Yo Arlo,
[John] > > 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. > > [Arlo] > Its no more "reductionist" to say the human body rests on carbon. John: Right! Nor is it any less. In fact, I'd say it's exactly the same amount. You can't reduce intellect to a function of carbon, either. Carbon might be the means, but when intellect is the ends you have to look at the bigger picture for your causes and dependencies. Arlo: > Upper levels always use the lower levels for their support. John: I agree. "use" being the operative word here. There is purpose in a use. "higher purpose" is what you're describing. Arlo: > In the case of intellect, it rests upon social patterns, which rest upon > the biology of the human brain. > > John: Well ... if by "rests upon" you mean the same as "uses" then I agree as I stated. And if "rests upon" indicates total dependency, like my biological organism depends upon inorganic oxygen (among others) then I also agree. But there is a key point of dissension amongst as as to whether that higher arising happens by chance, or by intention. That is, I say intellect intends to analyze and examine social patterns, creating responsive and dynamic evolution in its essential relationship with society. Intellect is creative of society, even while dependent upon it. So a lot rests upon, what you mean by rests upon. Arlo: > In Magnus' example, he asked why a human could be removed from a social web > and still contain thoughts. John: I really liked that Tom Hanks movie about the Fed Ex guy going down with the plane and ending up on an island alone - Cast Away, it was called. He socializes with a volleyball, having no coconuts to talk to. Wilson! Anyway, humans are socialized from infancy or they die. When socialized, they maintain these vital social patterns, even if the objects of their social patterns may be gone or dead or Cast Away. They create artistic displacements, and keep the patterns going. All humans are intellectual and social or they're not human. Arlo: > Although the evidence clearly indicates decay of cognition in cases of > extreme isolation, the patterns of thought persist because the node can > survive by virtue of its own "social echo" (if you will) for a short time > absent connection to other nodes (as I said, in the same way a fish can > survive outside of water for a short time before dying). > > John: Well if that's not a pretty damn reductionistic way of putting it... I mean, rhetorically speaking at least. "Absent connection to other nodes" Arlo? You really do need to unstick your nose from the halls of Academe and join a bowling team or something. Just to get some realistic vocabulary if nothing else. Arlo: > As for neural relations in other animals that aren't "intellectual", well > John I agree (this is where I disagree with Pirsig), and I would call these > the rudimentary social patterns that are able to rest upon sufficiently > complex neural nets (less complex than those of human physiology). In fact, > I think the research into non-human species symbolic sharing shows the MOQ's > hierarchy as being correct: out ot sufficiently complex biological patterns, > social patterns are able to emerge. They do not discriminate based on "is > this thing human or not" (as Platt may suggest), their only restriction is > the neuro-biology from which they emerge. > > John: Well there's different ways of analyzing the parts of the motorcycle I guess. I'm focused on drawing the line from a functional perspective. What is a social pattern? It's a pattern of relationship between biologically and conceptually distinct selves. How do these selves arise and understand or conceive of their own independence and relative being? Through nurture and an ongoing passing of socialization patterns from mother to infant. I agree the mechanics and neurobiology are different, for those animals displaying sociality, but I don't think the sociality arose from the mechanics and neurobiology. To my mind, that's reducing the higher level to a mere function of a lower. It's another way of saying there is no higher level. And I guess I've heard that being said also. 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/md/archives.html
