[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Ian]

Good to have a new voice voicing these points Andy. In my words, when  
AI arrives it will be real, and it will have evolved through A-Life  
before it does. The patterns in the silicon processes will really be  
alive.

This entirely predicted by the MoQ.
Ian

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 11, 2010, at 22:08, Andy Skelton <skeltoac at gmail.com> 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