[MD] Intellectual and Social

[Ian Glendinning]

Mary, Matt, Steve and all ..

Love this Mary. I wasn't following the original Steve / Matt exchange ...

I too agree with this ...
> Steve said:
> Intellectual patterns could never eliminate social patterns
> since if we had to first justify every action before acting
> we would be paralyzed.
>
> I agree with Steve.
>

I tend to think of social as inseparable from intellectual if only
because no intellect can interact with the world of people without
going through social patterns - even isolated actions in the phsyical
world are irrelevant until they bump up against other people - which
leads us off down the social/intellectual, freedom/authority and
individual/collective morass - as you do later in the post - another
reason I cannot usefully separate intellectual and social from plain
cultural (for sentient beings). (Back on topic, I often go further and
say that (accepted) intellectual patterns are just more social
patterns anyway - Bo's 2+2=4 for example.)


Then this whole train of thought from Matt ...
> 3) a train of thought can continue on indefinitely.
>
> 4) for actions to walk out at the end of a train of thought,
> the train must at some point terminate.
>
> 5) because trains of thought can continue on indefinitely,
> something must be able to intercede.
>
> 6) what intercedes are social patterns.
>
> 7) social patterns are to be interpreted as "terminals of
> satisfaction" on the track of thought.
>
> 8) a well-used terminal (where trains stop) accrues what
> we call "authority" the more trains it is able to stop.
> <snip>
>
> [Mary] I have to disagree with this.  I think the train has jumped the tracks here.
>
[IG] I would agree with everything up to the train jumping the tracks
at point (7) I take this line of "trains of thought" being social
patterns into my "memetic" arguments. (The memes have lives of their
own, even though social and physical media are needed to communicate.
same as biological genes need the physio-chemical levels.)

> inference - a logical guess based on incomplete evidence.
>
> This is a whole other area I could easily digress into.

[IG] Me too.

The fact that using
> binary logic, it is very difficult if not impossible to simulate leaps of
> imagination.  Computers are not known for hypothesizing.  They do not
> experience Quality Moments.  They are not privy to "pre-intellectual
> experience".  No ah ha moments for your Dell.  There is a reason for this.
>
[IG] This is a really big issue in my day job. Taking IT systems into
semantic-web areas leads to much confusion for people who see only
logic in organizations made of people !!!!.

Regards
Ian