[MD] Quantum computing

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Bo

>> 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.

I was trying to describe how I interpret your understanding of that time, and 
that term seemed more specific to human societies which is why I used it.

As we have said earlier, I tend to see MoQ societies in much both larger and 
smaller scales than just human/animal societies. BTW, I would be interested in 
knowing how small and how large societies you would say belong to the social level.

One good reason to acknowledge many scales of societies is that they obey the 
same social "laws" on all scales. That means that you can gain lots of 
understanding about seemingly different social events by acknowledging that they 
are really the same events.

For example, in nature, there are lots of examples of how to solve logistics in 
an organism. The funny thing is that they all look the same. Veins in an animal 
to transport blood, veins in a leaf to transport water, neural pathways to 
transport signals in a brain, etc. But it doesn't end here, logistic problems 
are present on all scales, but on larger scales the solutions are called roads, 
train tracks, telephone lines and optical information highways.

Why do all these logistic solutions look the same? Why do all have 
larger/faster/fatter transportation lines between important nodes and then 
smaller and smaller lines between less and less important nodes? The answer is 
because it's better. And when a MoQ:er hears "better", it means "has higher 
quality". The next question that comes to mind is, "in what way is it better?" 
And the answer to that is "It's socially better".

How would you use your MoQ to explain these similarities on different scales? 
Perhaps you simply deny that they *are* similar? But if you deny it, you also 
deny the MoQ a lot of explanatory power.

>> 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, please, I have never denied the importance of each level being "out of" the 
former level. What I *have* done is to extend the social level, but only in 
scale, not in any other way.

> 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.

No, why would it be devastating? According to my reasoning that I have explained 
a number of times now, it's saving 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.    

I understand your position, and I also agree with it if you only consider the 
"socio-history" of the human race. But if you really want to use the MoQ as a 
metaphysics, it must work on all scales, and the only way I have found that 
works is my interpretation/extension.

> 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.       

And I say there's no reason to exclude any of his intellectual levels because 
"they" are one and the same, just born out of different scales of social patterns.

> 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, I have hardly begun thinking about consciousness, at least I'm a long way 
from getting close to a good answer.

On the other hand, I got an idea about the intelligent/intellectual distinction. 
  If you really understand my view of the MoQ, then you could say that 
intelligence is the ability to handle intellectual patterns, whereas intellect 
also requires a human-social context. So, one kind of intellect is 
"street-smart", another is the kind required by bushmen and yet another is the 
kind that gives you nobel prizes. If you look closer at these types, you see 
that intelligence is the most general of them, since it does *not* require a 
human-social context. I guess this was *not* the answer you were looking for though.

	Magnus