[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[John Carl]

Nice  post, Andy.  Thank god for fresh blood now and then, that isn't trying
to sell something or promote wacko apocalyptic conspiracy theories.

Sane apocalyptic conspiracty theories, tho, are always welcome.

Andy:


> 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.
>
>
John:  Well your second view holds some real attraction.  I can see Ham
cackling over it, for one, and I like the idea of reality as a social
creation too.

But it's really the first point I wanna consider.  I've been pondering it a
bit all day, from a Magnus post I read earlier.

I'm very skeptical about the practical possibility of AI.  But I agree with
Magnus that a metaphysics ought to account for the possibility, even if we
never realize it.

And aside from that eventuality, what about the rest of the universe?  It's
a pretty big place;  how do we know that out there somewhere, there's not a
superintelligent shade of blue?

I posited once, intelligence as the criterion for the organic level.  And
part of this postulation defines intelligence as any pattern which exhibits
rational (that is, self-interested) choice.    Even amoebas flinch from
acid.  Even single cells respond to stimuli, but by definition the more
complexity of choice, the more intelligence.

By this formula, DNA is not the criterion for life, leaving metaphysical
room  for alien evolution and AI.

It also keeps in mind a distinction between intelligence, possessed by all
life, and intellect, possessed only by humans (so far)

And since intellect is the uniquely defining aspect of humanity, wherever we
find it in the universe, we know we have stumbled upon our moral brothers.





> 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.
>

Self-perpetuation is a pretty good definition too.  Reproduction baby.  It's
what they teach in biology class and that might be a clue.

But again, I can see Magnus AI, coming out as a one-off, never reproducing,
and yet obtaining unto that blessed condition we deem Intelligence.
Artificial intelligence equals artificial life.




> 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.)
>


Your doing great.  I'm sort of arguing against, but you hold the orthodox
view, my friend, and that's a good place to start.


>
>
> 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
>


And that's a nice finish!  Welcome aboard, Andy, I think you're gonna get
along fine.

Take care,

John