[MD] The Individual Level

[Platt Holden]

PH
> > The question Pirsig doesn't address is how brain cells create the
> > language of mental intelligence, i.e., how a pattern two levels down
> > constructs a higher and completely different pattern instantly. But
> > then nobody else has come up with an acceptable explanation either.
 
Gene 
> Emergence is a pretty good theory for this one...

As Ken Wilber put it, emergence is a theory of "oops." Something 
happens but we don't know why.

PH
> > I disagree with Pirsig's analogy comparing a human being to a
> > computer. The brain is a biological pattern whose cellular structure
> > is mostly the same in every human individual (with some notable
> > exceptions). But unlike computer processing which is the same in every
> > computer, the thinking process in individuals varies not only person
> > by person but minute by minute. The focus on systems that marks the
> > scientific approach to explaining how the world works doesn't work
> > when dealing with human beings. That's the huge mistake of
> > anthropology and sociology, as Pirsig correctly points out elsewhere
> > in Lila.
 
Gene 
> You should probably learn more about computers, and the brain, before
> making a case about this analogy. I think it's a fantastic analogy
> frankly! First off, computer processing is Not the same in every
> computer. Different types of processors do things differently. An intel
> and an AMD have a different instruction set, although similar. The
> processors Apple uses have a completely different instruction set, which
> is why they're software is incompatible. Servers, Cell processors,
> SPARC, they're all different kinds of processors, and each works
> differently at it's basest level. And with the vast possibility of
> components to be combined, no two systems are identical. Even two
> systems with identical compnonents will run differently, because there
> are manufacturing differences between the components. Computers are
> actually fairly unique individuals.

Isn't most computer processing based on the binary numeral system? 

> The process the mind uses to think is as standardized as anything I can
> think off. The areas of the brain are becoming increasingly well known
> by function and location, and tend to matchup between individuals,
> having the same responses to the same stimula at the same part of the
> brain.

Areas of the brain can be imaged. But what the image is thinking isn't 
apparent to anyone but the thinker. Another reason why the intellectual 
level might better be called the individual level. :-)

> Personally I think the example of the human mind to a computer is
> Fantastic! Admittedly computers deal with data in series, and the mind
> in parallel using primarily pattern matching as opposed to number
> crunching. But the similarities are certainly there for an analogy.

When a computer passes a full Turning test, let us know.

> I'll believe Pirsig when he demands that his name be removed from his >
> books and his birth certificate. :-) 
 
> Exactly. The individual is a great social  level pattern. Very useful.
> But biologically, and intellectually the individual is nowhere. You're
> all about Society Platt!

When you say it's all about society, all you are saying is that there 
are other people around besides you. Well, duh. What you fail to 
acknowledge is the unique you saying it.

> "The events that excited people in the twenties were events that
> > dramatized the new dominance of intellect over society. Literature
> > emphasized the struggle of the noble, free-thinking individual against
> > the crushing oppression of evil social conformity." (Lila, 22)

> Oh yeah, and describing an era with the MOQ levels doesn't mean he
> thinks it was any good. As far as I can tell he passes no value
> judgements in this passage at all! Hardly the basis for an argument.

Pirsig makes the judgment often that it's right and good for intellect 
to dominate society.  

> Hmm, interestingly enough you snipped out part of that passage.
> Unsurprising. Here it is in full:
> 
> " The events that excited people in the twenties were events that
> dramatized > the new dominance of intellect over society. In the chaos
> of social patterns > a wild new intellectual experimentation could now
> take place. Abstract art, > discordant music, Freudian psychoanalysis,
> the Sacco-Vanzetti trial, > contempt for alcoholic prohibiton.
> Literature emphasized the struggle of the > noble, free-thinking
> individual against the crushing oppression of evil > social conformity."
> 
> So not only are you For the individual vs. Society, you're also for
> drunkenness, and disorder. Interesting.

So you must be for prohibition and against modern art. Not only 
interesting. Amazing.

> Platt, are you an anarchist? Cause at this point you certainl sound like
> one!

No. You've got the wrong boy. Chomsky claims to be an anarchist. I'm a 
libertarian.  

Platt