[MD] Unkludging the MoQ.

[David Thomas]

And on, an on, an on...

I finished first post is the series by claiming.

>[Dave way way back]
> Now I'm going to take a "Great Leap" and guess one of the qualities of
> thought that was essential (maybe even the initial quality) for that "Great
> Leap Forward". Visual abductive reasoning.

                                                                >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

To be honest I just recently ran across the term and I don't know a lot of
details about it. But by serendipity within a few days of learning of it I
saw a visual example of it. It was on America's Funniest Video's (real
science I know, John quick put your hat back on) I tried to find the clip on
the internet, while I found reference to it, but did not find the clip. So
words will have to do.

Two young (3yr?) girls (who may have been twins) are trying to reach a light
switch. Both try, but are too short to reach it. One of the girls has an
idea. She grabs the other an steers her up to and facing the wall right
under the switch (visual abuctive reasoning-hypothesis established) and
starts to climb up her back. Almost instantly sees this will not work (trial
failed) she quickly turns her sister around says something to her and lays
down on the floor. Her sister steps on top of her back and reaches the light
switch.(2nd trial successful-visual hypothesis proven- need to be
taller-find something to climb or stand on) Total elapsed time less than 30
seconds with minimum verbal interaction.

What led me to " abductive reasoning" was that it seems when archeologists
are showing off their newest earth shattering finds they are always ask what
they tell about social structure and language. The archeologist always
pauses, saying something like, "Well without more information (money?) all
we can do 'infer' is that language could surely have been possible .... but
... yada  .. yada. So I thought why not focus on some completely different
type of mental activity and development. Why not focus on the mental
activity necessary for design?

So with a little Googling I turned up this:

http://www.designobserver.com/observatory/entry.html?entry=11097

Here's the most important snippet:

> Peirce (rhymes with ³terse²) was fascinated by the origins of new ideas and
> came to believe that they did not emerge from the conventional forms of
> declarative logic. In fact, he argued that no new idea could be proved
> deductively or inductively using past data. Moreover, if new ideas were not
> the product of the two accepted forms of logic, he reasoned, there must be a
> third fundamental logical mode. New ideas came into being, Peirce posited, by
> way of ³logical leaps of the mind.² New ideas arose when a thinker observed
> data (or even a single data point) that didn¹t fit with the existing model or
> models. The thinker sought to make sense of the observation by making what
> Peirce called an ³inference to the best explanation.² The true first step of
> reasoning, he concluded, was not observation but wondering.

> Whether they realize it or not, designers live in Peirce¹s world of abduction;
> they actively look for new data points, challenge accepted explanations, and
> infer possible new worlds. By doing so, they scare the hell out of a lot of
> businesspeople.

Now given that the right side visual parts of the brain are much older than
the logical left wouldn't it seem probable that an early visually oriented
logic function could be one of the first to yield value for doing those
things at the end of this quote?

>[Lila pg 140]
> Within this evolutionary relationship it is possible to see that intellect has
> functions that predate science and philosophy. The intellect's evolutionary
> purpose has never been to discover an ultimate meaning of the universe. That
> is a relatively recent fad. Its historical purpose has been to help a society
> find food, detect danger, and defeat enemies.

If you look at all those items what is the common element that they all
require? You got it, DESIGNING. What is one of the key mental functions
required for it? Visual abductive logic. What did Pierce think was the
fundamental requirement for creating new ideas? Abductive logic.

So why are the scientist's not more focused on design as they try to find
out how the intellect developed or emerged? I mean at least we have some
physical evidence to go on. Somewhat less to infer.

There is a tendency now to think of design and designing as a highly
specialized activity done only by a handful of jet set superstars who
usually dress, talk, think, and act weirdly. Nothing could be further from
the truth. We all design. Everyday, all the time. As I posted a while back
at the most general level, "design is the process used to initiate change in
man-made things." Or you could say, "design is the process used to initiate
change by man in everything." Rearranging the furniture in your living room?
Design. Cook dinner? Design. Rearranging the operating structure for your
corporation? Design. Writing a piece of software? Design.

The only thing different in these activities, often performed unconsciously
 is the degree of abstraction and the time required to carry out the
activity.

The other misconception about design is that is primarily a singular, self
contained process. If the only obsidian available for tools is 50 miles away
in a rival tribe's territory and you have to design, craft, a way to get
some your design, plan will in most instances require the help and
cooperation of many others.

So to answer Craig toolmaking is something animals can do occasionally and
not very well. Tooldesigning is only something humans can do. And we do it
very well, some would argue too well. And I my guess is that it was an
essential, integral, and maybe even the initial spark that enabled the Great
Leap forward in both intellectual and social development that happen
sometime between 125,000 and 40,000 years ago.

While Platt often thinks he could be wrong, I think I could be right on this
one.

Time and research will tell.

Dave