[MD] A.I.

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[John]
I Don't Agree  with this Arlo...

[Arlo]
Fair enough. 

[John]
The social patterns are the building blocks, the SQ of old intellectual tracks,
where the train has gone already. 

[Arlo]
I don't understand this. Are you saying you see the evolutionary levels going
Inorganic-Biological-Intellectual-Social?

Or do you think that while intellectual precedes social in the evolutionary
path, it then is a higher moral pattern? So "social" would be something like a
derivative level, or not really a level per se, but the static remnant of
intellect?

Something like "Inorganic-Biological-Intellectual" with "Social" being seen as
the SQ-ized intellect?

Yeah, obviously I am not following what you are saying.

[John]
You can call a book an Intellectual pattern", and you'd be right in that it had
an intellectual creator.

[Arlo]
I'd say a book has no singular "creator" except in some social-celebrity sense.
"Books" are dialogic, along the lines of Bakhtin, they are "responsive" to
previous aspects of the dialogue and "expectant" of future aspects. 

[John]
But the fact of a book or a teaching is a social phenomena,involving publisher
acceptance and reader popularity.

[Arlo]
Well, this too. But this is just saying that in modern America (for example),
publishing is an economic activity. Fair enough, I suppose, but this is
something that we hope, anyways, does not condemn high quality thoughts to the
economic dustbin. 

I mean, I am sure many great books were never published for economic reasons.
We got lucky with ZMM (or maybe Qualigod manipulated the cosmos to ensure His
Gospel would be told! - sarcasm), and books like A Confederacy of Dunces (a
good nomiker for the SIMians! - meanspirited jab). But one wonders if the best,
most insightful, most astoundingly revelatory book is sitting somewhere in some
file cabinet because someone expects there to be no "reader popularity". We
will never know.

[John]
Even teachers can't be teachers by themselves.  The social game is fundamental.
 No writing can be significant until it's been read.

[Arlo]
Wait. Suddenly we are in full agreement and I don't know where that shift
occurred. Do you think I'd disagree with this???

[John]
But DQ is where the ideas come from. 

[Arlo]
The key here is to ask if ideas are formed ahead of time and "given" to the
lucky recipient? Or is the idea an act of creation, of bringing into being
something that did not exist before, not even in some conceptualized "mind" of
an agenic "DQ".

However, this is a very interesting topic for me, and it harkens to Pirsig's
questioning of where hypotheses come from, and I'd bring in Peirce's theory of
abduction to flesh that out (ontop of those Pirsig already brought in;
Einstein, Poincare, etc.)

[John]
Intellect IS DQ to social patterning.

[Arlo]
Okay, back to not getting what you are saying.

Is "biology" DQ to inorganic patterning?

Do you think intellect precedes sociality? 

[John]
DQ to Intellect can only be "DQ" in its essence - an undefinable something out
there that generates hypothesis.

[Arlo]
So levels exist as "DQ" to the levels immediately beneath them? Is that what
you are saying?

[John]
If intellectual patterns came from social patterns, then the "infinity of
possible hypothesis" postulate wouldn't hold.

[Arlo]
Its the only way it does hold. How could a biological brain conceive of an
infinity of hypotheses without a social symbolic system in which to
conceptualize such a thing?

You think a feral human is gonna be able to do this? Not a chance.