The different cells for very small collection of cells may not need to
communicate their intentions between each other; the animal may work
well anyway. But as the animal grows, different parts of the animal
must sometimes tell another part what to do, perhaps to synchronize
movement in a certain direction. This gets done by using the means
available to the animal, such as sending causing the receiving cells
to autonomously do something. This sending of signals to make the
animal work 'as a whole' is still social value
A body uses many means of signals, hormones for instance, but these
are INORGANIC to the core. Reading a chemical substance as a
biological experience (sensation) is 2nd. level's VALUE!!!!!!.
As the signals are socially valuable, they must of course also have both
biological and inorganic value. Nothing strange about that.
But denying that a collection of cells is social value requires you to explain
why they stick together in the long run. Why doesn't each cell just follow its
own biological urges and leave?
After yet some generations, the animal grows even larger and these
signals that are sent back and forth through its body, the nervous
system, gets concentrated in one central knot which most signals
pass through on their way from sender to receiver. Here is where the
intellectual level steps in. The central knot in the nervous system
gets larger and larger and can accommodate more and more complex
behavioral patterns. But it's still just a social pattern since the
sole purpose of the central knot is to make the different parts of
the body cooperate better.
Intellect occurring when brains started to form??. There are many
brain layers, four I seem to remember starting with the reptile kind and
this is many million years old. The final neo-cortex layer was in place
with Cro-Magnon people fifty thousand years ago and by no twist of
logic was the Q intellect level around, not even at the latter time.
I wasn't talking about intellect, but "the intellectual level". And you know
very well that our notions of the intellectual level is very different. But if
you persists in staying in your corner of the universe, you'll never be able to
understand my notion, much less present any viable arguments against it.
The really new pattern, an intellectual pattern, is created when
this central nerve knot is big enough to store dynamic information,
information that represents something else than itself. As I said
earlier, as long as the signals passing through, and being handled
by, the central nerve knot, are merely biological nerve signals that
will cause the receiver to act a certain way, then the signal only
means itself. It doesn't have any other meaning or purpose. But when
the nerve knot can store information about other things, such as a
dangerous smell that must be avoided even though it may smell good,
then we're talking intellectual patterns.
Nothing of this is "intellect" rather INTELLIGENCE. The capacity to
store an play back experience as RAM we agree about. This gave rise
to intellect's notion of a mental "mind" realm. In other words
INTELLECT occurred when experience was divided in an inner
subjective component and an outer objective one, but that only
occurred with the Greeks in our hemisphere..
The problem with your talk about "intellect" vs "intelligence" is that they,
according to you, has no relevance to your own intellectual level. This makes it
extremely hard to know what you mean.
But I think the gist of it is that you think the intellectual level appeared
when the Greeks pointed at the difference between the mind and the outer world,
whereas I think the "mind" they pointed at requires intellectual patterns in the
first place.
But why would such a - academic some may claim - difference give
rise to a whole new level of existence? If we use a computer
analogy, the difference is merely one of storing info in ROM vs RAM.
ROM is Read Only Memory and is written when a device is manufactured
but can never be changed, RAM on the other hand is normally emptied
each time a device is shut off but are quickly filled with dynamic
information once the computer starts.
This correct enough and something you know a lot about, but this is
not a new Q level of existence, not the social and least of all not
intellect, animals surely display various stages of INTELLIGENCE and
have a rich inner life (in dreams for instance).
Yes, and that inner life requires intellectual patterns. Pointing at it (as SOM
does) is just proof of an advanced inner life, but it's still just that, an
inner life.
Take another social pattern, like a country, and you find another
language that has developed socially, just like the language of the
nervous system. As soon as the language is in place, intellectual
institutions such as government can use it to enforce intellectual
rules instead of social. But note that the country's intellectual
patterns are still very dependent on that language. If everyone in
China just suddenly forgot how to talk and read Chinese, the country
China would collapse rather rapidly. And before the Rosetta stone
was found, with the translation between ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs
and classical Greek, all the information written in hieroglyphs was
unreadable, and as such of no intellectual value. But when it could
be understood, when we had the language with which the information
was represented, the intellectual patterns reappeared.
"Another language that has developed socially? There is only one kind
of language (disregard "programming languages", "body language",
"nature's language and such metaphors) and it's originally a social
pattern, but all levels uses the lower patterns for their own purpose
and language is an important tool at the 4th. level, but is NOT intellect.
I didn't say language is intellect. I say it's the stage set by the social level
to enable intellectual patterns.
As soon as the language is in place, intellectual institutions such as >
government can use it to enforce intellectual rules instead of social.
But note that the country's intellectual patterns are still very
dependent on that language"
"The term "government" may be intellectual - having a democratic ring
to it - but ancient and present day non-intellect cultures surely had/has
ruling groups and all they did/do is promoting social value. Intellect is
dependent on language in the sense of intellect is out of society.
I agree. There are many examples of non-intellectually driven societies in the
world. Just as there are many non-intellectually driven animals, such as ants
and bees. I also agree that intellect is dependent on language, I just have a
broader notion of what constitutes a language/society.
Thanks for reading this far. I hope you got a new perspective on the
levels from this inquiry. Even if I can't convince everyone to adopt
exactly my division, perhaps I can at least trigger a level
discussion based on science instead of limited personal
observations.
Thank you Magnus what an asset you could have been to the MOQ,
had you dropped your scientific approach and donned the
metaphysical. Science=intellect and intellect is a subset of the MOQ,
that plain fact you ought to observe.
How would a metaphysical approach be different than a scientific?
Magnus
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/
