Hi Bo
The key word is "data". Any data is always an intellectual pattern
(representing something else via language).
The Neanderthal race (who did not have language) did not give names
to their "data", yet they surely knew their way in their world, so their
sense datas were processed (not just the visual ones) in many ways.
They knew that one object was X and another was Y, so all
interpretation/processing of ALL sense data must be "intellect".
Yes. And I acknowledge the importance of that ability so much that I think it
deserves a level of its own. In fact, it's impossible to make heads or tails of
the levels in the lower part of the development of life if you don't. When you
claim that this "intellect" has nothing to do with the intellectual level, you
simply close your eyes to those problems and shove it down to the biological
level. That's not a solution Bo! It's just hiding from them.
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.
Good, but who speaks of "simple"? It was as rich and varied as
anything we can muster.
It sounds very different when you usually speak of it. "Myths" sounds kind'a
autonomous to me.
Of course the stone agers did not regard their myths as explanations,
that's the very point. The subjective explanation as different from
objective reality IS intellect itself - one of its many aspects.
No.
I object strongly, the skeptical attitude is intellect's and intellect's alone.
I've read reports by anthropologists who have stayed among stone age
tribes (our Fredrik Barth in New Guinea) and what characterize these
is their all-encompassing myths, even the overflying airliners were
incorporated in it, the lack of "skeptics" were total. Look to Sabine
Müeller's (The Jungle Child) story about her sojourn with her parents
in New Guinea, how she herself turned a full-fledged native.
Then one interesting question arises. Who made these myths up? Who saw the
airliners often enough to start incorporating them in the myths?
But that's really beside my main point. Those people use intellectual patterns
every day even without the myths. What you are talking about is the rules of the
"tribe". I'm claiming that the "people" of the tribe need intellectual patterns
to work as a human being.
> 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.
I've said that before, so that shouldn't be new to you. What you don't realize
is that it's compatible with my reasoning about individual people's intellect,
AI, cell societies 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.
>
> 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.
I'm not talking about a game with words! I'm talking about really interesting
stuff.
* like how we must reason to possibly one day find out what's happening inside a
black hole
* that the reason why our physical rules break down inside a black hole is
because all spatial patterns "decompiles". It's basically what happens when a
living being dies, except it happens a few levels down.
* It gives us a framework in which to reconcile our older analogue physical
rules with the newer abstract quantum rules.
etc, etc, etc
> 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.
"Explains it all"?? No, Bo. I can go so far as to admit that it *excuses* all,
but it offers no explanation whatsoever.
>> 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,
??? What??
And also, Why???
There *is* no S/O premise in the MoQ. It's just your version that has one,
you've buried it inside the intellectual level but it's still there.
> 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.
Only in your view.
>> 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
No! It's *not* S/O, it's two different types of patterns. One intellectual
pattern representing another pattern. The intellectual pattern can be in a
computer or on a paper, it doesn't have to be in a *subject* (if you by subject
mean a thinking person).
It becomes something like IntPOV/OtherPOV
(Intellectual pattern of value / other pattern of value).
> and leads the
> MOQ into a labyrinth where everything becomes intellect.
Wrong again. How on earth do you arrive at that conclusion?
> Pirsig
> started this error by his statement that the MOQ is an intellectual
> pattern.
Take his word for it. On this, he's completely right.
> 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. ;-)
Sorry. I'd have to give up all the fun parts about the new lower levels, AI and
lots of other stuff, so I'm afraid I have to decline.
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/
