[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Magnus Berg]

Andy, Andy!

Thanks! And wow! I'll write a proper reply tomorrow, but in the mean 
time, just, thanks for posting! And very welcome!

	Magnus



On 2010-07-11 23:08, Andy Skelton wrote:
> Howdy, list. Please excuse any fox paws in this, my first MD post. I
> am re-reading both of Pirsig's books after years away, so some of the
> bases for my thoughts are fresh while others are still quite dusty.
>
>> dmb to Magnus:
>>
>> Biological patterns INSIDE the computer? Seriously? It seems you have a fairly bizarre position. I mean, as far as I know there is no such thing as a computer that operates with social or biological patterns inside it.
>
> This thread about computers "supporting" MoQ levels above inorganic
> has yanked me out of newbie lurk mode. My thoughts take two orthogonal
> tracks. First, the "organic" level is not necessarily limited to or
> defined by what we have found and classified as "life" in the
> universe. Second, the reality of any given thing under Quality cannot
> be considered to exist without a second referent to provide point of
> view.
>
> To follow the first track, first review what constitutes biology or
> life. Pooping is not a defining characteristic. An organism that
> accumulates all of its waste until death or outsources its energy
> production is still an organism. I say that a biological pattern it is
> any pattern that tends toward self-perpetuation despite adversity.
> Atoms and most molecules do not qualify but DNA is such a pattern. In
> a favorable environment, DNA perpetuates its pattern by building
> defenses and making copies of itself. These activities are the result
> of molecule-manipulating programs embedded in the DNA. We are capable
> of manipulating DNA and thus capable of rudimentary hacking of
> biological programs. (Please correct me if I need correction on the
> biological level.)
>
> This definition of the biological level does not necessarily exclude
> patterns invented or circulated by man. We have already seen man-made
> self-perpetuating patterns in the wild: computer viruses. These
> patterns are self-replicating in that they can spawn viable copies of
> themselves in favorable environments. To varying degrees, they exploit
> their environment despite adversity. To varying degrees, they take
> part in communication of information about their environments, so they
> can be said to have a social level. To varying degrees, they have been
> programmed to mutate to gain advantage against other patterns in their
> environment. The fact that one can easily defeat the pattern by
> pulling the plug is no proof against its being biological as the same
> effect could be applied to you by suffocation.
>
> So you could say that a computer "supports" biological patterns in
> that a computer "is a suitable medium for" biological patterns. This
> is no different from saying that the ocean supports life, if you can
> suspend whatever social or theological precepts prevent you from
> attributing to man the ability to breathe life into matter, at least
> outside of polite company.
>
> I am too fuzzy on the second novel to embark on any proof that we have
> created self-supporting intellectual patterns in electronic computers.
> That will be in my mind as I study.
>
> The second track is more firmly grounded in the first novel, with
> which I am currently becoming reacquainted. Consider an unpowered
> computer lying in a dark closet with nobody around to see it. Does it
> exist? At what levels? If it is online and connected to the internet
> and communicating with other computers, yet nobody is aware of it at
> this specific moment, does it exist? At what levels? Let me make it
> more concrete.
>
> At the present moment in your time frame, you are reading these words
> from a screen (or hearing them from an assistive device) and
> suspending your knowledge that the symbols ride on signals composed of
> electronically controlled pixels (or vibrations of speaker membranes)
> that convey symbols from me to you across thoroughly inorganic air.
> The medium of communication need not have the capabilities of the
> participants.
>
> That we have interposed electronic computers in our communication loop
> is no more significant than had we had this discussion via paper or
> smoke signals or mind melding. Smoke is no more capable than a
> computer is of "being" intellectual, yet both are capable of conveying
> patterns between intellectual beings.
>
> Notwithstanding the first track above, the computer that sits before
> you does not support anything so complex as an intellectual pattern as
> you understand it. The existence of an intellectual pattern in a being
> presupposes an environment of physical, biological, and social
> patterns upon which to exist, plus all of the "a priori" stuff
> necessary to make it intelligible.
>
> Ultimately, the maximum level perceivable in a given being by any
> other being is a dependent variable rather than an absolute. There can
> be no canon about it. Once you admit that your evaluations are only
> your own and understand that any universality is illusory, you can get
> down to the business of using the system for something practical other
> than confusing your friends.
>
> Andy
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html