[MD] Quantum computing

[Magnus Berg]

Bo

Why don't you stop re-phrasing Pirsig and yourself and start answering some of 
my questions instead? Every time I've asked you a specific question about a 
problem I see, you simply don't answer.

Need I remind you of the difference between philosophy and philosophology?

	Magnus



skutvik at online.no wrote:
> Platt, Magnus and All
> 
> I agree with Platt on this issue, but I think Magnus is into a blind 
> alley of his own. Social quality isn't about societies rather it is the  
> value whose purpose is to regulate/control/thwart biological value 
> - the latter most grotesquely categorized as eating and 
> copulating. Social patterns "... are the patterns of culture that the 
> anthropologist study" Pirsig says and the anthros don't study the 
> social traditions of cells in a body or of bees in a hive. But there 
> is no human culture without strong regulations/ limitations on the 
> biological aspect of existence. For instance religions' obsession 
> with limiting sexual license and rules about food and general 
> behavior, dress codes ...etc. just to mention a small aspect of this 
> social juggernaut.   
> 
> We also see how mistaken Magnus is regarding social value  
> when we look to intellectual value whose purpose is - in turn - to 
> regulate/ control/thwart social value. In no possible way can we 
> see that intellect interferes with bodies and/or anthills or hinders 
> the general formation of human societies, but very much how its 
> individual rights, worth and freedom, judicial and social, 
> democracy ..etc constantly butt against the most "social" culture 
> there is: The islamic one.       
> 
> Magnus' claim of gaining explanatory power by seeing "societies" 
> all over the place is not an increase in MOQ's explanatory power 
> - that he leaves in ruins - but perhaps in scientific such, and much 
> has been achieved by sociology and perhaps physics by seeing 
> things that way, but in that case he is re-inventing the wheel. 
> Anyway, we are committed to leave science - or the STATIC 
> intellectual level - in favor of the MOQ meta-level. Well, Magnus 
> is not the only one who loiter around there.               
> 
> IMO
> 
> Bo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 Mar 2007 at 9:40, pholden at davtv.com wrote:
> 
>> Quoting Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se>:
>>
>>> pholden at davtv.com wrote:
>>>> Seems to me a "thing" belongs to the level of its highest evolved
>>>> state. Thus, while a jellyfish consists of inorganic level
>>>> "things" (atoms, molecules and such)but belongs as a manifestation
>>>> to the biological level -- and so forth on up the evolution of
>>>> consciousness ladder until you arrive at the independent thinking
>>>> human individual, the highest form of evolutionary progress to
>>>> date.
>>> It may seem simpler at first sight to do that. But it backfires
>>> pretty fast for (at least) three reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. You get the fuzzy borders between the levels
>> A little fuzziness here and there is OK. I don't know of any category
>> that can't be accused of being a little fuzzy at the edges. For
>> example, biologists are still arguing about what constitutes a
>> species.
>>
>>> 2. The dimensional aspect of the levels gets hidden and is replaced
>>> by a ladder view, which only causes arguments about what thing
>>> belongs where. The inorganic value of a thing is not removed just
>>> because it's alive. In other words, you still have weight, even
>>> though you happen to have legs to move that weight around.
>> If you keep in mind that upper levels are supported by the lower I
>> don't see a problem. As for arguments, they will always occur no
>> matter how you divide up experience. So they're unavoidable.  
>>
>>> 3. In my view, animals are societies of organs, but that doesn't
>>> mean they lose their biological value. If you use your level rule
>>> above, it would end up in the social level, but that might not be
>>> the best way to describe an animal. (In fact, I'd even raise it to
>>> the intellectual level. Please read back a few posts in this thread
>>> to see why.)
>> Like Pirsig, I would reserve the social level to human beings so as to
>> avoid the issues you raise which muddies the waters without adding
>> much to the evolutionary moral hierarchy.  
>>
>> Platt
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
>> moq_discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
>>
> 
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>  
> 
>