[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[John Carl]

Arlo,

I'm in and out today, it's nice to have so much to say and think.  I think
dmb gets my juices flowing in such a positive way, I wish I could do
something nice for him.

besides shut up, I mean.

[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.
>
>
I completely  agree with your point, the boundaries are an endless, yes
infinite, source of exploration, wonder and fun.

I quibble with "fractal" for other reasons besides my Ron, (not THE Ron, but
A Ron) using the term.

To my mind, fractal, as a mathmatical term puts too concrete of an image on
something that is not only "fuzzy" but almost dynamically malleable and
undefinable.


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".
>
>
John:

Interesting distinction, then.  I don't quite get it.  Let me ponder....
Nope.  You don't make sense.

You can't distinctify between reacting dynamically and potential for dynamic
reaction because the only way you can know that something has the potential
to react dynamically, is that it does.

Experience defines reality.  Here.  Read yer pragmatism perfessor!



Arlo:


> 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:

Nah, just wrong ;)



> [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.
>
>
John:

And here, I agree completely.  And it's a fascinating subject because the
MoQ gives a better read on sentience with its analysis of the necessity of
that crucial 3rd stage, AND my particular adoption which places emotions as
the basis of 3rd level phenomena, is confirmed in the fact that the most
puzzling problem in passing the Turing, is programming emotions into a
machine.

 thanks Arlo for the ideas you transmit in your dialogue,  I enjoy them
immensely.


John