[Willblake2] Thank you for your responses below. I will reply with a few comments up here. You hit it on the head with feedback loop. I can't grasp intelligence as anything but that. Our description of the world happens through a neuronal interpretation of stimuli. We are able to find like minded humans with the same interpretation and stick together as a herd.
[Krimel] More or less but I don't think we have to look hard to find likeminded humans. We are born into their company. The idea that becoming enculturated is brainwashing seems to me to do more to ennoble brainwashing than to demean enculturation. I would say that parent who do not seek to teach their children how to act in society are negligent. There is even research to suggest that permissive parents who allow their children to "find their own way" actually do their kids a disservice. [Willblake2] To think that it is somehow more than that requires a leap of faith on my part, which I take often. It comes down to the age old question of duality. As I've said before, from a strictly physical (or biological) perspective, our consciousness is the same as that of an anthill, the same mechanisms are at play. It is great to realize that. [Krimel] I think I see what you are getting at but this is a bit of exaggeration as I see it. Certainly there are those who have argued that the anthill is the true organism in the ant species. But even given the chemical nature of ant communication there are serious differences in the structure of ant colonies that are not even remotely like a nervous system. Chief among these, I suspect, is that the physical proximity of individual neurons is largely static while ants wander dynamically. Memory appears to result from improvements in the efficiency of patterns neuronal firing. In ant colonies I would say that all "memory" is genetically encoded. [Willblake2] "Meaning" for me is a feeling of belonging, it has different levels of intensity, or different levels of truth. It is nothing more than that. I agree with what you said. [Krimel] I think that the 'feeling' associated with meaning is relief. Uncertainty is scary at its worst and annoying even in small quantities. Uncertainty makes us uncomfortable, agitated and disconnected. Mythos and Logos are both techniques for reducing this discomfort. [Willblake2] I think sophistication is way overblown, it is a self admiration society. It is creating complexity out of simplicity, believing that what is is more if more words are used. It is an exclusive society developed from too much free time. [Krimel] I am not sure exactly what you are getting at here. I am a bit put off by pretence myself, which I am sure some here will find ironic. But I think one of the great advances of the past century was the growing understanding of how complexity can arise from simplicity. From the three body problem to the Mandelbrot set we can see that it does not take a complex set of conditions to produce complex interactions. I find this revolutionary. It actually should mean that more complex concepts could be expressed in fewer words. But I fear you are right it never seems to work out that way. [Willblake2] Being a generalist is great, "jack of all trades", a dabbler. I take that approach with many things because there is not enough time. However, I find great beauty in the minute detail. I believe it was Camus at the end of The Stranger who said he could live a whole lifetime remembering what was in his cell. [Krimel] Well, in my own defense I have "mastered" several trades well enough to be paid to do them but I have never seen any of them as defining more than a small part of who I am. As I recall the "hero" of The Stranger was pathologically divorced from his own emotions but suffice it to say that in this respect I have more affection for landscapes than still-lifes. [Willblake2] I would be careful about using "weirdo" as it is not PC and may offend some of the weirdos reading this post. I also love the science fiction literature, and find philosophy in it. Lately I read through Neal Stephenson's books (except Anathem, which I just borrowed from the library). Another author that I would recommend if you are looking for weird is Haruki Murakami. He is a Genius. Today I am reading Thomas Pynchon's, Against the Day, it has lots of period specific stuff from the turn of the 19th to 20th century. He is a remarkable author, but difficult. [Krimel] I think most true weirdos take a bit of pride in the label. Thanks for the reading tips, I am always looking for good authors. Pynchon has been on my list for a long time but I never seem to get around to him. I have not been reading much fiction this year. I usually try to get to some fiction because it boosts my reading speed which tends to decline with more serious fare. It is creeping to a standstill these days. [Willblake2] I like the esoteric literature, but have to remember to keep it in context. [Krimel] Back to the art metaphor, if esoteric literature is fingerpainting, science is photography. They both have their esthetic value. I think it is a bit like Bohr's complementarity between truth and clarity. 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/
