[MD] Quantum computing

[skutvik at online.no]

Magnus & All.

On 7 March you quoted my:

> > As we agree about, from intellect seen all is intellect, and we may
> > cast our imagination back to a pre-intellect LEVEL time when all was
> > social. And that age's various world views can consequently NOT be
> > called "intellectual". Get it?  
 
> Yes, I understand what you're saying. You mean that all actions made
> by any human being before the advent of the intellectual level
> (whenever that was), was made for social reasons, right?

"Social reasons" may reveal how awkward your see the static 
evolution. As if pre-historic humankind didn't dare use their 
intellect, but grudgingly followed the social customs.

> But I simply disagree, because I think the intellectual level was
> already present in their brains. They had memory, therefore they were
> able to store intellectual patterns. It's as simple as that in my
> book.

"The intellectual level present in brains". Memory as ability to 
store "intellectual patterns". You haven't begun to understand 
what it means that various levels are "out of the" former, 
particularly how crucial it is to see the intellectual level as out of 
society, not out of brain.  

Bo before:
> > How could myths have intellectual roots if the social level had not
> > yet been transcended? 

> You're using arguments that doesn't apply to my understanding of the
> MoQ. I claim that the social level was transcended.

My (Bo's) undestanding differ regarding intellect, but I use the 
MOQ reasoing and Pirsig's argument that supports the SOL 
interpretation, but you don't bring any MOQ references or 
argument. An intellectual LEVEL bout Neanderthal times is just 
devastating for the MOQ.

> First of all, I *can* imagine such a caveman, especially if we're
> talking Homo Sapiens. Second, it doesn't matter in the first place
> since I don't think such thoughts are a requirement for the
> intellectual level.

The skeptical attitude is the very essence of intellect's rational 
approach. This attitude of proof and disproof was utterly and 
totally absent from the social existence when it was "leading 
edge". Still is when WE retreat to that level.    

> On the contrary, my version of the intellectual level doesn't require
> much "intellect" at all.

I have slowly begun to realize THAT ;-)
 
> The loose hunch was to argue that the intellectual level didn't appear
> until well after humans started writing books, that no caveman ever
> thought any "abstract" thoughts. It seems to me that this assumption
> is made to avoid the risk of having to argue whether any humans/apes
> before Homo Sapiens supports intellectual patterns.

I may have forfeited my right to call upon Pirsig for support, but 
in the said letter he says:

    "Just when the evolution of the intellectual level from the 
    social level took place in history can only be speculated 
    on .... [snip] .... but if one studies the early books of the 
    Bible or if one studies the sayings of primitive tribes 
    today, the intellectual level is conspicuously absent. The 
    world is ruled by Gods who follow social and biological 
    patterns and nothing else"

This is Pirsig at his best and very close to the SOL interpretation, 
but then at other times "his" intellectual level changes into to 
"thoughts" something that matches your view.       

Bo before:

> > The human body is a mammal 
> > organism- no better no worse - but according to the MOQ the 
> > humans - as intellect-bearers - are two levels above biology. If youumans 
> > don't buy THAT part of the the MOQ why bother? 
 
> That's a very good, and crucial question to me. And it's why I started
> thinking about the levels and made an attempt to define them more
> precisely than Lila does.
 
This was awkward of ME and I should have known that you would 
grab it. "The humans as intellect-bearers" sounds much like 
SOM's "Human consciousness". LILA does not define the levels, 
but from the values Pirsigs list, they are deduced. And the 
intellectual values all matches the SOL perfectly.   

> The answer is that I bother because I can imagine a future where
> non-biological computers are as intelligent as biological humans. And
> I want the MoQ to survive that.

I have not protested INTELLIGENT computers, but you seem 
hell-bent on it meaning INTELLECTUAL, perhaps also meaning 
consciousness.  The neglect of the intelligence/intellect 
distinction is what have marred the MOQ. 

> No, language is social. I'd say it's the most basic social value. It's
> the glue that keeps the organs of a society together. Didn't I write
> that? Perhaps below?

Phew, at least one agreement.

Bo