[MD] LC Comments

[Magnus Berg]

Hi David

On 2010-07-10 22:22, david buchanan wrote:
> Magnus said: .., I was discussing A.I. and if the MoQ allowed it. If
> it didn't, I probably would have left there and then, but I thought I
> devised a cunning way around the obvious obstacles.
>
> dmb says:
>
> If Herbert Dreyfus is right, A.I. is impossible.

Perhaps with today's computers, but quantum computers will invalidate 
all his rejections. Not here yet though.

> dmb says:
>
> No, I think the keyboard of your computer is an intelligible and
> useful artifact precisely because of the way it accommodates the
> human hand. Same thing with doorknobs, light switches and
> motorcycles. Our houses are creature comfort machines, with the key
> components being bathrooms, bedrooms and kitchens. This whole
> architecture is built with our biological functions in mind. Houses
> also serve as security devices and status symbols. They're a big part
> of the economic system, family structure, the larger community in
> which they exist, etc., etc.. And I think this is one the interesting
> aspects of the levels. Any given "thing" can be, and usually is, a
> complex mixture.

Yes, yes. But you completely missed my point. As I said in my reply to 
Dan just now, a computer that supports intellectual patterns must 
support all lower levels as well. Not indirectly via users or anything 
but directly and at all times. The novel that is stored in a computer 
must be supported by social, biological and inorganic patterns *inside* 
the computer at all times.

> dmb says:
>
> Well, I see what you mean but I don't think Pirsig is saying that
> social patterns are just somebody's personal viewpoint. He's not
> reverting back to those terms, of course, because his concern here is
> to clarify the MOQ's classification, to clarify the levels. He's only
> using the term "subjective" to point out that social level values are
> not physical objects. You might recall the other example he used.
> Biologically and physically, the difference between you and the
> President can not be detected. The difference between you is social.
> Is the President just in your mind? Is it just somebody's opinion?
> Well, no. It's a well known fact of our political reality and it'll
> go down in history as an indisputable truth, but you can't see that
> in Barack's physiology or in the atoms that make up his bones. It's
> not objective in the sense that the Presidency is not a physical
> thing, and yet it is as real as rocks and trees. That's what he's
> saying about the team of robots. You could teach them to salute the
> flag if that only meant a series of physical actions but you'll never
> find patriotism under a microscope, you know what i mean?

Yes, I see. But that's just another consequence of the last paragraph I 
wrote to Dan. Every quality event is the source of a subject and an 
object, right? And every quality event is of one level, right? So at 
each inorganic quality event, we get a subject and an object, at every 
biological QE, we get... and so on.

Ok, do we have intellectual microscopes? Nah, not really, but we do use 
our minds as such every now and then. We make a hypothesis and then try 
it out in our heads. The hypothesis becomes the object in those quality 
events. If you realize what I mean, then you just might have a quality 
event in your head right now? And that's my hypothesis being the object 
and you being the subject in that intellectual microscope.

Do we have social microscopes? Ditto, not really. But we have similar 
things. News papers, TV, tabloids, fashion magazines, etc.

Do we have biological microscopes? Pretty much, at least there are 
artificial noses that can smell.

Do we have inorganic microscopes? Oh yes, and that's why inorganic 
patterns are so "objective" in everyone's opinion, because we can put it 
under an inorganic microscope and measure it. We can get a fixed number 
of an object's weight, size, colour or whatever.

But *all* levels are equally subjective and objective! Don't think 
anything else for a moment!

	Magnus