[MD] What is SOM?

[skutvik at online.no]

Hello Magnus, A welcome sight. 

Bo earlier:
> > For the umpteenth time the 4th. level is NOT thinking.

Magnus:
> 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.

How will I know whose logic you use? However no static Q-level 
knows anything about the Quality context ... if that's what you 
mean by self-reference?  

> 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. 
 
Add a level?  The MOQ is a metaphysics the greatest system 
there is .. follow me that far? It postulates the DQ/SQ split and 
several static levels  ...OK? Then it follows by simple logic that it 
can't be part of any of its own levels, but simply be itself. Must you 
keep harping on that 5th level for ever?
   
> 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.  

Does computer science know/use the MOQ? My hunch is that 
your "...no intellectual patterns are simply able...etc." refers to 
Godel's Theorem about no system being absolutely closed, always 
a God's Eye that sees it from the outside.    

> > 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.

I still can't see how (what I believe is) Godel's Theorem have an 
impact on the "storing, retrieving and manipulation .. " as MOQ's 
explanation of the origin of SOM's mind. But let me ask you how 
the MOQ may take Godel into account, i.e. become totally closed 
system without reverting to mysticism?   

> > 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.

I haven't heard about any "Magnus' position" except your notion of 
a social level disappearing down into absurdity.

Bo