[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Arlo Bensinger]

[John]
Arlo, agree completely with your dislike of basing life upon 
carbon.  It's too anthropocentric. I get a twitch whenever I 
encounter the term "fractal", since my ex-bro used it all the time.

[Arlo]
I used the term "fractal boundary" because I think as you zoom in on 
the line its not as straight as it appears. Fuzzy may be a better 
word. The boundaries are areas I find quite interesting, where there 
is a lot more to see than the "middle" of Pirsig's levels.

[John]
The difference between inorganic and life is that life reacts much 
more dynamically to its environment, no?

[Arlo]
Well, personally, I don't like that term in this context. I'd say 
"the difference between inorganic and biological patterns is that 
biological patterns have a greater repertoire of potential with which 
to respond Dynamically".

Does that distinction make sense? I don't think biological patterns 
can respond "more Dynamically", but I think they have a greater array 
of potential with which to respond Dynamically. Maybe I'm nitpicking again.

[John]
I think if we found some alien, non-carbon bit of matter reacting 
dynamically to its environment and our presence, we'd deduce 
life.  And if this unknown life reacted in socially significant ways, 
we'd deduce sophistication.  And if it displayed evidences of art, 
we'd deduce intellect.

[Arlo]
Agree completely.

[John]
I'd say the same for a computerized algorithm, and thus an MoQ test 
would be better than Al Turing's - for a computer can seem 
intellectual, but unless it seems social, it has no "being".

[Arlo]
I think this was the original point of discussion in the thread, no? 
Intelligence can't derive directly from biological patterns, even if 
we attribute replication (or some such activity) to software 
patterns, there would need to be a ground of sociality "first" before 
intelligence has the ability to emerge within that architecture.