[MD] LC Comments

[skutvik at online.no]

Magnus. (the one single "father"of the Lila Squad left ;-)

17 July you said:
 
> Ah, that, yes, I forgot you're firmly stuck in that human society
> stack. I tried to explain that to you once, but I don't remember any
> progress so I guess there weren't any. But did you read Andy's and my
> discussion about different stacks of levels in the computer thread? We
> agreed there are for example one stack in a computer that is built on
> our physical inorganic level. But then there's another, virtual, stack
> built using the computer's laws of nature. These laws doesn't include
> gravity or magnetism, but only digital operations such as and, or, not
> etc.

Yes, the social level is human because it was the human BIOLOGY  
that DQ rode to the social level, on that point I'm a staunch orthodox. 
You're not about to start about molecules and atoms as "societies" 
again?. Jeez, I'm accused of distorting the MOQ by my setting the 
intellect right, while you upend the whole MOQ and goes scot-free, 
where's justice?   

> When you discuss the MoQ, you always start with the stack starting
> with human perception of inorganic stuff, but you totally disregard
> the stack starting with our physical universe. The stack where
> inorganic quality events happens between physical objects without
> anyone seeing them, not where a cave man see an apple fall and
> concludes that apples fall when dropped.

Not me at least.I never allow the "human" or "language" (concepts) 
into the argument. If you think of my "our perception of reality is reality" 
I just meant to say that the MOQ rejects SOM's "everything is 
subjective, objective reality is out of bounds".   

> Andy, perhaps you can rephrase that. I'm not sure my language is
> compatible with Bo's, even though we're both Scandinavians.

Don't disturb Andy he's composing "hate Bo" posts.

> Bo, really, try to understand what I say now: The notion of different
> stacks are *important*. 

"Stacks"? I haven't followed your recent entries.

> We will *never* get anywhere if we don't acknowledge that we are mostly
> talking from within different stacks of levels. 

"Stacks of levels" ? We certainly talk from different levels, that's true, 
and most talks from Intellect-as-SOM - you not the least, by agreeing 
with Krimel on "intellect" = all and sundry ideas. Only a few of us are 
talking from MOQ's meta-level



> It's so refreshing for me to read stuff from Andy such as: "I'm not
> referring to anything new, it's just a short word I'm using for any
> given instance of the static patterns illustrated here: 
> http://moq.org/forum/Pirsig/emm.html#page13 " 

That URL refers to the SODV paper and the untenable "inorganic + 
biology = objective/social + intellect = subjective" which allegedly 
resolves the Mind/Matter paradox. But it does not, the SOL is the 
SOLution to that and all paradoxes..

> There isn't just *one* instance of the levels. We can see them 
> everywhere. 

If this pertains to the computer hardware as some "biological" 
counterpoint, yes computer technology mimics the workings of organic 
brain, its thinking and logic i.e. INTELLIGENCE.  Not that biologists 
knew how the brain worked and built computers from that knowledge, 
it was rather the other way round, we now know how the brain works  
in retrospect from computer knowledge. But computers only mimics 
biology, they will newer evolve a social reality, not to speak of an 
intellectual and - guffaws - reach the MOQ!!!    

> If you can see that you're using *one* of those instances for your
> reasoning, not *the* instance, then we will be able to really
> communicate for the first time since the last millennium. 

If you mean that mankind has used artificial memory and intelligence, 
notches in wood, pebbles, abacuses, slide rules, computers, 
calculators, memory "pins" ...etc. to enhance our thinking, sure, but 
trust Magnus to have some more "advanced" ace up his sleeve ;-).

Bodvar