Hi John & all, Rudimentary Emotions must have begun at the Biological Level. Emotions do not exist without an ego to feel them. Ego developed as a self-preservation mechanism at the Biological Level. If you lacked an ego, you would not value your own continued existence. If you did not value your own continued existence, you would not defend yourself, so you wouldn't survive, would you?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which of these 2 emotions were first? Lust or Fear? Hmmm, kind of depends on your mechanism for procreation, doesn't it. If you replicate by basic cell division, you wouldn't need lust, so I guess it was fear. I would say that they are the only 2 that are necessary at the Biological Level. Get any fancier and you are talking rudimentary Social Level (cooperation, empathy, respect and such). So, I guess the ego was the big driver through both the biological and social levels. Didn't stop there, though, did it? The Ego drives the intellectual Level too. I am discrete. I am me and everything else is "other". I Need that science to study that "other stuff". There's me (the subject) and you and particle physics (my objects). Can't be any other way because I am my ego. Subject-Object Metaphysics rules! The ego is deeply buried in time. Goes back to that first brain cell - well no, maybe you had to at least have two? Anyway, forego the brain-cell census, it's there. It's old, and it has us all so convinced in our discreteness that we can't see anything else. The ego tells us Intellect can't be SOM! If we all started thinking that it was, then the game would be up! The ego would be found out! Exposed! Can't have that! No. Not at all! The Intellectual Level is not "Just SOM" - our ego tells us so - and it's always right. Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:moq_discuss- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of John Carl > Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 12:07 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] MOQ would seems to imply that above human > intelligence computers > > Platt, Ian, Bo and Horse: > > Emotions are the key to social patterns. And without emotional caring > for > one's existence, no "I" can even get started. So I don't think the > issue of > machine "intelligence" is relevant to AI. Only emotional intelligence > can > produce that rudimentary consciousness which develops into intellectual > consciousness. > > And emotions are too deep and to be constructed intellectually. > They're all > bound up with physical analogues of experienced pain and pleasure. > > 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. > > Empirically so. > > Therefore, social patterning arises with emotional mammalian infant > nurture > and lead to self-consciousness and in man, intellectual reflection upon > the > same. > > Any questions? > > Good. > > John > > 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
