[MD] Quantum computing

[skutvik at online.no]

Magnus and All. 

On 12 March. u wrote:
 
Bo before: 
> > "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.

I see the human tribes as the start of the 3rd. level. There is a 
fuzzy area of humanoid and/or primate "societies" (animals form 
families and apes lives in colonies) but these are the fuzzy areas 
at the lower end of all levels that Pirsig calls "in the service of the 
parent 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.

Almost any composite can be seen as a society from SOM's point 
of view, because its "society" is just an assembly of lesser parts. 
In the MOQ however the 3rd. level is a value realm different from 
the biological level and one gets gains zero (MOQ at least) 
understanding by treating an inorganic alloy as a "society" (even 
if some chemical bonds are at work) Nor by treating a biological 
organism as one, even if the cells of an organism are co-
operating.   

> 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.

No problems with this. That the lower level's patterns are 
transmuted/adapted by the next higher and all end up as the base 
of highest level is no proof that "everything is social". Your 
biology, society and intellect are no different from the SOM 
categories.        

> 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".

Distribution of commodities is better done by train than by 
horseback, and information by this our meduium than by a 
Marathon runner, but all this shows how completely you 
misunderstand social value. Q-social value is not improved by 
faster transportation and information flow, this is intellect's 
rationality that has dominated for so long. Social value is not the 
least concerned with technology, only of upholding the social 
coherence by.      

> 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.

These similarities are not seen from the MOQ.

> 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.

Well the scale counts very much. If "social" is extended into the 
biological realm and partly into the inorganic the MOQ's social 
level has lost all meaning.

Bo before: 
> > 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.

Phew, "Against stupidity .... (wish I knew the Latin version) ;-) 

> 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.

Well, who am I to hinder you, but I agree with Pirsig's in the letter 

    There has been a tendency to extend the meaning of 
    "social" down into the biological with the assertion that, for 
    example, ants are social, but I have argued that this 
    extends the meaning to a point where it is useless for 
    classification. I said that even atoms can be called 
    societies of electrons and protons. And since everything 
    is thus social, why even have the word? I think the same 
    happens to the term, "intellectual," when one extends it 
    much before the Ancient Greeks.*  

As he says , why have the social level at all?  
 
> 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.

So there are several "intellects"? One "out of" each of your 
societies. I understand that this has become a prestige thing for 
you. 

> 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 see your point, but why complicate things beyond recognition? 
It's a MOQ tenet that each level is a rung on the Q ladder and 
that DQ exploits the most "ambiguous" pattern of the lower rung 
to obtain the next one, but that the whole lower level forms its 
base. INTELLIGENCE (the ability to store and retrieve 
experience to anticipate new outcomes) emanated from neural 
complexity. This may be the biological pattern that helped DQ 
establish the social level and what that level regarded own value. 
When intellect was established INTELLIGENCE followed and 
became regarded as intellectual value. And here is the reason for 
the thinking-as-intellect fallacy. After language, intelligence 
became "thinking" and like that it continued at the social level - 
and eventually into intellect - and because no level know any 
level the 4th level regards thinking as its foremost characteristic.          

> I guess
> this was *not* the answer you were looking for though.

Not in your notorious distorted way, but it was a good try. 

Bo