[FRIAM] OK. That's funny.

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

FWIW, I'm not trying to *assert* collective intention (or higher-order intention). The idea that a collection of intentions exhibits a relatively closed "floor" or "logical layer of abstraction" below ... so that the structure of a collective of intentional agents may well be self-organized in the same way a group of non-intentional objects like molecules or grains of sand might self-organize.

But my intuition argues that that "floor" is not tightly closed ... that there is a LOT of leakage from the intentions of the agents into the "intention" of the collective. For that sort of reasoning, this paper is interesting:

  Collective (Telic) Virtue Epistemology
  https://philpapers.org/rec/CARCTV


On 8/5/20 8:15 AM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
> [...]
> But the idea that corporations are self-organized is dissonant. Keeping my (tiny) company going all these years (we turn 20 next year!) has been anything *but* self-organized ... or even organized at all. 8^D It's very much an extension of my will power, from the state of OR trying to fine me $60k for claiming my out-of-state contractors were actually employees, to having years long negotiations collapse because we (apparently) don't use "standard accounting procedures", it's an *intentional* act at every turn.
> 
> Now, a behemoth like Google or Bechtel might have some self-organizing elements somewhere in the middle scale, where bureacracy meets bureaucracy in the same corporation. But even there, I'm skeptical. It definitely has that stigmergic accumulation. But intention/will is ubiquitous in such beasts so that it doesn't feel like what we mean by "self-organization".


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ