From: mark maxwell (laughingpines@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Fri Sep 02 2005 - 20:40:35 BST
Hello Ian and Scott,
Ian told me he was debating the intellect in this
thread so i thought i would take a look-see, as i had
been taking an interest in a quote from ZMM in the ZMM
p.250 syllogism post.
Ian:
I think your (Scott's) symbolic manipulation is one
part of intelligence (a linguistic part and therefore
very important part) but I doubt it will be very
satisfactory as the whole definition of "intellect".
Mark 2-9-05:
Ian, Symbolic manipulation is far more than linguistic
in the MOQ.
Symbolic manipulation is everything not socially
learnt by imitation. Many aspects of language are
learnt socially at first, and later manipulated
independently from their original meaning.
Ian:
You do highlight one of the issues, more significant
in this higher layer - the extent to which it is
really "static".
Mark 2-9-05:
I would suggest that the total repertoire of symbols
is static while DQ evolves the whole repertoire all
the time. The repertoire includes memories, books, the
Internet, etc.
Ian:
The rate of
evolution in this layer is greater than the others,
and we probably
have many static patterns within in, (and that's
really what we're
talking about) rather than the whole "slab" of
intellect being
"static"
Mark 2-9-05:
It is the repertoire of static value patterns which
exist in memories, books, the Internet, etc. which is
static while DQ evolves this repertoire forward i
would suggest.
The source of DQ motivation requires refinement, but
when it does, it must include algorithms within AI for
example.
Ian:
- if it were, it would be hard to avoid Bo's
conclusion that
it just represents GOF-Intellect, as so far propounded
by Pirsig.
Mark 2-9-05:
I'm afraid i do not understand what good old fashioned
intellect as propounded by Pirsig is? As far as i
remember, even Pirsig suggests that AI is intelligence
and this does not seem to be old fashioned but rather
contemporary in nature.
Ian:
For me this just becomes a mildly interesting picture
of what had
evolved historically as far as SOMist intellect before
the MoQ,
Mark 2-9-05:
Ian, IMHO, SOM is a pattern within the repertoire and
not the intellect at any stage of its evolution. This
is an important distinction i feel. The MOQ is also a
pattern within the repertoire.
SOM and the MOQ are not intellect.
Ian:
but
leaves the MoQ itself out in the cold - as little more
that the
mystery of DQ processes themselves. I'm trying to "add
value" to that
picture.
Mark 2-9-05:
The MOQ is within the total sum of all symbols
comprising the intellectual repertoire. DQ is not in
the repertoire and can not be included.
Ian:
I think your "working intellect" aspect is a valid
part of this thread.
Ian
Mark 2-9-05:
Our own experience tells us the repertoire of symbols
is evolving right under our noses. If Scott is
providing a description of that process then i will be
very interested indeed. However, as with all
descriptions, it will be, IMHO, a static description.
This is where Ian's "Draw me a picture" has resonance
because the difference between describing and doing is
all the difference in the world.
Mark
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 02 2005 - 21:07:35 BST