Hi Dave
"David Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Though I would limit this on the lower end to animals, because I'm not sure
>how one could verify that similar cells learn from each other, other than
>biologically.
Hmm... when you say, "learn from each other, biologically", what do you mean
exactly? Because if you mean DNA, or some other common definition of life, then
that can confuse things.
>Also I don't see how oral languages, all of which are abstract systems of
>signs, could have evolved without an intellect (the dedicated wetware system
>specialized for abstraction) to have been in place prior to languages
>emerging. But under the existing MoQ the intellectual level emerges long,
>long, after the social level emerges. Without extending the social level
>backwards in evolution the level hierarchy between the social and
>intellectual would have to be reversed to accommodate languages being one of
>the patterns responsible for human social emergence.
There are different languages at play here. The human societies use the
sign/oral language of inter-human communication. But the cell societies use the
language of inter-cell communication. We usually call them nerve-signals and
that language is later used to support the intellectual patterns in the
nerve-knots that over time grew to a brain.
Here is another example where stacks can be pretty useful. In the human stack,
we can concentrate on human language and don't need to bother with other types.
But we can still use the other stack to explain the intellectual capacity of
the human brain without having to reverse the order between the intellectual
and social levels.
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/md/archives.html
