John the .... wrote on16 Apr.
> Emotions are the key to social patterns. And without emotional caring > for one's existence, no "I" can even get started ..... About emotions as the social "expression" (I call) we agree. > So I don't think the issue of machine "intelligence" is relevant to AI. Agree with this too. Computers compute at a marvelous speed and remembers faultlessly, but that's all. > Only emotional intelligence can produce that rudimentary consciousness > which develops into intellectual consciousness. But I'm not comfortable with the consciousness term. "Rudimentary" sounds like sleep-walkers, as if consciousness is a process of awakening which is SOM's mind-from-matter. The subject (I) conscious of an objective, unconscious, nature is SOM. You will not find any reference to consciousness - to an "I" who thinks" or "have opinions" - in the "old books of the Bible" (that according to Pirsig lacks intellectual content, i.e. before SOM) But total agreement about the social level being a prerequisite for the intellectual level (Reason out of emotion). > And emotions are too deep and to be constructed intellectually. > They're all bound up with physical analogues of experienced pain and > pleasure. Right, intellect - science - constructed computers that mimics memory and logical circuits, these surpasses the biological counterparts in certain aspects (calculation) but lags light-years behind in other aspects. And this can never be the building block of the Q-social development. > Ants and bees don't express or exhibit any detectable emotional > communication with us. Horses, dogs and pigs (and a myriad of other > mammals) do. About ants and bees I agree. On mammal "emotions" I have doubts, you will remember my earlier observations on the impossibility of animals to survive in the wild if bothered with resentment, hatred, love, jealousy ...etc. at least they aren't of the Q-social level > Therefore, social patterning arises with emotional mammalian infant > nurture and lead to self-consciousness and in man, intellectual > reflection upon the same. Not to hurt your feelings, OK ;-) Bodvar > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:20 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Platt, Horse, All. > > > > 15 Apr. > > > > Platt responded to Horse's below: > > > > > Would you care to speculate what the computer social level might > > > be like? Would it have religion? What sort of government would it > > > have? Who would control its army? Where would it put criminals? > > > What system would it use to create and exchange goods and > > > services? The more specifics you can furnish, the better. > > > > I can only applaud. The social evolution weren't just organisms > > starting to congregate, rather that a notion of EXISTENCE - of life > > and death - dawned and resulted in the myriad of ideas ABOUT > > existence animism, various forms of afterlife, ancestors, stages of > > beyond ...etc. what evolved into complex mythologies and finally > > into mono-theist religions, the toughest social cement there is. So > > Platt's about religions and governments and criminals are most > > relevant, There can't be other kinds of social levels whatever the > > social organisms are. > > > > Horse: > > > > You're missing the point Platt - if they are intelligent and > > > > thus have an intellectual level - they would have a social > > > > level. Pirsig's point about ants and bees etc. isn't relevant. > > > > If computers ever did become intelligent it would be through a > > > > different but analogous path. > > > > "If they (computers) are intelligent and thus have an intellectual > > level ..." is confusing intelligence and the intellectual level. > > Intelligence is the ability to learn from experience and is a > > long-drawn and fuzzy process, the proverbial amoeba will react to > > acids, but it will certainly not learn anything, while at some more > > complex neural stage the experiment will be stored and if some like > > situation occurs it will trigger an appropriate behavior, the bigger > > the brain the greater ability to readjust, reaching an apex with the > > human biology. > > > > But the levels are no such process, they are quality jumps and the > > social level had to be established and evolved to a a dynamic stage > > before intellect could arise. The MOQ is THE quality jump, this time > > out of intellect-as-SOM and the hardest to make. For those > > intellect- marooned the MOQ will be regarded as just more intellect. > > > > Bodvar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15/04/2010 17:21, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > This is the notion that any old group constitutes a social > > > > > level, a notion flatly denied by Pirsig: > > > > > > > > > > "One can also call ants and bees "social" insects, but for > > > > > purposes of precision in the MOQ social patterns should be > > > > > defined as human and subjective. Unlike cells and bees and > > > > > ants they cannot be detected with an objective scientific > > > > > instrument. For example there is no objective scientific > > > > > instrument that can distinguish between a king and commoner, > > > > > because the difference is > > > > > social." (LC, Note 49) > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Platt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 Apr 2010 at 17:10, Horse wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> But they wouldn't be destroying their own social level - > > > > >> they'd be destroying ours. If they were intelligent and > > > > >> significantly different to us their social level would remain > > > > >> intact. Why would they worry? > > > > >> > > > > >> On 15/04/2010 16:35, Platt Holden wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> It would be just like intelligent computers to attain such a > > > > >>> level of arrogance that they would believe they would be > > > > >>> better off by eliminating the social level on which their > > > > >>> existence depends. Reminds me of some intellectuals I know. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Regards, > > > > >>> Platt > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Tudor > > > > >>> Boloni<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> would be morally correct to kill us if they feel > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> a) they will be able to contribute more ideas and > > > > >>>> intellectual patterns than human can achieve > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> and > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> b) they determine humans are eating up too many resources > > > > >>>> and produce too few intellectual patterns for the expense > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> am i missing something? > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> tudor > > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/md/archives.html > > > 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/md/archives.html > > 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/md/archives.html
