[MD] [MD} MD 4th level - The more autonomous level

[Ham Priday]

Platt (and 'must reading' for Arlo) -- 


Thank you, Platt, for bringing to my attention a fascinating new reference
source.  I shall give close attention to the Charles Birch essay when I have
the time; but while quickly scanning it, I came across a discussion of AI in
which Birch asks this very provocative question:

"Is there some extra value in having consciousness as well as the
appropriate reactions to the environment?  No one has given a satisfactory
answer to this question."

"Extra value", indeed!  Why has no one (in the author's opinion) seen the
value in "having consciousness", least of all Mr. Pirsig and his acolytes?

Let's consider the alternative.  Let's imagine a world in which there is NO
consciousness, a relational universe in which entities and organisms evolve
and adapt systemically in Darwinian fashion by genetic transfer of
"intelligence" and according to Newtonian principles.  Supposing further,
that one or more of the organisms evolving by the process of natural
selection develops the capability to utilize physical intelligence in a
highly complex complex way.  Through this faculty, it organizes a community
of like organisms to plan, build, and maintain a techno-social system,
including documents recording the laws and principles which it has
"detected" about its world.  Conceivably, this robotic creature might
establish a civilization with an infrastructure very much like ours -- 
except that it has NO CONSCIOUS AWARENESS of itself or the significance of
its accomplishment.

What, I ask you both you and Arlo, would be the value of such a system?
What meaning or purpose would this automatic evolution toward "betterness"
achieve?   Indeed, in the absence of awareness, how could such a
sophisticated order of beingness even be discerned to have more value than
pure nothingness?

The above senario, my dear friends, is the nihilistic ontology suggested by
Platt's "Lila's Child" quotation.  The only thing that saves it (ex machina)
is that final reference to DQ, which I assume is a token recognition that
consciousness plays some minor role in the system.

"Since the MOQ states that consciousness (i.e. intellectual patterns) is
the collection and manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that
stand for patterns of experience, then artificial intelligence would be
the collection and manipulation of symbols, created in a machine, that
stand for patterns of experience.  If one agrees that experience exists at
the inorganic level, then it is clear that computers already have
artificial intelligence. A question arises if the term "consciousness" is
expanded to mean "intuition" or "mystic awareness."  Then computers are
shut out by the fact that static patterns do not create Dynamic quality"
(Lila's child, Note 32)

Have I said enough to make my case?  (Don't bother...I know the answer.)

Regards,
Ham