[MD] MOQ/BOC

[David Thomas]

On 8/14/10 12:55 PM, "Magnus Berg" <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:

> 
> Hi Dave
> 
> "David Thomas" <combinedefforts at earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Hmm... when you say, "learn from each other, biologically", what do you mean
> exactly? Because if you mean DNA, or some other common definition of life,
> then that can confuse things.
Yeah I did put that badly. My take on social is, is what groups teach each
other by observation and communication. A lioness teaching her cub how to
hunt for example. This does not mean individuals cannot create a new social
patterns. Just for it to latch it must spread and be adopted by the group.
Even if it is for the silliest of reasons like this year's fashion.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> There are different languages at play here. The human societies use the
> sign/oral language of inter-human communication. But the cell societies use
> the language of inter-cell communication. We usually call them nerve-signals
> and that language is later used to support the intellectual patterns in the
> nerve-knots that over time grew to a brain.
> 
> Here is another example where stacks can be pretty useful. In the human stack,
> we can concentrate on human language and don't need to bother with other
> types. But we can still use the other stack to explain the intellectual
> capacity of the human brain without having to reverse the order between the
> intellectual and social levels.
> 
I'm not advocating the reversal of these levels just tweaking them slightly
by merging animal social and human social and moving the emergence date on
the intellectual level back about 58,000 years. Because the human animal is
just one current evolutionary pattern in a whole series of interconnected
past and present animal evolutions.

I don't deny that other stacks can be useful but unfortunately they are all
trapped in some form of human invented language be it mathematics or
Swahili.

Dave