Hi Bo
For the benefit of us mortals please present the solution to you own
riddle. You originally asked:
What type of pattern is the observed data of a falling stone?
The key word is "data". Any data is always an intellectual pattern (representing
something else via language).
Bo before:
Well, this your "instant philosophy" is beyond me, the social level
had/has lots of explanations - from the "primitive" animated world
to modern religions with god-created worlds.
It's the intellectual description of the social level that may explain
certain social behavior. But a social pattern is just a certain
valuable way by which many "things" cooperate as one and doesn't
include an explanation in itself.
If we hark back to the Stone Age, people inhabiting a region had their
special myth (explanation) on the emergence and destiny of the world.
Was this the intellectual LEVEL at work?
Yes, and no. And if you had paid attention in the past, and when reading my
essay, you might have a clue why there are two answers.
I've said this before here, as an offer to join our differences (except for the
SOL part), but I don't think you ever replied. But I'll try again:
Ok, the stone age. Your view of that is a simple society of humans in which all
their actions were governed by myths that have developed over the eons leading
up to the said age. This is one way to look at it, and a valid one. And in this
view, the myths governing their actions are social. But to them, those myths are
not *explanations*, they are simply the way they have always done and the way
they will continue to do things. It's not until we look back at that society
and, as Marsha would probably put it, conceptualize their society, that we can
talk about a "social explanation" for their actions. But it's not really a
"social explanation", it's an intellectual explanation explaining how their
society worked.
But there *is* another way of looking at the whole scenario, and that is to view
each member of that stone age society as a walking, talking, thinking
individual. As such, each member of the society is by itself capable of
supporting intellectual patterns, and I bet more than one stone age teenager
questioned those myths and thought out alternatives that would probably have
worked just as well, if not better, than the myth way. However, the society was
always stronger and it's not until the Greeks that anyone mustered up enough
evidence to start changing things. (Although I'm pretty certain that this
happened long before then, but perhaps not historically documented.)
I know you disregard the *other* way to look at it, but that's the only way I
can solve certain problems that has been nagging me from the very first time
here, including AI and other dilemmas. But as you said, you don't think the MoQ
has much to say about such things, or how biology does what it does, etc.
This leads me to suspect that you disagree with one of the first statements in
my essay, that metaphysics should be able to lead science. If we do things your
way, the MoQ doesn't need to prove anything nor explain anything, and I just
don't see what the point would be in that case.
What I'm offering is a MoQ that can explain all the things you think it can
explain, i.e. human societies and their development, *plus* all the rest of our
reality. So I'm still dumbfounded as to why you keep fighting me.
Or is the gist of your above that the MOQ - its system of levels - is an
intellectual description, thus when we speak about the various levels'
patterns they are "intellect" regardless.
The key word here is "about". When we speak "about" something, we are throwing
intellectual pattens back and forth between us, and those intellectual patterns
represent the other patterns which we are discussing. I don't see the mystery.
> Waiting
Me too. I'm waiting for your reply regarding my questions about your
non-solution of the stone's existing problem.
Here's what I think. I think your MoQ is only sufficient to discuss problems in
a very abstract way. But as soon as we get down to earth it simply doesn't work
anymore, which is why you say your MoQ doesn't have anything to say in these
matters.
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/
