[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[MarshaV]

At 02:00 AM 3/10/2009, you wrote:
> > >[Krimel]
> > >Intellect is a biological function that evolved in higher primates. It is
> > >what assures the survival of our species. Social behavior evolves even
> > >earlier.
> >
> >[Marsha]
> >This is confusing to me.  You are saying that intellect, by which I
> >take you to mean thinking, is a biological function. Do you mean the
> >brain?   Is the relationship a causation or a correlation.  And what
> >of social behavior which you are saying evolved earlier?  Is it
> >biological?  How so?
> >
> >[Krimel]
> >Intellect developed in humans in the same way that speed developed in
> >cheetahs. Those who had more of it in the past were better able to scatter
> >their genes into the present. I don't think you could find much argument
> >that thinking is correlated with brain activity. Or that particular kinds
>of
> >experience can be correlated with increased activity in particular parts of
> >the brain. I am personally convinced that the relationship is very much
> >causal. I think studies of individuals with particular kinds of brain
>damage
> >show impairment of specific functions that are caused by the damage. There
> >are a variety of lesion studies in animals that back this up as well.
>
>[Marsha]
>There is a difference between causal and correlation, and I'm still
>not sure which you think it is when it comes to thinking.  You used
>both terms.  If it's causal, is it the brain chemistry creating the
>thoughts or the thoughts manipulating the brain chemistry.  A
>correlation would mean a reciprocal relation or interdependence.  So
>I'm still confused what to you meant.  Also you didn't exactly state
>anything definitive about social behavior, which you stated came
>earlier than thinking.  Was it biological or not.  It was difficult
>to know where the last sentence should be applied.  The previous
>paragraph was all about social behavior and stated nothing about
>biological processes.
>
>[Krimel]
>I stated a few of what I consider to be obvious and indisputable
>correlations: thinking and brain activity and particular kinds of thinking
>correlated with particular brain regions. This is what Jill Bolte-Taylor
>called parallel processing. I further stated that I personally believe that
>these relationships are causal. I mean, more than just co-relations whose
>variation is dependent on some other variable. But let me clarify. I agree
>with the behaviorists on this point. I think ALL of human behavior results
>from three factors.
>
>1. Biology
>2. Personal history (past experiences)
>3. Present circumstances
>
>Or Nature and Nurture united in the Moment.
>
>I think social and intellectual development in humans is so interconnected
>that it is impossible to pull them apart but given the behavior of related
>species, it is clear to me at least, that social behavior developed first.
>Social behavior in other primates is well developed and in many respects
>indistinguishable from human behavior. It seems pretty obvious to me that
>since we share much of this with our nearest relatives that it was present
>in our line well before humans even arrived on the scene.
>
>Social behavior is an biological-evolutionary survival strategy that is
>highly advanced within the primate order. But other species exploit this
>niche as well. From colonies of blue green algae, to coral to schools of
>fish to ants and bees, flocks of birds, herds of deer, pods of dolphins...
>Many species find safety and security in numbers.
>
>More advanced forms of social species employ diversity of function among
>various members. This is totally biologically determined in insects and
>largely learned among humans. I think it is pointless to draw a line and
>declare that on one side of there is biology and on the other there is the
>social. And over here there is a line that separates absolutely the social
>from the intellectual. To repeat Case one more time, "Things don't cleave
>they shatter..."


Krimel,

First I was stunned at your use of "I think" to explain your 
scientific point-of-view, next shocked, now amused at how wise Lila 
was in Chapter 14.  For you and Science it is 'I think' all the way 
down, analogues, conceptual constructs (or turtles).  What is any 
interpretation given to percepts except repetition of 'I thinks'?

"...I'm whatever your questions turn me into. You don't see that. 
It's your questions that make me who I am. If you think I'm an angel 
then that's what I am. If you think I'm a whore then that's what I 
am. I'm whatever you think. And if you change your mind about me then 
I change too. So whatever Richard tells you, it's true. There's no 
way he can lie about me."

  Well, maybe, shatter they do.   ???


Marsha







.
_____________

Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.........
.
.