Glass Bees discussion

[Thomas Friese <tfriese@eumeswil.org>]

Dear List members,
Great to see the response to the Glass Bees discussion invitation - however I should have made it clear that the meeting is a "real" meeting!! I sent the note hoping that someone on the list might actually live in Vancouver and could so join us. That said, it might also be possible to combine the two formats or merely set up a virtual meeting in addition. I would love to do something of the kind.   I could easily share the conclusions/reflections/difficulties of the meeting here with the list. Or we could set up a parallel and independent discussion on the list. That would also suit me - all your informed opinions would certainly contribute greatly to our discussions here. Suggestions?

Thomas Friese

PS We got stuck last night here on this paragraph in the Bogen/Meyer translation. The narrator, in describing Zapparoni's first automatons, says: 

	"On the smaller scale they gave the impression of intelligent ants, distinct units working as mechanisms, that is, not at all in a purely chemical or organic fashion. This was one of Zapparoni's business principles, or if you will, one of the rules of his game. When faced with two solutions, it seemed as if he almost always preferred the more subtle one. This corresponded with the trend of the times, and he was not the worse for it." p.6

We talked for hours on the concept of intelligence in the first sentence. 
Where does the intelligence lie - in the individual unit or in the team of units. The analogy is after all ants. How are ants intelligent? Or bees for that matter?
Secondly, why is this solution the more subtle one? What alternatives is EJ implying here?
Any comments on this or the passage in general? I wonder how the original words it?