[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[John Carl]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

>
> I'll say it this way, you and an amoeba both respond "dynamically". You
> don't respond "more Dynamically", but you respond Dynamically with a
> repertoire of more varied responses. Or, using my "energetically"
> substitution, when placed next to a pool of acid, you don't respond "more
> energetically" than the amoeba, but the form of your similarly "energetic"
> response has a greater potential for variance.
>
>

Oh. Kay.  I get you.  You can shut up now. :)

(even tho of course I respond more energetically, I've got more energy
encapsulated in my organism with my systematic methodology of McDonalds and
gardening that produce calories that moves muscles that an amobea doesn't
possess.... but we'll skip all that)



> [John]
>
> Let's focus on "greater range of potential".  What is intelligence?  What
> do we say about somebody with a high IQ?  That they have a greater potential
> to
> learn. Intelligence is a form of potential, then.
>
> [Arlo]
> Well, I think the converse to "defining" the levels by "activity" is to
> define them by the range of potential that "activity" can take. Bourdieu's
> ideas about Habitus and agency come to mind. A "social level" is one where
> one could broadly define a range of possible responses to Dynamic Quality
> that are not possible within the biological level. That is, a pattern's
> "agency" is enabled and constrained by the field of potential (Habitus) it
> occupies. An atom will never compose a symphony because that "activity" is
> outside the field of potential on the inorganic level.
>
>

John:

This leads to pondering the different connotations of "dynamic".  There's
activity, there's potential, there's change and there is freedom, all coming
to mind.

And then there's betterness.  More dynamic doesn't always seem better, as
Marie Antionette would aver.

"Can't make an omelette without choppin' off a few heads", Madame LeFarge
replies.

Dynamic Quality is hard to define in an absolute way.

"duh", I say to myself.

So without the "Q" side of the "DQ" acronym, we're stuck in moronist hell.
There must be a "betterness" pull to account for symphonies by purposeful
atoms.

Tah dah (imagine a Circus Orchestra's crescendo at this point in the
narrative)



> [John]
>
> And with that understanding, I agree completely that life is that matter
> which exhibits intelligence in choice.  Not mere mechanistic reactions, but
> evidently aware of dynamic choice.
>
> [Arlo]
> I'm not exactly sure what you are pointing at, but I think I disagree
> somewhat. Maybe its your choice of words here. All patterns evidence
> "choice", which is simply another way of saying "All patterns respond to
> Dynamic Quality". Static Quality appears when the probability a choice will
> manifest becomes increasingly high. Very, very, highly probable choices are
> what we see as the most "static" of patterns. This gets me back to Ant's (I
> think) use of the term "stable preferences" rather than "static patterns".
>
>
John:

Ok, first off,  I completely buy the equation of "choice" and "DQ".  Without
choice there is no possible Quality and without Quality, there is no
choice.  So we automatically have both presupposed within the MoQ.


But the mechanistic laws of inorganic reality do NOT evince choice.  I can
predict with certainty where the moon will be tomorrow.  I cannot predict
with certainty, which direction an ant is going to carry it's crumb. An ant
has choices; the moon does not.

The Choice Factor, is where I draw the line on inorganic, biological
patterning.  See?  And it works for computers as well.  Show me a computer
that makes unpredictable or unforseeable  choices, and you'll have a strong
argument for strong AI.


John trying to keep the thread aligned with the sweater.