[MD] Where does the MOQ belong?

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Bo

Probably a good idea to split that thread.

>> When I say that the MoQ is a set of intellectual patterns, I have
>> drawn up the MoQ on a piece of paper and points at it from within
>> the framework of the MoQ. The MoQ on that piece of paper is the
>> stuff that I'm pointing at and everything in this universe that I
>> can point at from within the MoQ framework *can* be put in first
>> either DQ/SQ, and since it's SQ I can then put it in one (or more)
>> of the 4 levels. In this case I put the words on the paper in the
>> intellectual level but the paper and ink goes in the inorganic
>> level.
> 
>> You have to differentiate between the piece of paper with the MoQ
>> written on it, and the MoQ framework from where you're pointing.
>> It's perfectly alright to do that. Otherwise we wouldn't stand a
>> chance talking about reality, because we're *inside* this reality
>> about which we're talking. And we can't step out of that reality, so
>> we have to just use what we can, i.e. an intellectual pattern, a
>> framework, from where we point at the reality around us, including
>> that framework. A computer might crash if it encounters infinite
>> recursion like that, but we can handle it, at least I can.
> 
> I understand your exasperation over me not seeing the obvious, 
> that the MOQ is a theory which (to you) means taking place in the 
> mind which (to you) is "intellect". But my constant retort is: What 
> about theories - sets of ideas - that people made about reality 
> BEFORE the intellectual level, were those "intellectual patterns"? 
> There was such a time no? Even if the Ancients didn't have 
> paper to draw on, I guess it isn't the graphics which is your point, 
> an audio version of the MOQ would be as much intellect as 
> different from the said "framework from where you point". Think 
> about it.   


In my view, the first intellectual patterns turned up sometime after the first 
animals evolved a neural network slightly larger than required to actuate their 
limbs. I'd better elaborate on that one...

When cells first started to get together to form larger animals, they needed a 
language to communicate to eachother what they sensed/smelled/tasted etc. They 
also needed a language to affect eachother so they could cooperate to move the 
collection of cells in an orderly fashion. So they evolved a neural network that 
handled these signals back and forth. There was of course no cell that said: 
"Hey guys, we must invent a language so we can communicate"! Rather, those cells 
that just happened to understand eachother, formed those larger animals.

In the beginning, the neural network was only used for reflexes, such as: Some 
cell at one end of the animal sensed some edible substance. A signal was sent on 
the neural network about this which caused all cells to help in the effort to 
move the animal in the right direction, i.e. very reflex:ish types of signals.

It's not very far fetched to assume this, we still have such reflexes and those 
reflexes are very fast and as Pirsig says in Lila - they are pre-intellectual. 
That's a rather good indication that such types of neural signals are more basic 
than our other types of more elaborate thoughts that can also affect our limbs.

Intellectual patterns made their entry when these neural networks got complex 
enough to be able to store information from one event to the next. This could 
make the animal react in a different way than it would have without that memory 
and is of course a fundamental leap in its evolution.

If we investigate *what* that memory is in terms of the levels of the MoQ, we 
see that it's *not* biological, because we just said that the animal reacted in 
a different way than it would have without the memory. This means that whatever 
it was, it was using the lower level patterns for its own purposes, just as 
higher levels do. Social patterns are only used for interfacing biological 
entities to form larger societies, and animals have up until now used social 
patterns to form their neural network, but if it was only using that network for 
reflexes, it would have reacted differently, so this is some even higher level 
using a society for its own purpose...

Here is where I think the *first* manifestation of intellectual patterns 
evolved. In unused parts of the neural network of Cambrian animals (570-500 
million years ago according to wikipedia). So, for this manifestation of the 
intellectual level, your question above: "What about theories - sets of ideas - 
that people made about reality BEFORE the intellectual level, were those 
"intellectual patterns"?" becomes rather mute.

The intellect you're talking about is based on human societies. It's still 
intellectual patterns and they rule social patterns for its own purposes just as 
the first manifestation did. As I've said earlier, I *do* recognize that this is 
also intellectual patterns, but what I've tried to describe above, it's not the 
*only* kind. Same, same, but different.

Lastly, I'm not sure if I ever said what you claim, that mind = intellect. As 
described above, I would *not* describe that "unused part of a neural network" 
as a mind, but it certainly sets the playfield for what later will be called a 
mind. But since mind is a SOM invention that (in an inexplicable mystical way) 
connects the subject (I) and the object (body), I'm not sure it's possible to 
define it very well in MoQ terms, at least not with only static patterns.

	Magnus