[MD] Unkludging the MoQ.

[David Thomas]

All,

Trying this again.

To summarize I posted this revised layout of the MoQ that I think accurately
reflect the latest advances in evolutionary sciences, brain research, and
other related fields.

                                                                >written...
                                                          >oral.............
                                                     >Intellectual Level>>>|
                                                   >> tool making
                                                  >>social human........
                                                 >>pointing.............
                                       >>social animal.....................
                                       >>Social Level>>>>>>>>>>>>>|
                                               >>>human brain & intell...
                                     >>>animal brain & intelligence...
                      >>>Biological Level>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>|
 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inorganic/"Organic" Level>>>> |
History of Parallel & Series Evolution of MoQ Levels>>>DQ-Present

I've add a few other stands based on some information recently gleaned from
PBS replays on recent paloarcheology discoveries and an Alan Alda hosted
series on the brain. The question that Alda's series explores is "What is
the 'spark' that makes us human?" Their conclusion is the spark that
separates humans from animals are,  Abstraction and Imagination. Hardly
earth shattering. I added, "pointing" and "tool making", above based on
these shows even though they seem to be ho hum no brainers. Some of the
points made were:

Modern children as young a six months have the ability to understand
abstract signs and concepts with no verbal clues. The question they were
responding to was "What is Good?"

Comparing chimps to two year olds at the same "helpful pointing" test.
The helpful point test is set-up with two overturn cups with a treat under
one. The treat is place under the cup before showing them to subjects.
Tester then reveals cups and points to one with treat. Apes never take the
suggestion, children almost always do.

Different researcher, Oxford scholar who's specialty is trying to understand
the social aspect of brain development when ask, "Isn't language the
significant turn point in social development between apes and humans?"
responds after a pause, No, I think it's pointing. No other animals do it.

EMRI's indicated that the areas of the brain used for grammar and for tool
use are very close together. The theory that now under further testing is
that because both are based on series, sequences, and timing that they share
some common deep functional area in the brain that has yet to be discovered.

Young children (3yr) and hand raised chimps in helpfulness test. Apes only
help in "dropped object test" if repeated gestures or requests are made and
then not always. Young children almost always help voluntarily after viewing
the accidental dropping with little or no gestures.

Get to the point, Dave.

RMP favors separating "intellect" from the emergence of the intellectual
level mainly because of this:

>[RMP letter to P Turner]
> You have to cut it off somewhere, and it seems to me the greatest meaning can
> be given to the intellectual level if it is confined to the skilled
> manipulation of abstract symbols that have no corresponding particular
> experience and which behave according to rules of their own.

There are a couple of basic problems with this.

First problem is, if the MoQ subscribes to any form of empiricism, radical
or not, this undermines their premise that all knowledge comes from
experience. Even if you allow for the "thinking about experience" modifier,
Are you not faced with the "Brain in a Vat" or Matrix problem? Is Pirsig
claiming that with zero sensory input or experience that the intellect will
go on create it's own high level abstract systems. How's that happen?
It hard to see if you have no experience at abstract symbol manipulation
that does correspond to a particular experience, how you could ever move on
to symbols that do not correspond.

Problem two is RMP violates this interpretation all over the place when he
labels things intellectual. The one that flipped my trigger was socialism
was intellectual, capitalism was not. If the intellectual pattern socialism
as developed by Marx is not based on his experience with the industrial
revolution and its use of labor and capital in Europe, What then does it not
correspond to?

Then we have the "Point to Greece Problem." What is he pointing to?
The development of Western Philosophy. Are these folks all about developing
abstract systems that have no correspondence to experience, to real people
with real blood, sweat, and tears? That dog just don't hunt. And I'm sure if
you look closely there are many many more examples.

Does this mean that something important didn't happen to cultures around the
world during the Axial Ages? And that it was a huge evolutionary jump? Of
course not it just means that it was a huge jump in the excellence of
intellectual quality, not the emergence of a total new kind on quality.

So the task still remains to try and tie down when the intellectual level
really did first emerge and what were the most probable causes.

I'm going to break here and do the same thing all over again to keep my shit
together as hard as that is in the best of times.

But I won't do that until tomorrow as it appears we are now on a 2 post
limit and I am now up to four.

Dave