[MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life?

[Magnus Berg]

On 2010-09-17 23:36, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:
> [Magnus]
> But why would the intellectual level be so much less dependent on lower levels
> than all other levels are? And especially since we *can* find a better
> dependency.
>
> [Arlo]
> I don't think that it is. Intellect rests upon a foundation of inter-nodal
> neural nets (pardon the redundancy).

Yes, it's only that the neural nets are inside the brain, not between 
brains. I don't understand the reluctance to realize the similarity. 
That's the thing about stacks, they realize that similarity and 
recognize both instances as social patterns.

> You are removing one node from all the
> others, and expecting it to die immediately. Even if I sever my hand from my
> body, the flesh and muscles and blood and cells in my hand continue to live for
> quite some time.
>
> In your analogy, you are imagining you are removing social patterns completely,
> you are not, you are removing a node from the network. Of course residual
> patterning will continue (albeit in decay) as the node dies. In other words,
> you are not eliminate social patterns immediately when you transport a man to
> the moon. Since the node on the moon was social, it will transport that with
> it, in the same way the fish will transport biologicity with it when it is
> removed from water.

So, what you're doing is to severely limit my possibility to refute your 
theory. You're making it a tautology. Not very scientific of you.

> This is why in my example you ARE removing (well, preventing) the node from
> ever being part of a social network. In this case you can see that no sociality
> means no intellectuality, period. The node was never social, therefore it can
> never function intellectually.

Then what about a computer? How is a computer able to support an 
intellectual pattern like a book, or a design specification for a new 
car? You can remove it from the internet, and it will support that book 
more or less forever. It will not decay. Even the first computer, very 
alone, extremely asocial, was able to represent intellectual patterns, 
ideas. How was that done?

If you only rely on a human society to support intellectual patterns, 
you will simply fail sooner or later. You just haven't dug deep enough.

	Magnus