[MD] Individual v Collective

[ian glendinning]

Mark,

Just a brief one at this time ...

Sorry, but "bird-song" is not just aesthetically pleasing to birds ...
it carries social communications and comes with rules at both ends ...

As I say the difference between social and intellectual seems to be
more to do with whether (or how) the sender and receiver understand
the rules, than whether or not there are rules ... though even rules
as a concept will need some discussion too ....

As I said, if the bird analogy doesn't work, let's find a muman one.

Ian
PS, If we going to use humour, could we avoid sarcasm please ;-)

On 8/15/06, Squonkonguitar at aol.com <Squonkonguitar at aol.com> wrote:
> 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
> 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/
>