[MD] What is SOM?

[skutvik at online.no]

Case

Dec 25. you cited 

(Bo)
> ...I 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). 

and went on:

> [Krimel]
> Again with levels exploiting and being exploited. Really what sense does 
> that make?

(Bo)
Lots of sense, but if "exploitation" sounds offensive please find a better 
one. 

> Intellect to the extent that it is measured on tests seems to reflect
> speed of access to short term memory. STM is what is held instant to
> instant in immediate awareness. In this sense intelligence is the ability
> to quickly insert new ideas and seek out new and novel patterns of
> concepts.

Agree, this is the way most people of this discussion regards the 
intellectual level. For me it is the ability to distinguish between what's 
subjective and what's objective .. which BTW is how my dictionary 
defines "intellect". 
 
> [Bo]
> 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.  
 
> [Krimel]
> Above you are talking about self awareness. I really don't know how self
> awareness fits into intellect or how they are related in the least.
> Consciousness is a dubious concept at best. James thought it looked better
> as a function than as a thing. Crick and Coch have proposed the notion of
> using the neurosciences to seek out neurological correlated of
> consciousness. They think we can identify neural structures that perform
> the various functions of consciousness.

Indeed I am, because - as said - most people at this discussion are 
somists in spite of using MOQ terminology, and SOM (intellect before 
becoming MOQ's 4th level) has selfawarenes as a criterion of 
intelligence. Dubious concept - you bet. I know Francis Crick and other 
efforts to trace consciousness in various  places (Hammeroff) 
"microtubes " or (Zohar) something I no longer remember. Totally 
wasted because there is nothing called consciousness  ... or mind .. or 
awareness in the MOQ as such, all are static 4th. level patterns. 
Valuable as working hypotheses but not as metaphysics. 

> Still if, as you say "computers are just one biological pattern copied,"
> this should not detract in the least from computers having whatever it is;
> since the MoQ holds that everything is "Patterns" of SQ it should not
> matter how those patterns are represented.

Yes, If you say what I believe you are saying, maybe YOU of all people 
around this place have understood. A biological pattern is copied in 
computers and I do not scoff at them for being "mechanical" - they 
have long since reached the same computing power, yet the said 
selfawareness will never occur because they can't reach the emotional 
social level and after that the intellectual (SOM) level .... which is I 
repeat NOT a consciousness level, but the level where consciousness 
is seen as criterion for intelligence.

> Aside from that, emotions do not arise out of consciousness. 

I agree. Consciousness a hoax! 

> Quite the opposite, consciousness (whatever it is) arises out of
> emotions which are far more ancient on the evolutionary scale. 

Well, what SOM calls consciousness may have occurred at the social 
(emotional) level, but I believe that the MOQ will call it "awareness of 
social values. But OK, at least this is a thousand times better that the 
...... no names dropped ;-) 

> It seems that the "function" of consciousness is to check the emotions.
> It acts mainly as a way of refining the evolutionary heuristics of
> emotion by assisting us in seeing specifically where those heuristics
> are likely to fail.

Again ... with a little help this may fit. The function of intellect (whose 
definition isn't exactly consciousness - as said - where the term 
occurs, but let that rest) is indeed to check the social emotions. That 
way they are not "heuristic" but are seen in an even greater erspective 
- intellect's objective perspective. Dammit first time I have agreed so 
mucht. Thank you Case. Will return to the Benjamin Libet issue later.

Bo