I think another point Magnus, is that what we mean by "intellectual" refers to objectivity. Bo's posit.
Which is why I don't think the most evolved state of being/thinking should be called "intellectual". I don't agree with your "inter-nodal neural nets" analogy, Arlo. Sounds reductionistic to me and in truth it's easy to see examples of such neural relationships in other animals with no intellect at all. Intellect rests upon SOM. The self-other realization and reification of same. John On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:36 PM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Magnus] > But why would the intellectual level be so much less dependent on lower > levels > than all other levels are? And especially since we *can* find a better > dependency. > > [Arlo] > I don't think that it is. Intellect rests upon a foundation of inter-nodal > neural nets (pardon the redundancy). You are removing one node from all the > others, and expecting it to die immediately. Even if I sever my hand from > my > body, the flesh and muscles and blood and cells in my hand continue to live > for > quite some time. 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
