Permaculture Information Web

[Sean Maley <semaley AT yahoo.com>]

The Tao is just a name, but the way is something else
entirely.  The fact that computers use only what can
be named isn't so much a limitation of computers, but
more our human ability to describe and convey
information.  The computer can not think for us, but
can only be used to help us think better.  This should
comfort anyone concerned about artificial
intelligence; I consider it yet another ego trip for
man kind (ever think about describing just what it
means to be intelligent or even concious?).

Whether it is creating a context to put us in a more
useful context, or to goad us into considering many
contexts, we first have to explain to ourselves what
we need for thinking better.  The "techie" details are
the easy part.  Good computer programs are just a
conduit for human expression; the web, spreadsheets,
word processors, publishing, project management,
drawing, designing, etc.

I'm hearing Species (not just plants) have
Relationships depending upon the Context of a given
Bio-region, Micro-climate, and Time of year.  Is this
correct?  Could we say that a Guild is a collection of
Species having a collective net regenerative (positive
feedback) Relationship?  A guild is a community of
species offering a harvest?

This might seem overly simplistic, but this is the
starting point for developing the pattern language
which becomes our tool.  Once we have the players,
then we can talk about what each knows about
themselves and identify their role within the meta
community.  If it helps, don't look at this as an
exercise to develop a repository of knowledge, but as
an exercise to develop a way to use it.


-Sean.

--- Stephanie Gerson <sgerson AT stanfordalumni.org>
wrote:

> Amen.
> 
> Thank you Heide, for your insightful and provocative
> posts!  (I suggest we all
> re-read her words at the bottom of this email.)  A
> few things:
> 
> -I agree that it would be an overwhelming task to
> develop an entirely new (and
> more function-oriented) taxonomy.  However, in the
> process of developing this
> (dynamic) database, we may observe such a taxonomy
> emerge (and co-evolve)
> organically…
> 
> -How can we define relationships as +/-,
> synergistic/antagonistic – when
> this seems to change with level of magnification?  A
> relationship appears
> antagonistic when observing one particular organism,
> and appears synergistic
> when observing the ecological context (Heide’s
> butterfly example as a case
> in point).  Will we therefore have different levels
> of 'zoom' – allowing
> users to zoom into (organism-scale) or out of
> (ecosystem-scale) ecological
> relationships?
> 
> -I’d like to reiterate Heide’s words, “I've
> thought about this a lot and
> finally decided not to worry about categories, but
> to describe the
> relationships.  Too much is lost by trying to fit
> organisms and dynamic
> relationships into tight little boxes.  That's not
> how life works.  And that's
> why we don't have much easily accessible information
> on exactly these things. 
> Which is the reason for developing this database in
> the first place.  So let's
> not condemn it to superficiality right from the
> start.”  Yes, exactly.  This
> database will inspire users to think *systemically*
> - in terms of ecological
> relationships versus discrete (no such thing)
> components.  As I mention in
> grant proposals, PIW is a manifestation of the
> paradigm shift from
> reductionism to holism, which will be reflected in
> its structure.
> 
> -However, as Rich and Sean point out, computers Love
> categories and discrete
> components.  I wonder, is this the way computers are
> intrinsically, or is this
> the way we’ve trained them to be?  Would it be
> possible to develop a
> computer language/database structure conducive to a
> more analog/continuous way
> of organizing information?  Would it be possible to
> develop computers that
> Love webs and relationships instead?
> 
> -And thanks Matthew, for your suggestion.   Yes, we
> have discussed
> testimonials and rating systems.  But, I do prefer
> your description of it as a
> “mass repository for folk wisdom” better.
> 
> Thanks again to everyone for such stimulating
> discussion.
> 
> peace
> *Stephanie
> 
> p.s.  Others might be interested in checking out
> Heide's database - Heide,
> would you be willing to show it to others on this
> list?
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: 07:21 AM PST, 02/11/2005
> From: Heide Hermary <heide.hermary AT gaiacollege.ca>
> To: Permaculture Information Web
> <piw AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [piw] Q2: what criteria do we want to
> record for plants.
=== message truncated ===



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com