[MD] What is SOM?

[skutvik at online.no]

Peter, Krimel, Steve and Group

20 December

Peter opened the exchange about Artificial Intelligence and his 
purpose was to show (I repeat) ...that subject/object logic is the 
basis of intellect  

> [Peter] 
> I listened to a tape of 'The Language Instinct' by Steven Pinker the
> other day. One section brought home to me that subject/object logic is 
> the basis of the intellect.  Pinker shows how a dumb machine can
> perform logical deductions; that given two sentences: 'Socrates is a
> man' and 'All men are mortal' a mechanical apparatus can move the words
> around to produce: 'Therefore Socrates is mortal'. That apparatus can
> always make correct logical deductions given two sentences in the
> appropriate form. 

I see his reasoning as if machines can become logical, then 
intelligence is NOT the definition of the 4th. LEVEL. Only the 
subject/object definition is left.   

This I naturally agree with, but just wonder how intelligence 
EVER emerged as the criterion of intellect, at least I have harped 
on the intelligence/intellect fallacy for years. IMO intelligence is 
no level in the MOQ, but a biological pattern that reached a peak 
with the big-brained primate called Homo Sapiens. This pattern 
the social and intellectual level - in turn - exploited for own 
purpose (as is all levels' wont).  

Krimel:
> The chief argument against machines being humanlike in the face of
> this, would be that they do not have human emotional responses. Since
> emotional responses are the products of evolution on a vast time scale
> and are functions that preserve the lives of organic beings it is
> questionable how valuable they might be to a machine intelligence. 

Good point Krimel. Intellect (as SOM) can't make sense of AI, its 
criterion for intelligence is for computers to wake up "to 
consciousness" and think or say "Hey, I am a computer". And 
further realize that they have been shamelessly abused by 
humans, FEEL great anger and "take control". 

This will not happen because computers are just one biological 
pattern copied, they don't have the other means to rise to the 
social level - the level of emotions  - and absolutely not to the 
intellectual level  (which isn't = consciousness but the level where  
consciousness is seen as awareness of Reality) It sounds 
mysterious, but is very simple.     

Steve:
> I don't see how this is an example that all intellect is subject 
> object thinking. Where are the subjects and objects in this? I see 
> this as an example that shows that not all thinking is S/O based.

Steve have not understood Peters starting point and seems to 
expect AI to be "Artificial Intellect" and expect S/O patterns to 
emerge.   
 
Steve:
> Artificial intelligence is a Platypus in SOM because we have an 
> object (the computer) thinking while in SOM only subjects think. 

AI may be a platypus in SOM, but Natural Intelligence is a 
platypus  in "orthodox" MOQ.  

> MOQ can resolve this problem.

Tell us!  

Bo