Hi again uncle Carl (i had an uncle with that [first] name.
I had said:
> > OK, I tried to say that INTELLIGENCE occurred with biological neural
> > complexity AKA "brain". So plants, single cell- and multi-celled
> > organisms up to a certain point were/still are as dumb as you are
> > ;-)
John
> Ok where is that point as far as you can see? If you think there's a
> "point", please point it out. Because most of what you say hinges upon
> that point and yet you don't even see where it is.
Thanks for not taking offence. I thought some plot had been planned
during Christmas, everybody starting out with a "bash Bo" post ;-) The
point where intelligence starts at the biological level I have harped
much on, but shows how superficially people read, OK me, no
exception. A particular species is impossible to pinpoint, but according
to Carl Sagan ("The Dragons of Eden") the most basic "neural
chassis" - he calls - is the spinal chord, pons, hind - and midbrain. This
"reptilian complex" can be compared with ROM (read only memory)
the basic immutable program. OK I know this is tedious, so very
shortly: Some layer of RAM overlaid this and also the "chache system"
where portions of retrieved memory (stored experience) can be
recalled and - with animals - without language guided through logical
gates and solutions to problems found. My proverbial crow found a
way to get to the food balls. It's not brain mass in kilograms but the
biological Central Processing Unit (CPU). With the human neocortex
all this increased manifold and is IMO the biological pattern that "...DQ
rode to a higher (social) level.
John be-before
> > > There are stories even of horses doing simple addition for a show,
> > > but what they are really counting on is the satisfied relief in
> > > their owners face when they get to the right number.
Bo
> > Maybe not, but some animals "think" and that means applying logic
> > including 2+2=4, they do not think by way of language "Let's see ..
> > hmmm, hmmm... etc" but they for sure manipulate former experience in
> > the form of images, smell, and/or other sense impressions. And ...
> > flex whatever intelligence you have ... it is this "intelligence =
> > intellect" fallacy that have been this discussion's hang up for a
> > decade. It seems impossible to snap out of the 4th. level as
> > thinking or logic.
John now:
> I agree that there is a distinct difference between thinking and
> intellect. There the point is easy to see, just point at man and that's
> where intellect starts. I mean, if there's intellect, you'll find it
> only in the human animal. Intelligence, on the other hand, begins with
> the perception of social "otherness" found in mammals, is my position.
> Which hasn't gotten much comment one way or the other...
The intellectual level is definitely human because the social level is,
but not all mankind has reached - "valued" perhaps - the intellectual
level. In most people's opinion this sounds as slander as if meaning
half-witted, but that is due to the "intelligence-intellect" confusion. All
humankind is equally intelligent (with individual variations of course)
but the 4th. level is not always valued - nay - is looked upon as
pollution of VALUE itself. See how the desperately the last social
stronghold - islam - fights intellectual value, the sinful Western ways
they call. No level knows the level context of course
As not to get more carried away I end this post here
Bodvar
> > > In the MoQ, logic is a tool, value is the center. In SOM, value
> > > is a tool and logic is the center.
> >
> > In the MOQ everything is static value patterns FYI,
>
>
> Everything but the DQ which moves static values from one pattern to
> another.
> Isn't DQ part of the MoQ?
>
>
>
> > and as said
> > intelligence is a mercenary that serves all static levels. SOM (or
> > intellect) its latest employer why you all seem bent on intelligence
> > as intellect, You inadvertently put the finger on the sore spot.
> > Thanks.
> >
>
> That sounds too comprehensive, when you say "all" static levels. How
> does intelligence serve rocks?
>
> And why do you construe me saying intelligence is the same as
> intellect?
>
>
> >
> > Bo before:
> > > > Language and logic are intelligence's tools, but intelligence
> > > > can serve any master. Social level people found (still find) it
> > > > perfectly logical that existence is created by god(s) while
> > > > intellect-based people find
> > it
> > > > logical that it is a coincidence
> >
> > John:
> > > I'd say that's a pretty confusing mishmash of conceptualization
> > > there, but we're already past it so why bother trying to analyze
> > > confusion built upon error? Keep it Simple, should be the
> > > metaphysical dictum at the forefront of all our frontal lobes.
> > > Just memorize the following and you'll see a satisfied look on
> > > your trainers face: A metaphysics of Quality is a value centered
> > > metaphysics not logic centered.
> >
> > By jettisoning logic the MOQ may recruit a few lesser minds (they
> > are already assembled :) but that will certainly destroy it.
>
>
>
> Why does using logic as a tool mean jettisoning? Just because logic
> is no longer the center of things, doesn't mean its useless. I
> thought that point was one I, with the help of Ron quoting Andre,
> made pretty clear...
>
>
> Why - I wonder -
> > do you see the SOL interpretation as complicating? I clears away
> > tons of misunderstanding and confusion. But as the film bad-guy said
> > after being robbed of his newly-mixed plague: "Please let me have my
> > illness back"! Who wants clarity?
> >
>
>
> I'm not sure what film you refer to, but bad guys do like their
> plague-in-a-bottle. It's when the genie is out that things get messy.
>
> I find your SOL confusing because it doesn't make sense to me. I find
> it doesn't make sense to me because I find it confusing. There's
> almost no way to untangle such a question of "why" when it comes to
> rhetoric. A person gets it or they don't. If they don't, the good
> thing is to draw a different analogy or illustration and thus
> illuminate the weaker minds you deal with
> here. :)
>
> The bad thing is to just keep hoofing the turf in the hope that
> someday your audience nods its approval.
>
> Before they nod off to sleep, that is.
>
> Kinder John
> 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/
>
>
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/
