[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[Laird Bedore]

> [Laramie]
> Hi Laird, Mark,
>
> Reading this thread has led me to an exploration of  the SOLAQI hypothesis.
> IMO, Skutvik was on the right track.  This is an  area of interest to me as 
> well, so I'm glad to see this angle being  pursued.
>
> Perhaps the lion has an ~unreflective~ s/o intellect, while  ~conscious~ 
> s/o/I 
> distinguishes the Intellectual level.  
>
> Cheers,
> Laramie
>
>   
[Laird]
Yeah, that may be a way of saying it... the idea at my start of this 
thread about abstraction come to mind. If we think of the social and 
(particularly) intellectual levels as being capable of abstraction, the 
idea of a lion distinguishing between a pack leader and non-pack-leader 
implies a degree of abstraction taking place. Abstraction doesn't fit 
into the inorganic or biological levels, so then we've got to figure out 
how to classify this behavior MoQ-wise. It's not a good fit in social 
either.

Just to make sure I'm not beating about the bush, I think limiting the 
intellectual level to humans is outright crap. It completely ignores 
that brains (and quite advanced brains at that) are present in SO many 
living things that we know of, let alone the ones we haven't discovered. 
Suggesting they're incapable of intellect leads either to the notion of 
a deterministic, programmatic brain, or the creation of a 
"platypus-removing" sub-intellectual level as a patch to describe these 
creatures. Neither solution is anywhere near elegant, especially the 
latter which has ALL sorts of consequences on what is intellect and what 
is sub-intellect.


> [Mark]
> Hi Laramie,
> If the SOLAQI hypothesis is on the right track, then why didn't Anthony  
> McWatt fully address it as a serious contender worth including in his Critical  
> analysis of the moq 2004?
> The whole point of a critical analysis of anything is to explore  
> alternatives isn't it?
>
>   
[Laird]
It's rather taboo in academic circles to either quote or critique an 
idea that has not been formalized. Since Bodvar Skutvik didn't finish 
his formalization of the SOLAQI until May 2005, Ant had plenty of reason 
(and good taste) not to discuss it.


> [Mark]
> The SOALQI was being heavily promoted by Skutvik on the MD forum while  
> McWatt was producing his account, and McWatt was aware of this. By your  suggestion 
> it seems as if McWatt simply refused to deal with it. Why did McWatt  refuse 
> to deal with it?
> Paul Turner produced a thorough appraisal of the SOLAQI after McWatt's  
> thesis was awarded, so why didn't McWatt deal with it himself in no respect at  all 
> prior to this?
>  
> I myself dealt with the SOLAQI but non of this is included in McWatt's  
> thesis while it was in production.
>  
> Laird and Laramie, if you both have the same regard for Skutvik's SOLAQI as  
> a serious alternative to the moq then explain why McWatt did not give it  
> respect?
>   
[Laird]
It's not an alternative to the MoQ - it's an addendum to the MoQ, just 
like the static distinction principle you've suggested. If it was truly 
an alternative, that would add further reason for Ant not discussing it 
(the dreaded 'scope creep'.)


> Surely you're not suggesting McWatt is intellectually moribund?
> Love,
> Mark
>  
[Laird]
Far from it, I'd bet Ant has more of that grey matter firing away than I 
do! I'm always eager to read his latest insight.

-Laird