Hi Magnus The last sentences of your 25 Sep. post:
> 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. The "other way" I commented. About stone age teenagers being skeptical regarding their myths - in the sense of "may there not be natural explanation to the observed phenomena" I don't buy. The world as an inert realm only obeying natural laws is intellect through and through. However your about the Greeks as some turning point I see as some reconciliation between our decade old differences. > 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. I see your point. Pirsig suggests a Quality variety of all scientific disciplines and gives the example of a Q physics (B values precondition A) and says that no instrument will read differently. However as I see it science is intellect and the said Q variants will only be cumbersome. "Give unto Caesar ... etc". But I strongly object to the MOQ not explaining anything. It's static level hierarchy explains it all, in contrast to SOM's "matter that eventually spawns mind" (materialist) or "mind that has spawned both" (idealist) that creates a mess. > 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. A MOQ that profess to be a better science (which is intellect, be it a pattern or the whole level) will become part of its S/O premises, while the MOQ that has science as part of its intellectual level will still have an impact on science nevertheless. All research is p.t. rooted in SOM's premises and for 99% it does not matter, but regarding Artificial Intelligence its "consciousness out of matter" blocks it completely. Bo before: > > 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. This contains everything that our differences are about. My thesis is that this sounds obvious from inside MOQ's 4th. level, but seen from the MOQ the "explanation-about-something" distinction is one of intellect's many S/Os. Thus "explanations as intellectual patterns" and/or "representing other patterns " is S/O to the core and leads the MOQ into a labyrinth where everything becomes intellect. Pirsig started this error by his statement that the MOQ is an intellectual pattern. Intellect is a MOQ "patterm". If you understand this point (and I hope so for you are a formidable metaphysician) we don't have far to go before our paths meet in a supercollision where we either fly apart or fuse. ;-) Bo 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/
