[MD] Individual v Collective

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Ian: Hi Squonk,

On the social / intellectual half of the question  ...

Your bird immitating a call (vs the possibilty of it learning morse  code) 
....

I'd agree the former is social and the latter is (more)  intellectual,
if I believed the bird had indeed learned some "meaning" by the  morse
code example. But conversely the bird-song has some meaning in  the
birdie-social context ... the question is where does the meaning  arise
....

I still don't see a clear "split" ...
 
Mark: Hello Ian. Bird song is a pattern of values. The Quality Bird  songs 
are aesthetically appealing to Birds; the Quality Birdsong has the  biological 
value of attracting mates, marking territory, etc. Bird mating  rituals involve 
males trying to outdo each other in the Aesthetic stakes.
Maybe this is why even Humans find Birdsong Aesthetically beautiful,  and 
plumage so attractive?
 
Mark: The bird is an analogy. I am not suggestion birds could learn morse  
code. The analogy was intended to show that even birds can repeat intellectual  
patterns even though they have no concepts. The analogy is as follows:
When Humans imitate behaviour through example it's a social pattern.
When Humans manipulate abstract symbols it's an intellectual pattern.
Examples of Human imitating are: Language and ritual.
Examples of Human manipulation of abstract symbols are Science,  Logic and 
philosophy.
Humans can imitate numbers and thus learn symbols socially, but  manipulation 
of numbers requires operators and an ability to understand how they  function.

Ian: What I'm still getting here is that the reason we see one  as
intellectual and the other as merely social is really a question of
how  much conscious, self-reflective meaning there is in the social
birdcall vs  the shared "language" of morse code. ie I'm guessing
neither of us believes  bird-brain has a linguistic level of conscious
thought ... even when its  social call is sharing "meaning" with its
local birdie community?
 
Mark: I think you are making a mistake here Ian: Intellectual patterns  
follow rules.
Social patterns do not follow rules - they are imitated.
There is no intellectual rule which says you must go to Church on  Sunday.
However, there may be a social price to pay for not imitating others  
sufficiently.
Mathematics is nothing without rules.

Ian: So I agree with your example actually illustrating the difference  ...
in agreement there ... but it's a bird-brained example ...
 
Mark: It was an analogy.
 
Ian: all I'm
suggesting is that the dividing line is more one of how  sophisticated
the consciousness creating the communication, and the intended  meaning
vs any "incidental / emergent" meaning ... something like  -  does the
meaning "emerge" in the social context or is it intiated in  the
individual brain. (Clearly here I don't want to re-open the  individual
/ social debate ... individual brains interact with each other in  the
intellectual space ... its just a questio of whether any  significant
aspect of the meaning arises in the individual brain ... or is  the
meaning all social)
 
Mark: Laws, sets of rules, are sophisticated relationships which follow  
their own evolutionary path. In a sense, these patterns impose themselves.
It doesn't matter what your socially imitated behaviour is; it doesn't  
matter if you are a Catholic from Iceland or a Hindu from India; Logic  has no 
faith, and faith has no rules.
I am not sure where consciousness fits into this?

Ian: BTW I  mentioned elsewhere that I saw a "dead metaphor" aspect to this.
A metaphor  is dead if the brain communicating it is not (no longer)
aware it's a  metaphor ... and simply sees is as a matter of
communication (conduit style)  .. the meaning is self-conrtained in the
packet of data, without the  originating and receiving brains needing
to encode / infer / decipher and  independently intended meanings - I
think this is the key here.
 
Mark: The brain is a sq intellectual pattern of understanding generated by  
years of scientific study. There isn't a brain at all as far as the MoQ  goes.

Ian: Probably need a social / intellectual example in the human  world ...
though I suspect there we'd be second guessing the human intent in  the
social example ..

Clear as mud ?
Ian
 
Mark: I'm having a problem identifying the intellectual tradition you  are 
working in. I have a suspicion your preferred tradition cannot solve the  
questions you ask of it? I think the MoQ holds the promise of a way out.
 
Love,
Mark