virus: Scepticism Towards Level-# Minds

Lior Golgher (
Mon, 18 Nov 1996 23:06:38 -0800

I don't think the 'level-# mind' theory is necessary.
In fact I think its sophistication\generalization border with Newspeak.

The infidel has spoken. Now let the infidel confess:
As I understand it, the 'level-# mind' theory classifies minds according
to the scale\height of its bandwidth\perspective. In other words, it
defines the mind according to the level in which it concentrates - is it
stucked with the most basic level of reaction to input, or does it climb
up further into causes, purposes, long-term-view, etc.
As I see it, this perspective over\beyond the momentary input can be
accurately called meta.
No mind levels needed.

What makes meta better than 'level-# mind'?
1. It's easier to understand. A full understanding of the term prevents
dumb doublethink. The average 'subject: virus: level-3' post is about 2
pages long.
2. It's hard to generalize it onto claims equivalent to 'level-2 minds
can't grok the idea of level-3' or 'noperson nogrok SOCENG'.
3. It enables us to deal with specific cases, e.g. 'does
meta-hunger=taste?' and 'does meta-associating = human thinking?' rather
than general claims like 'how inferior is a level-2'er?'.
4. the 'level-# mind' theory imply that a given mind generally stays at
its thought level, while a thought level change is exceptional and quite
remarkable. Come back to reality and discover that at each given moment
a given mind works at a different thought level. This idea is unbearable
when you have three fixed mind levels. When you have infinite "levels"
of meta for each meme, this idea isn't only bearable - it's obvious.

Using the 'level-# mind' tool you can't make any worthy competitor to
compositions like The Metasystem Transition. It's just too clumsy for
such tasks.

Experiment in idealogically based devision - Let's split onto opposing
pro-level# and con-level# camps...

Chateau Conspiratorium.