[MD] MOQ/BOC

[John Carl]

Hi Magnus,

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:

>
> However, what I initially meant was rather that the process of learning,
> i.e. the receiving end of teaching, implies that the animal is able to
> change its behaviour dynamically.
>
> Simple animals aren't able to do that.




John:

Exactly!  We completely agree so far.  Teaching, as well as territoriallity
are markers for what I'd deem, social patterning.  Simple animals aren't
social.   Insects are individual. Plants barely so.  Birds flock, fish
school, but in such vitally different, hard-wired, instinctive ways than
mammal herding and sexual competition.

You nailed it. "Change behavior dynamically" is what it's all about.
Changing individual behavior, dynamically in relation or reaction to others
is what social patterning is all about.





> But more complex animals doesn't send those sensory input directly. They
> send it via a central processing unit which we call a brain where it can
> choose to do this or that. And it can even change its behaviour if it learns
> that it would be better in some other way. Many animals have a mix of those
> different types of behaviour, we usually call them instinctive vs. learned.
>
>

John:  "Learned" means taken in from authority, like drinking mother's milk.



>
>  But the social patterning of elder to younger "teaching" is a
>> distinct stack.
>>
>
> Stack? Do you mean we can find all the levels inside the patterns that we
> teach our young? Well, yes, I suppose.
>
>
> John:


>
>  I think we need a useful
>> distinction between the reactiveness to environment that all life has to
>> some degree, with memory, time perception, etc. that I'd term intelligent,
>> and intellect which is the realization of self/other in  manipuable
>> abstract
>> terms.
>>
>
>
Magnus:


> I'm not sure we can make such a distinction with the MoQ, and I'm also not
> sure I think it's very important either.
>
> I think Bo sees that difference as crucial, but it's actually just a
> gradual difference in the brain that makes it possible to see the self as a
> part in the reality in which the animal lives. Also, isn't that one of the
> milestones of a baby's development? To be able to see itself as a part of
> the reality in which it exists. Not sure that's important here, but it seems
> to me it indicates it's a quite fuzzy borderline and nothing like a discrete
> border the levels are supposed to be.


John:

Well, I believe Pirsig talks about "the intelligence of these cells".  I
think somebody posted that recently.  I think the distinction of
intelligence as being the dividing line between level 1 and level 2 - that
all life has a form of intelligence, and intellect dividing level three and
level 4, is a simple, useful and handy split showing dynamic shifts in the
evolutionary continuum.



>
>
>  I think this is why there is so much confusion over the 4th level being
>> termed "intellectual", btw.  In essence, intellect is predicated upon S/O
>> thinking, as opposed to simple organism/environmental reaction which I
>> call
>> "intelligent".
>>
>
> And I could also imagine splitting up "intelligent" into learned vs.
> instinctive behaviour, and then we have three divisions, further hinting
> that the scale is somewhat fuzzy.
>
>

John:

Yeah?  That also fits.  That's the line between level 2 and level 3.  So in
that case, we'd say level 2 starts with instinctive reactionism, level 3
with intelligence and self-awareness, and level 4 with intellect and self
reflection.

I like it.

You've just added great value to my day, Magnus.  Thanks.  I believe I'm
gonna adopt this.

John