Hi Magnus, Magnus to Bo: >Yes, I guess we did agree about that, but not if we extrapolate from there. We >agree that "intelligence" is not the 4th level. However, you argue that the >4th >level is the S/O distinction, whereas I would say that memories, the content >of >a book, or any other representation are intellectual patterns. > >"Thinking" on the other hand would be dynamic juggling of intellectual >patterns. > Throwing them together and causing dynamic intellectual quality events. I >still have no idea why other people can neither understand nor accept this >obvious description. There's no need to involve history, greeks, cavemen or >whatever.
Steve: I like this discription of thinking, but I don't think that thinking is as completely dynamic as you seem to suggest. I think that most thinking is simply participating in well-established patterns of rationalization. Would you agree that thinking like all experience can be thought of as having both dynamic and static components. Magnus: >A "thought" can represent social value, it can determine a man's action and >thereby affect his social value. But it *is* NOT social value in itself, not >metaphysically. This is a very crucial distinction that most people here seem >to >have missed. Steve: I think this is right on. Regards, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
