[MD] On Pirsig's letter to Paul Turner

[Tuk]

Dan, Adrie, all,

I've thought of things and yes, some things in the pattern language 
(thanks for the concept, Adrie!) I'm proposing need to be reformulated.

The discussion between Dan and me has uncovered some problems in the 
pattern language I'm proposing. Dan proposes that biological patterns 
are identified as such by virtue of containing DNA. Pirsig proposes life 
is carbon chemistry. I've tried to develop an alternative view featuring 
some kind of sense-based behavioral heuristic, of which I'm not sure how 
it exactly works.

I did that because neither Dan's nor Pirsig's approach seemed to 
describe what biologicality is in a way that matches the immediate 
experience of being human. Only on a car ride today did I realize that 
the pattern language works even though it doesn't explicitly describe 
biologicality. It may simply state that "the distinction between 
inorganic and biological patterns is an intellectual pattern" without 
stating exactly what pattern that is or which patterns qualify as that.

That is to say, we don't need to resolve this issue in order to have a 
pattern language that is, apparently, complete in the sense of 
addressing all currently pressing issues. Of course some other issues 
might turn out pressing later.


>>
>> Tuukka:
>> Pirsig writes that the ancient Egyptians were social whereas the Greek
>> were intellectual, but the MOQ wasn't invented back then. So I guess
>> rocks were inorganic and dinosaurs biological, too.
> Dan:
> Remember the gravity analogy from ZMM? That pertains to this point
> too. When we begin to mistake the map for the territory, when we take
> concepts as concrete reality, well then it only seems common sense to
> think biological and social patterns existed before Robert Pirsig
> invented the terms for his MOQ. Just like gravity existing before
> Newton's laws of gravity. If we think about it, however, the only
> conclusion we can make is that like gravity, biological and social
> patterns did not exist before they were invented.

Tuukka:
In any case, once Pirsig's letter to Turner was published the ancient 
Egyptians became social and the ancient Greek intellectual. That's the 
notion I'm trying to grasp here.

>>>> Tuukka:
>>>>
>>>> For a scientist, fingernail clippings could be quite biological. Same
>>>> goes
>>>> for hair. But the Indians used human hair for making clothes. Does this
>>>> mean
>>>> those articles of clothing were biological patterns?
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> Yes. Just as cotton and wool are biological patterns. On the other
>>> hand, synthetic materials like nylon and rayon are inorganic patterns.
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> Okay, but even if they're biological I don't know how they accumulate
>> biological value, so I guess they don't "accumulate" that. Unless
>> someone thinks of a way.
>>
>> Of course, plants accumulate value by growing, at least in some sense. Maybe
>> all patterns accumulate value but then I'm not sure how to make sure the
>> inorganic level will not accumulate more value than the biological one. I'll
>> have to think about that.
> Dan:
> Well, you can't just think of it as plants growing. You have to take
> the entire ecosystem into account. For instance, grapes grown for wine
> production tend to do well in poorer soil as a stressed plant produces
> better grapes, but there is more to it than that.
>
> What they call the terrior of wine is affected by not only the soil
> but by the terrain of the land as well as nearby water and even other
> plants growing in the vicinity of the vineyard. The climate plays
> important factors in the terrior of wine too, as does the tradition,
> or knowledge, of the grower of grapes.
>
> See, when you think of a growing plant, normally you don't take into
> account of how most all of our domesticated crops were bred into
> existence thousands and tens of thousands of years ago using selective
> breeding processes still in use today. Biological values have been
> deeply affected by social and intellectual forces at work as well as
> by the biological entities themselves evolving and mutating in
> response to environmental pressures.

Tuukka:
Yeah. Value accumulation is complicated. The pattern language doesn't go 
into the details.

>
>> Maybe, if an inorganic pattern accumulates value as the extension of a
>> biological pattern, it simply retains the value.
>>
>> Come to think of it, even in my current model the inorganic level can have
>> more value than the biological if the biological level has negative value
>> and a biological pattern uses an inorganic pattern to do something good.
>> Perhaps I have to measure value here so that it never has negative value.
>> Yeah, that would seem to work.
> Dan:
> If there is no negative value, then what impetus drives progress and evolution?

Tuukka:

What I meant is that we have to measure value without negative values in 
this context because of the following problem:

Suppose a biological pattern Jane of a value of -5 playing a guitar of 0 
value so that 3 units of value are accumulated. In this case the 
biological level would have a value of -2 whereas the inorganic level 
would have a value of 3. This makes the pattern language contradict 
Pirsig because Pirsig says the biological level has more value than the 
inorganic level.

We can resolve the contradiction in the following way:

Negative value and positive value accumulate as biological patterns make 
choices. However, we have to store the negative and positive value to 
different variables. If we sum these variables, we get the relative 
value of the pattern. The aforementioned problem features relative 
values. However, if we sum the absolute values of these variables, we 
get the absolute value of the pattern, which would be 3 for the guitar 
and 7 for Jane. When Pirsig writes that the biological level has more 
quality than the inorganic level he means that it has more absolute value.

Relative value drives progress and evolution.

>
>>>> Do you see what I'm aiming at? In everyday life it doesn't matter whether
>>>> an
>>>> article of clothing is made from synthetic fibres or human hair. It's
>>>> still
>>>> an article of clothing. It's an object. It doesn't walk around on its own
>>>> and it doesn't breathe, and so on. I just think this kind of a division
>>>> between the inorganic and the biological is more in accord with everyday
>>>> common sense use of language than focusing on the point that clothes made
>>>> of
>>>> human hair contain DNA. Who cares about that? And why?
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> First of all, it is okay to use subject/object terminology as long as
>>> it is remembered that those terms stand for patterns of value. Second,
>>> we are discussing the MOQ and its terminology, which may or may not
>>> differ from everyday terminology. Is blood a biological pattern? It
>>> doesn't walk around and breathe. How about organs awaiting transplant?
>>> A heart, or a set of lungs? Kidneys? Are those biological patterns?
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> Well, they're *parts* of a biological pattern.
> Dan:
> So is a baby part of a biological pattern too?

Tuukka:
Whichever it is, the pattern that decides that is an intellectual pattern.

>
>>> Who cares? Well, maybe no one. On the other hand, people still seem to
>>> be reading Robert Pirsig and discussing his work. So maybe a few
>>> people care. I know I care enough to be working out this reply to you.
>>> I mean, I could just say the hell with it. I've got better things to
>>> do. But I care. And too, it has been my experience, sometimes sad)
>>> that common sense ain't all that common. Truthfully.
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> You can't seriously believe I, out of all people, intended to
>> trivialize metaphysics.
> Dan:
> You asked the question. I take it that it was rhetorical. The question.

Tuukka:
It meant: "Why do you care?"

>
>>>> And, if DNA were the only proper way to define biologicality, how did
>>>> people
>>>> tell living things from inorganic things before DNA was invented?
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> Or before the MOQ was invented?
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> If we want to build an artificial intelligence based on the model of
>> value accumulation we have to know what that more arcane way is.
>> That's what brought us this far eventually, so the AI should walk the
>> same path in order to seem human.
> Dan:
> What makes you think artificial intelligence is human? Or will seem human?

Tuukka:
I don't think artificial intelligence is very human. I'm just interested 
of whether the MOQ works as a basis for a pattern language that's useful 
for developing artificial intelligence.

>
>>> Dan:
>>> Well, take the search for extraterrestrial life. Probes've been sent
>>> to various and numerous moons and planets in search of other living
>>> organisms. And so if that extraterrestrial life is ever discovered,
>>> how will we know it is really life?
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> DNA, I suppose. But according to what criteria do we take the DNA
>> sample? We don't take a sample of something that's obviously a rock.
> Dan:
> Well, some years ago there was a bit of excitement over fossilized
> bacterial remains discovered inside a rock, a meteorite to be exact.
> Later it came out how geological processes could possibly imitate
> those fossils. So yeah, until something better comes along, the
> presence of DNA seems to be one reliable indicator of life both here
> and in the universe.

Tuukka:
Point taken. But if a probe were sent on a planet and it found soft, 
wet, green, supple and fuzzy patches of something the probe shouldn't 
take samples of rocks. It should take samples of those because they seem 
like moss.


>
>
>>> Dan:
>>> But isn't that so for the universe in general? When the story stops,
>>> so does the universe.
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> Yeah. Quality is modeled by the mind, and the mind is biological.
> Dan:
> Ideas come first. Then comes the biological mind.

Tuukka:
What do you mean? Intellectual patterns come first? In a temporal sense 
or in a priority order? Do you mean that the biological mind is an idea?

>
>>
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> Yes, I can see that. But can't we say the same of social and
>>> intellectual patterns?
>>
>> Tuukka:
>> The volition of social and intellectual patterns manifests via biological
>> patterns.
> Dan:
> I would say rather that biological patterns manifest at the behest of
> ideas, or intellectual patterns.
>
>

Tuukka:
Because the notion of "biological pattern" is an idea? I get that, but 
what are you trying to do here? Turn everything into an idea? Remember 
the hot stove. That's not an idea.

Thank you,
Tuk