[MD] How far do you go to preserve individual life?

[Magnus Berg]

On 2010-09-18 17:21, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:
> [Magnus]
> Yes, it's only that the neural nets are inside the brain, not between brains. I
> don't understand the reluctance to realize the similarity.
>
> [Arlo]
> This is a bit like saying the Internet is inside computers not between them.

No, intellectual patterns are inside computers.

> Sure there is hardware inside a computer on which the sociality rests, but a
> single computer is not social.

I'd say it is. Not social in the normal sense of the word, but it does 
contain a social pattern with different organs just as a human city.


> [Magnus]
> So, what you're doing is to severely limit my possibility to refute your
> theory. You're making it a tautology. Not very scientific of you.
>
> [Arlo]
> Refutation is not a function of quantity.

Quantity? Where did that come from?

> [Magnus]
> Then what about a computer? How is a computer able to support an intellectual
> pattern like a book, or a design specification for a new car? You can remove it
> from the internet, and it will support that book more or less forever. It will
> not decay.
>
> [Arlo]
> When the hardware is preserved, sure the patterns it supports can be held in
> stasis. I think a human brain, theoretically, can be kept in stasis for quite a
> while, but you are introducing now a team of people working specifically to
> preserve hardware.

Where did I mention a team of people? I was talking about a computer.

> A computer, consisting of more durable inorganic patterns than brains, will
> last longer in a state of isolation, but this is only saying that hieroglyphs
> outlive organs. Okay, as we move up the hierarchy pattern duration becomes less
> strong.

Duration? Where is this duration mentioned in the MoQ? It's pretty 
frustrating to discuss the levels with people here because you always 
come up with excuses to explain why my thought experiments doesn't work 
in the conservative version of the MoQ.

Explain in terms of the levels. Point to the stuff in a computer and say 
which is which. How hard could it be?

And by the way, this dependency thing. For every quality event you must 
be able to show the dependency for *that* event. So, if you have an 
intellectual quality event, you have to be able to show the social event 
that supports it, the biological event that supports that, and the 
inorganic event that supported the biological. So, duration, decay and 
all those excuses simply can't be a part of such an explanation.

> [Magnus]
> If you only rely on a human society to support intellectual patterns, you will
> simply fail sooner or later. You just haven't dug deep enough.
>
> [Arlo]
> Personally, I do not. I think sociality is evident is at least several other
> complex biological patterns. But you are confusing storage and generation here.

No, a computer is much more than storage. It can experience intellectual 
patterns. Not dynamically, but statically. And the levels are static, so 
a static intellectual experience of a computer is just as real as the 
same intellectual experience of a human. That is the only way you can 
interpret the MoQ's first two divisions DQ/SQ, and then the static 
levels, right?

So, what you need to do is to explain how a computer can support 
intellectual patterns. I mean that a computer's ability to do that is 
analogous to a human's ability to do it, it's just the dynamic influence 
that is completely absent in a computer.

	Magnus