[MD] QRE: The 4th. level's two interpretations. Par

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Marsh, Mat, Steve. All

7 Nov. Marsha wrote:

> This is from Zilioli's book and is interesting: "Before Plato, no
> epistemological distinction had ever been drawn between perception and
> perceptual judgement; 'aisthesis' was the general term used by
> Presocratic philosophers to indicate 'sense perceptions', 'feelings'
> and 'thoughts' (with no clear differentiation, either terminological
> or conceptual, between the three terms).  (Zilioli, p.61)

This is a bit difficult to align with ZAMM directly, but the likeness is 
clear, yet  I think Pirsig is most to the point. With Socrates SOM had 
reached the notion of Truth versus what "just seems true", then the 
question became what was (objectively) true and what just seems true 
for us (subjectively)  Plato arrived to the conclusion that IDEAS are 
true while senses constantly deceive us. Zilioli's "aisthesis"=sense 
perception" is the deceptive part, but "perception judgment" is hardly 
what Plato deemed TRUE. Yet  this can easily be identified as 
SOM.only at a much later stage.         

Steve:
> > I don't know whether Stone Age man could provide a rationale for his
> > behavior or not. Pirsig's comments suggest that he couldn't--that
> > his behavior that was not instinctual (biologically latched through
> > DNA) was ritual behavior (socially latched through unconscious
> > copying of behavior). But if he could provide such rationale, doing
> > so would be participating in intellectual patterns. The quality of
> > said rationales would be intellectual quality rather than social or
> > biological quality.

This is the same fallacious stuff about ancient people (social level as 
top notch) as mere robots. They surely had reasons for what they did 
without being anywhere near the intellectual level. "Rationale"is just 
an academical - intellectual - term for reason. Another thing. The 
social level is part of our make-up and we don't turn morons if/when 
we focus on that level.    
 
Mati: 
> The issue here is that you are using "rationale" as basis for
> evidence of intellect. The problem is that all kinds of behaviors
> existed long before the Greeks and no doubt even the caveman could
> demonstrate behaviors that were based on some kind of rational
> decision making process.  

Couldn't agree more.

> The problem is compounded that seemingly intelligent type be found in
> animals or even in some pretty sophisticated computer programming and
> we all might suggest that these are evidence of intellect.  

Right, but I would NOT say "seemingly intelligent" re. animals, they  
are intelligent in various grades according to brain complexity and 
computers are growing more and more intelligent. This is the new 
insight that the MOQ brings to the Artificial Intelligence issue. SOM is 
hung up in its notion that computer has to "wake up to consciousness" 
This will never happen because they are pure (biological copy) 
intelligence and can't reach the the social level and then surely not 
the intellectual because humankind has pulled the ladder up behind 
itself.    

> I think for the most part we could look at these behaviors and very
> easily recognize that there is something missing and that they are not
> really intellect at all.

Of course, animals are two levels below intellect and no species will 
reach the social level or intellect. Their window of opportunity is 
closed ... on this planet at least   

> Whether we are talking about cavemen or even
> the early Egyptians who were pretty sophicated in their engineering
> capacity, my contention is that we are talking about pre-intellect
> type behaviors that look a lot like intellect, but they are before
> intellect was realized. 

Sure, ancient people were as intelligent as ourselves and performed 
every thinking feat except the one Marsha referred to (Zilioli) of 
regarding the subjectively perceived world the objective "world in 
itself" as two separate realms (one aspect of intellects countless 
S/Os)

> Before intellect is realized all pre-intellectual thinking/behavior
> were understood as a product of the social level, i.e. Greek Gods,
> Egyptian Gods etc. 

Exactly! Add  the mono-theism Javeh, Allah and God 

> Intellect becomes fully realized, in my humble
> opinion when Aristotle makes the S/O split.  From the point the cat is
> out of the box and no longer is intellect behold to the social level
> and social quality.  In part that the social level had still a fairly
> strong grip on society it wasn'y worried, and frankly it didn't even
> know about the box or the cat. Again the question is of the meaning
> and existence.  Prior to intellect all meaning and existence was
> beholden to the social level, after the S/O split rational objective
> intellectual patterns were only beholden to themselves. Anyway that is
> my take on it.

Your take is flawless  ... Great post Mati! .

Bodvar