Hi gang
skutvik@online.no wrote:
>
> June is drawing to a close and this month's topic - the intellectual
> level of the MOQ - has been cut, quartered and drawn, but have we
> reached anything like an agreement about it? Well, I spot a general
> dividing line through this group, between the mind-intellectuals and
> the SOL-intellectuals.
Not sure if I fit into either one actually. I've briefly followed the
arguments about intellect being planning and design and stuff but for
me, they're merely examples where intellectual patterns comes to good
use. On second thought, it almost seems like these examples are given
just to give humans exclusive rights to the intellectual level.
Planning, design, logic, mathematics etc. are all just examples of what
we can use intellectual patterns for. To say that any of those is the
definition of the level is to say that the taste of chocolate is the
definition of the biological level.
We have to do as Platt once said:
Philosophy is "The search for underlying assumptions."
The underlying assumption in these cases is that they all assume something
to support the plan, design etc. If for example planning was to be the
definition of the intelectual level, all intellectual activity would
ultimately involve planning, but that isn't the case. Logic can be done
without planning anything, in fact it must be done without planning.
When we do logic, we just follow unambigous rules to see where it leads
us. Even a computer can do logic, it's all it ever does to be precise.
So what is the common denominator of the examples above? Actually, I'm
starting to think it's impossible to do it. I had some shots in the
beginning of the month but all efforts to do it will probably end up
using some ambigous term that everyone will interpret a little different
and we'll all have different nothions of the level anyway.
So maybe we can start small and pick up from here the next time. I'll
phrase a few (provocative) questions and give my answer to each of them.
1) Does intellectual patterns require humans?
No. Quite the contrary.
2) Are humans the sole bearer of intellectual patterns on earth?
No. Every nervous system in every animal carries intellectual patterns
between the brain, muscles and sensory organs. But we are almost alone
to use intellectual patterns for other things, such as planning.
As usual, a new static level starts off to help the level below. But
later, it begins a quest of its own.
3) Is intellectual patterns required when doing logic?
Yes, and since computers do logic, they use intellectual patterns.
You don't have to answer them on the list but I think they pin-point some
of the underlying assumptions I've seen this month.
Magnus
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:24 BST