[MD] Quantum computing

[skutvik at online.no]

Magnus and All

22 Feb. Magnus Berg wrote:
 
> Complex is very much intentional and significant. However, you seem to
> equate complexity and instability, whereas I don't......

This seems to be a good day, but contentment is seldom "stable". 
 
> A computer/robot
> is very complex, but at the same time very stable. It can't change and
> make something it wasn't designed to do. This is why I use the term
> "evolutionary path". Such a path starts out very simple and almost
> static. But as it evolves, it becomes more complex and more dynamic. 

Computers aside (mine is not all stable) agreement. A static 
(evolutionary path) level starts very "static" and evolves towards 
complexity/dynamism. (Pirsig says towards DQ)   

> Branches will extend from the main path, and some will prevail. But
> some are too dynamic/instable and dies, others are too static and
> can't adapt to environmental changes.

Let's stick to the general tenet about a pattern of the old level 
becoming the stepping stone for the new. Pirsig points to carbon 
as that of biology, but even so carbon itself remains inorganic. 
You and I seem to agree on the said neural complexity as the 
stepping stone for social value, but like always the "stepping 
stone" remains behind (brains are biology). 

Regarding this bio/socio transition Pirsig has no opinion (as far as 
I remember)  and about the socio/intellectual one just the vaguest 
about social rituals becoming the budding intellect. Why this 
vagueness as long as ZMM tells so convincingly about it is a 
mystery, SOM and intellect fits like the proverbial hand and 
glove.         
 
> I tend to think that intellectual patterns is the only level that can
> represent other patterns of any level, including intellectual
> patterns. 

That long did my contentment last?  Again this impossible 
intellectual level that can "represent other patterns ...etc."  When 
did anyone before Pirsig speak of Q-patterns? Never, because 
there was only SOM and its mind-intellect surely represented 
(contained) the whole world. This mind-intellect "dragged and 
dropped" inside the MOQ spoils it. 

For the nth time, the 4th level is static and will have to have a 
fixed repertoire, besides like all the previous level shifts: The 
intellectual pattern that became the stepping stone of the MOQ 
will remain intellectual (SOM) till kingdom comes. To stick to a 
mind-intellect is like insisting that carbon is life    

Another thing. All intellectual patterns that Pirsig pointed to in 
LILA are invariably S/O-patterned, this ought to have sounded 
"bells and whistles", but he had somehow started on the wrong 
foot and was not able to correct it. In the Paul Turner letter he 
admits the error of the mind-intellect and his new  "manipulation 
of symbol" definition could have helped if he had emphasized the 
"symbol/what it symbolizes" distinction, but alas

> That's the basis of having the ability to represent itself.
> It's also a requirement for us discussing patterns of all levels.

Only the MOQ enables us to discuss the level aspect of 
existence. Not from one of its sub-sets.         

> I agree, except that there *is* a language even here. To be able to
> store anything, you need a language to be able to understand the
> stored information later. This is how intellectual patterns seemingly
> skips the social level in brains, but actually it doesn't. It's
> supported by the social pattern "language".

OK, but if so (an expanded definition of) language replaces 
Quality. The storage of past experience as neural patterns is 
biological language-value. "How intellect skips the social level ... 
IN BRAINS"? Brain is biology, but you probably mean "why SOM 
has "mind-out-of-matter", and that I agree with, all the more so 
because it proves that you too sees SOM as intellect.      

> Yes, and I understand now where your idea about SOLAQI comes from. I
> can agree that science has been done using the SO division for quite a
> while

I count my blessings.. 

> But the intellectual level is about much more than
> representing/discussing science. 

Please give me some examples non-S/O intellect-

> We still use intellectual patterns to
> describe and discuss the MoQ. 

As said above: Only the MOQ enables us to discuss the level 
aspect of existence. Not from one of its sub-sets. 

> Are you saying that those patterns we
> express to discuss the MoQ here are not intellectual level patterns?

Yes, that's exactly what I say.  
     
IMO

Bo