Magnus, Mati and all MD. These were actually your last words, but they were so important that I start with them.
On 2 Apr. you wrote: > Lastly, I'm not sure if I ever said what you claim, that mind = > intellect. As described above, I would *not* describe that "unused > part of a neural network" as a mind, but it certainly sets the > playfield for what later will be called a mind. But since mind is a > SOM invention that (in an inexplicable mystical way) connects the > subject (I) and the object (body), I'm not sure it's possible to > define it very well in MoQ terms, at least not with only static > patterns. Here you say something terribly important. When SOM (before the MOQ) looked on existence it saw the "abstract" part of what we agree about began at the biological level(intelligence to me, intellect to you) as "mind". Now, if my assertion (4th. level= SOM) is accepted, we see that the 4th. level has the same perspective as SOM, only now the former's "mind" becomes the latter's "intellect". See all puzzle pieces falls in place. >From now on the original sequence: > In my view, the first intellectual patterns turned up sometime after > the first animals evolved a neural network slightly larger than > required to actuate their limbs. I'd better elaborate on that one... Seen in the light of the opening paragraph your "intellect" from deep into biology is what I call intelligence. If you just accepted the intelligence/intellect difference we agree. > When cells first started to get together to form larger animals, they > needed a language to communicate to eachother what they > sensed/smelled/tasted etc. They also needed a language to affect > eachother so they could cooperate to move the collection of cells in > an orderly fashion. So they evolved a neural network that handled > these signals back and forth. There was of course no cell that said: > "Hey guys, we must invent a language so we can communicate"! Rather, > those cells that just happened to understand eachother, formed those > larger animals. I agree about this, but what's the advantage of treating biology's inner workings as social? Zero advantage IMO ..except justifying your biological "intellect", which really is intelligence. > In the beginning, the neural network was only used for reflexes, such > as: Some cell at one end of the animal sensed some edible substance. A > signal was sent on the neural network about this which caused all > cells to help in the effort to move the animal in the right direction, > i.e. very reflex:ish types of signals. Agreement, but - again - what's the point? Besides there are organisms without any nerves that still know what's good and no good for them. Remember the amoeba in ZMM? > It's not very far fetched to assume this, we still have such reflexes > and those reflexes are very fast and as Pirsig says in Lila - they are > pre-intellectual. That's a rather good indication that such types of > neural signals are more basic than our other types of more elaborate > thoughts that can also affect our limbs. Sure, biology is part of our make-up, as is society, and these levels are definitely "pre-intellectual", no disagreement at all. > Intellectual patterns made their entry when these neural networks got > complex enough to be able to store information from one event to the > next. This could make the animal react in a different way than it > would have without that memory and is of course a fundamental leap in > its evolution. Still all fine and I'm pleased with our common understanding, but this is intelligence. Animals are smart to various degree, but the point is that this - original - biological value followed the Q- evolution and in turn were exploited by the social and intellectual levels, but we must not confuse this with the 4th level's value which is that of distinguishing between actual (objective) experience and abstract (subjective) experience. > If we investigate *what* that memory is in terms of the levels of the > MoQ, we see that it's *not* biological, because we just said that the > animal reacted in a different way than it would have without the > memory. No, here you are deeply wrong. The biological level is enormous and the distance between an amoeba and the mammal organism is accordingly great, yet, the VALUE represented by the former is the same that of the latter, but the distance between the human mammal as biology and the human mammal as a social member is INFINITE. > This means that whatever it was, it was using the lower level patterns > for its own purposes, just as higher levels do. I believe you say that the upper level uses the lower level's patterns for its own purpose and that's the very point. Biological complexity - brain, intelligence - was the platform for the social development, but at this level it is no longer serves biological purpose. At the intellectual level it serves intellectual purposes. > Social patterns are only used for interfacing biological entities to > form larger societies, and animals have up until now used social > patterns to form their neural network, but if it was only using that > network for reflexes, it would have reacted differently, so this is > some even higher level using a society for its own purpose... As said earlier I don't understand what the "social" term adds to our understanding of the the biological level. I suspect that you (again) are at the scientific discipline called biology, and see the social approach as useful. But it mucks up the MOQ > Here is where I think the *first* manifestation of intellectual > patterns evolved. In unused parts of the neural network of Cambrian > animals (570-500 million years ago according to wikipedia). So, for > this manifestation of the intellectual level, your question above: > "What about theories - sets of ideas - that people made about reality > BEFORE the intellectual level, were those "intellectual patterns"?" > becomes rather mute. If you introduce an intellectual level at this stage the MOQ is lost and it's so crying unnecessary if you accept the intelligence term. > The intellect you're talking about is based on human societies. Yes "my" intellect is out of the social level which is MOQ's third, but only a small nudge - that of you dropping the "intellect" tern in favor of intelligence - will bring us to "cold fusion" ;-) > It's still intellectual patterns and they rule social patterns for its > own purposes just as the first manifestation did. As I've said earlier, > I *do* recognize that this is also intellectual patterns, but what I've > tried to describe above, it's not the *only* kind. Same, same, but > different. I regrettably have to unsubscribe for a while - a couple of months - to concentrate on some other matter. Bye Bo 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
