[MD] Quantum computing

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Ham and all

> No wonder Platt remarked that this would "find a lot of takers"!  Why should
> a computer demo be "MoQ:ish"?   Is Pirsig's philosophy built on cybernetic
> information?   And by what qualifications are philosophical questions the
> domain of a quantum computer?  This reminds me of Ray Kurzwell's recent
> prediction of the coming 'Singularity', glowingly describing it as "...an
> epoch of such rapid and profound technological change that we will see the
> merging of biological and nonbiological intelligence."
> 
> It disturbs me that MoQers have been taken in by this New Age nonsense.  If
> Pirsig's philosophy fosters the notion that computers will inevitably
> replace human beings as the source of philosophical questions, there's a
> glitch in the MoQ that needs fixing.  Perhaps Bo has found it and is
> attempting to fix it by readjusting the Intellectual Level.

That's the first time I've been associated with "New Age", and hopefully the 
last. I come from classical side of reasoning Pirsig talked about in ZMM, feel 
free to read my essay "A classisist's road to the MoQ" in the moq.org forum if 
you want to read more. And that's a long way from any new age mumbo jumbo.

What bothers me most in your paragraph above is you putting humans on some kind 
of sole source of philosophical questions in the universe. I would say that a 
philosophy that stops *any* entity from growing into something more than what it 
currently is, is useless. Why would the MoQ prohibit a quantum computer from 
getting as ingenious as humans, but at the same time allow humans to evolve from 
a soup of goo into what it is today?

> Personally, I think it's the tangle of levels and patterns that has led this
> group astray.  When we seek understanding in the evolution of biological
> organisms and cultural trends, we lose our individual focus and get caught
> up in miscellaneous influences that are several times removed from the core
> issues of philosophy.  Digital technology is one of them, by the way: it's
> now fashionable to reduce all knowledge to numbers and digits and call it
> "intellectual understanding".

Yes, but as Ian pointed out, digital is *not* quantum computing. The word 
itself, digital, implies discreteness as opposed to continuous, see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital . What they call "intellectual 
understanding" in a digital computer is of course nothing more than 
"intellectual patterns". What they probably mean is that lots of numbers in the 
digital computer can be transformed into other numbers like graphs and and 
tables in order to assist in business duh-cisions. It's still just intellectual 
patterns, but it can be made easier to understand by decision makers.

> It seems to me that Bo is right that individual consciousness and mind are
> slighted by the MoQ, and that the level heirarchy usurps what is arguably
> the most significant phenomenon of existence -- its conscious awareness.
> What good are Quality, Values and Experience if they are not realized as
> proprietary awareness?  Certainly this must concern Pirsig's followers.
> Will Magnus suggest that his quantum computer has better questions to pose?
> No doubt a computer would resolve Bo's dilemma by positing itself as the
> intellectual locus of the universe.

Ok, what I think is that the human brain (actually all animals' brains) are 
quantum computers. *And*, isn't awareness one of Pirsig's most important 
subjects in Lila? All patterns are aware, and that awareness comes from the 
quantum world.

> Seriously, folks, Being Aware is not only what existence and its values are
> about, it is primary to everything we know about the physical world. And the
> only beings on planet Earth with intellectual awareness are human beings.
> To dismiss that fact, or fail to acknowledge it, misconstrues the purpose of
> philosophy.

I dismiss that "fact" any day. There are lots and lots of nature programs 
showing animals with intellectual understanding. They can communicate with 
people, they can remember procedures, they can reason, they have an inner life, 
thoughts and questions. If you don't call that intellectual awareness, I'd like 
to hear your definition of it.

	Magnus