Re: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Thu Sep 15 2005 - 07:26:32 BST

  • Next message: platootje@netscape.net: "Re: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)"

    Arlo (Ian mentioned),

    Carefully stated, but inconclusive. Consider that there is a growing notion
    (said by Ian, for example) that says that inorganic and biological processes
    are informational. Consider also that this information is valued (if one
    holds with the MOQ). As I see it, to speak of valued information is to speak
    of language, and so, even though it isn't people speaking at the inorganic
    and biological levels, the levels are semiotic. Would you consider this to
    be idealism as well? If you disagree that to speak of valued information is
    to speak of language, what additional feature does language have that valued
    information processing does not? What about my claim that value implies
    awareness of value? Do you consider that idealism also? If you disagree that
    value implies awareness of value, what makes unconscious value valuable?

    - Scott

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Arlo J. Bensinger" <ajb102@psu.edu>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:00 PM
    Subject: RE: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

    "Experience is value". Platt says "yes". I agree.

    However, I think in this tangental discussion you've forgotten the MOQ
    hierarchy, and somehow conflated "experience" with "the experience of social
    humans". I take this from Platt's charge as to how we answer the charge of
    Idealism, namely that "our" experience "creates" reality.

    It doesn't.

    Inorganic "value" creates inorganic patterns. As atoms respond to the value
    they
    perceive, they create patterns that are later described in our social-level
    semiotic (language) as "atoms" or "molecules" or "H20".

    Cells, for an example on the next level, respond to biological quality, and
    so
    create patterns that our social-level semiotic describes as "our body".

    Let me stop here, momentarily. If there was no "man", no semiotically
    created
    social "locus" such as "Platt" or "Arlo" there would still be inorganic and
    biological patterns of quality. On there respective levels, atoms, cells,
    etc
    would still respond to Quality, still form patterns, still "exist". Indeed,
    an
    "electron" is simply a name for an inorganic pattern of value. Whether
    "social
    level beings" name it or not, it would still exist.

    The world is not created by "social man", only social level values of "the
    world". This is much different from Idealism which states, as I understand
    it,
    that an inorganic pattern of value would not exist unless observed by a
    social
    level "individual".

    According to my reading of the MOQ, in this example, the inorganic pattern
    would
    exist, but our labeling, say "rock" would not. Thus, "rocks" only exist at
    the
    social semiotic level, but the undergirding inorganic patterns would most
    certainly continue to exist in the absence of the Great and Glorious Man.
    They
    just wouldn't be semiotically named.

    Having said this, "experience" on the social and intellectual level also
    creates
    existence, when seen from the point of view of same-level patterns. Social
    level patterns, ("Arlo", "Platt", "I", "you") create existence on the social
    level by virtue of responding to Quality on the social level, the same way
    cells create biological patterns by responding to Quality on the biological
    level.

    Thus, "social" existence is a product of "man's" experience. But biological
    and
    inorganic patterns are not. You can extrapolate this to the Intellectual
    level
    as well.

    To sum, "Idealism" presuposes that social man's value creates Intellectual,
    social, biological and inorganic existance. According to the MOQ, social
    value
    only "creates" social level patterns. Biological value and inorganic value,
    which have nothing to do with man's "awareness" (or any of the buzzwords for
    the Great "I") are not dependant on our (social level) experience. Atoms
    formed
    elements long before "we" experienced them. Cells created "biological
    beings"
    long before "we" experienced them.

    "We" only bring social level patterns into existence, and by virtue of a
    collective, Intellectual patterns on the next MOQ level as well.

    That is the answer to Idealism.

    Arlo

    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

    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 : Thu Sep 15 2005 - 07:34:16 BST