[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[John Carl]

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Andy Skelton <skeltoac at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't like your definitions (organic presupposes intelligent,
> rational = self-interested) but I appreciate you laying them out
> early. From this I can understand your later statements. So thanks for
> the primer on your terms. :)
>


Well by "posited", I meant they were sort of feelers I sent out to the
community to see how these ideas might be received.  A sort of "run it up
the flagpole and note who salutes" kinda deal.

I haven't any real serious ego attachment to them.

Yet.

The "intelligence as organic" flag wasn't very well recieved.  It seems
there is so much arguement about "intelligence" that it's hard to pin down.
My proposal was an admittedly  simplistic attempt at simplification.

But even though the "rational=self-interested" flag just occurred to me, I'm
much fonder of it.  For what is more irrational than self-destructiveness?



>
> > 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.
>
> I don't know what you mean by any part of this. It sounds like you are
> hedging your bets against your words being read by a hyperbelligerent
> shade of the color blue. Does this mean that we each have a moral
> companion in all intellectual beings and we should treat them as
> brothers?
>

First  I should mention that the  "hyper intelligent shad of blue" was a
literary allusion to the works of Douglas Adams,  for whom there is a shared
fondness with many of my intellectual borthers on this list.

But what I meant by my statement about "moral brotherhood" in alien form, is
those beings which possess enough intelligence to be accounted the same kind
of respect and forbearance that we might share with our fellow humans, who
though not of our tribe or nationality, are nevertheless high enough Quality
patterns in their own right to be accorded respect and fair treatment.

I was thinking about how the MoQ might be a metaphysical foundation for
getting to an understandfing with such, as yet, unencountered beings.

>
> > 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.
>
> Self-perpetuation does not imply reproduction. You show that you
> understand this by making an example of non-reproducing AI. I think
> you are being sloppy with the concept of equality. I think you mean
> presuppose; to have as a prerequisite; take as a given. (Excuse me
> while I fixate on defining terms. They are my only connection to you.
> I don't talk this way in real life; it lacks backspace, a clipboard,
> and handy dictionaries.)
>
>
As far as your fixation on defining terms, good.  I see from this that you
are careful, adequately prepared and easy to talk to.

I'm a bit befuddled over the equation of presupposition and equality, but
it's late and I'm in happy but tired mood and needn't bother for now.

> 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.
>
> Yet I don't see any disagreement except on our terms of expression. I
> dislike your choice of words but since you took care to define them I
> can decode your meaning and see that we agree on the matter at hand.
>
>
I can see we're going to be fine.

Unless you're another sneaky attempt by Mary to explore her male side.  :-)

Please tell us something about yourself. Allaying  our wary skepticism or at
least spin us an entertainingly fanciful tale.


Take care,

John