[MD] What is SOM?

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Bo

skutvik at online.no wrote:
> Hei Magnus
> 
> 14 Aug. u wrote:
> 
>> Hi Bo
>  
>>> "Fuss about about a 5th level". I simply claim that the MOQ is the
>>> metaphysics that has intellect as a subset, consequently it can't be
>>> an intellectual pattern. This makes the MOQ a "meta-level". Try
>>> logic for a change.    
>  
>> So, according to your logic, you wouldn't be able to think about a
>> thought, or to be self-conscious?
> 
> For the umpteenth time the 4th. level is NOT thinking.

I never said it was. I was just using your logic.

You said that MOQ is a metaphysics that has intellect as a subset, and 
consequently can't be an intellectual pattern. That is flawed reasoning and 
doesn't take into account that intellectual patterns *are* capable of 
self-reference, such as thinking about a thought and self-consciousness.

Since you don't allow for intellectual patterns to reference themselves, you end 
up having to add a level whenever that happens, and that's just impossible in 
the long run.

No, intellectual patterns are simply able to reference (or mean) *any* pattern, 
both lower levels, other intellectual patterns and also itself. This is called 
recursion and is widely used in computer science. And if a metaphysics doesn't 
take that into account, it simply breaks.


> Where is 
> our agreement from long ago when we arrived at the conclusion 
> that storing, retrieving and manipulation of previous experience 
> through logical gates is something from deep inside the biological 
> level and that animals are capable of "thinking" in this sense - 
> something they actually are - and SOM incapable of explaining this 
> with its pompous "consciousness" even the butter-on-pork "self-
> consciousness".    

If I did agree to that, it must have been very early before I had given much 
thought to it, i.e. more than 10 years ago.

> As said if the MOQ uses this basic thinking as definition it's lost. 
> As tried to convey to Ron people from/at the logical level (where 
> emotions dominate) think motivated by emotions and possibly find 
> reason for their conclusions, but thinking at the intellectual level is 
> all about arriving at "objective" conclusions. My dictionary say 
> "distancing oneself from emotions and INSTINCTS, but the latter 
> is biology and no one is fooled by that, however EMOTIONS 
> (social level) is the great temptation because SOM has no social 
> level.
> 
> I don't know if this will make things any clearer, there is obviously 
> some insurmountable obstacle between the MOQ and you ;-) 

The day you understand my position and give me some good arguments against it, 
you can get away with such comments, but not until then. I'll give you a good 
opportunity to do just that soon as I'm writing on a new essay where I try to 
define my position, both old stuff but also lots of new.

	Magnus