[MD] MOQ/BOC

[David Thomas]

On 8/14/10 4:36 AM, "Magnus Berg" <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:

> Hi all
> 
> "Dan Glover" <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>> But my question still stands: If social patterns are not intellectual,
>> how do we discriminate them from other patterns? As I said, I am
>> confused. Are they hard-wired into our nature?
> 
> That's my kind of question. I just formulate it a bit more specific, such as:
> 
> If it's generally accepted that it is social value that made people live in
> groups, specialize in different tasks, build villages and even walls around
> them to protect them from the biological dangers of the wilderness,
> Then why call the same things made by cells, gathering into groups, specialize
> in different tasks, and build protective shells around them to protect from
> biological danger, anything less?
> 
Though I would limit this on the lower end to animals, because I'm not sure
how one could verify that similar cells learn from each other, other than
biologically. But other than that, this is precisely why I don't think it is
good, particularly for moral reasons, to limit the social level to humans.

Also I don't see how oral languages, all of which are abstract systems of
signs, could have evolved without an intellect (the dedicated wetware system
specialized for abstraction) to have been in place prior to languages
emerging. But under the existing MoQ the intellectual level emerges long,
long, after the social level emerges. Without extending the social level
backwards in evolution the level hierarchy between the social and
intellectual would have to be reversed to accommodate languages being one of
the patterns responsible for human social emergence.

Dave