Hi Squad (we're not Squad anymore, but "Focusers" is so lame...),
A new month, a new challenge :
>Pirsig says that the four levels of the MOQ are "all there is". But if
>each level evolved out of the one beneath it, then is it possible for
>a fifth level to emerge? If so what are the possible candidates for
>this level and how would we recognize it?
Two questions :
1. can a fifth level emerge ?
2. what would it be like ?
First, the MOQ law of evolution specifically says that the fifth level
(if there is ever one) will emerge from Intellect. As Bodvar puts it :
> What is important here is another MOQ axiom: A level grows from
> its parent and is indistinguishable from it in its embryonic stage.
> Consequently, an X level will be Intellectual for all appearances, but
> its purpose will eventually deviate from it in a most profound way.
> But - again - an X level idea must have some implications for the
> way we regard Intellect: it can't be the mind/mental (different from
> the matter/concrete we so easily bring over from the SO notion)
> where different "metaphysics" vie for dominance.
I'll answer Bodvar about his mind/mental state, which he wants to
differentiate from Intellect.
Good news, I've decided I like this idea too. So I'll draw my line
across mind, too see what's intellect and what's not.
Since last month is full about what I think is Intellect, let me state
what isn't.
Cognitive, deductive and reasoning abilities are not Intellect.
Hehe ! I bet that must raise a few hairs by now !... :-)
These functions are used by animals, animals aren't "reasonable
animals", so ergo, the functions aren't Intellectual.
Intellect is about the symbolic world, the world of meaning. Deducing
how to get a few more cookies from an intelligence-testing machine is
something many animals can do. Using symbols is something only humans
do. After a while, "intelligent" animals get to know how to escape from
their cages (orangutans are supposedly best at this, in one case they
even used a piece of wire they had hidden under their upper lip), but I
still haven't found an example of an orangutan telling his friends about
this, describing the situation and giving them the trick. They can show
the trick, but not describe it "out of context".
BTW, David stated last month :
> And its pretty well understood that
> chimps can learn to use language, and can even invent grammatically
> correct sentences, with real world meaning behind. Its no stomping
> horse. Certain animals really can use symbols to communicate. But I
> think we'd all agree that there is no such thing as an intellectual
> monkey.
I'd like to see some references here. But anyway the cases of monkeys
using language (American sign language actually) had them using around
1000 words AT BEST.
See this link :
http://www.koko.org/koko/koko/index.html
A quote from it :
> During the course of the study, Koko has advanced
> further with language than any other non-human.
> Koko has a working vocabulary of over 500 signs
> and has emitted over 400 more. Koko understands
> approximately 2,000 words of spoken English. Koko
> initiates the majority of conversations with her
> human companions and typically constructs
> statements averaging three to six words. Koko has a
> tested IQ of between 70 and 95 on a human scale,
> where 100 is considered "normal." Michael has a
> working vocabulary of over 350 signs.
I must use more than 20 000 words (rough estimation, based on the fact
I'm bilingual), and even a very uneducated person rarely use less than
5000 (I heard it was possible to communicate in a coherent way with
2000, but less means you lose grammar and go pidgin). So I think David
statement, while interesting, is a bit overated. That primates and other
evolved mammals can learn language is a fact, that they do use them when
there's no humans around to teach it isn't. That they do it as well as
we do is false.
And BTW, I think those two gorillas are intellectual gorillas. They are
a interesting deviation from their species original behaviour. Another
interesting fact is that these two have refused to mate and "developped
a sibling relationship instead". Very nerd-ish... ;-)
So human language is a kind of technology designed to enhance cognitive,
deductive and reasoning abilities (these may be biological or social, I
haven't made my mind yet. My bet is on the first one). As I've described
last month, this has taken a life of its own and developped into the
Intellectual level.
The Fifth level must therefore not go on 'non-thinking', but more on a
developpment of the symbolic world (mythology and science are symbolic
worlds) into "something else". What ? I've no idea. Tell me if you can
think of something based on what I've just said.
I'm going to bed.
Denis
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:36 BST