inventory, maintenance, sales analysis, operation research using integer and linier programming optimizations, etc. etc. on a one megahertz machine with 8K of memory.  I don't remember it ever crashing except when did something stupid in assembly language.  Our standards have gotten really low.' -- JimScarver

lol|==== Well, maybe I am witch-doctor, and my customers just don't know it. :-D My SoftwareMoJo has gone through 25 years of professional use, and it has certainly gone through many stages. I used to be professional C Slinger. You know, the guy hired to come in and code the project because it was 90% done its schedule, but only 20% done. My code stunk to highest parts of heaven then... I was paid to code something that worked, and met what I was told was its requirements. Speed being completed and functioning was all that mattered. I'd hate to be the guys trying to enhance that. I had my own style and it was unique... it worked, but it was a total different mindset from any project it was married to. I had plenty of customers wanting my skills though, especially afterward. When I worked on projects that brought in C Slingers early, I was willing to use their methodology, at least until Crunch Time. But that was rare. However, since I left the life of free lance C Slinger and moved over to Permanent Employee( Permanent Contract Employee of NASA ) , I've changed code styles accordingly. Gone is the slam, slam, slam out that code. In is writing code that is easy for anyone with any basic knowledge of C or C++ being able to look at and instantly comprehend what it is doing, with a balance towards avoiding most common typo errors. Nice change of pace. (I always built my interfaces with Human Use in mind, regardless.) So... I'd say from yeoman's wood carving to a Master's piece of work. No need for anyone else to agree though. Everything past: it works, it is easily maintainable, and its interface is designed for the most efficient/easiest comprehension for the average user is nothing but ego, anyways. :-) And yes... I do all the forbidden/taboo things at work. I communicate with my customers. And their customers. You know, to understand what they are after, and why. This is very forbidden for some reason in most of the work I've done for the Gov'mint. I still haven't figured that out.

==

I've recently had a chance to compare Software Design with other Creational Arts. The processes are extremely similar. The only real differences between Designing a System and Doing An Oil Landscape is that we get paid to do a job with the so many particulars are already given(a brown duck, black duck, 3 pink flamingos are supposed to be on the lake. Use this canvas. Cover up that top stuff, but don't change anything about it. There should be penguins in the cabin. Make the log cabin made from pine and sequoias. Yadda yadda blah). Not just 'turn this photo into an Oil for my living room'. The similarities to writing a Novel I find particularly striking.

I agree that the Science for Design is really in the communicating between people. Just like when you have 100 people making a mile long mural, you need communication to get the job done well, in a form that was initially conceptualized. Otherwise, you are most likely just going to get a big mess of nothing of value.

---StarPilot