Magnus Berg (MagnusB@DataVis.se)
Tue, 16 Sep 1997 03:10:12 +0100
Hi again!
Surprise, surprise... I have some comments on Diana's post.
Yes, it seems you're right about the name of the second level. I didn't
look
very hard either. I guess I just inverted the word inorganic. I wonder
if I
started it. If it was, it wasn't intentional at the time.
1. Don't you say two different things here? First you said that the
chair is
social patterns although it's being *used*, then you say the internet is
social patterns and suddenly the *user*, (in this case the internet that
uses computers), becomes the social patterns. I'd say that the chair is
a part of a social pattern, and since social patterns are built on "the
second
level", the chair is of that level, not social. The internet on the
other hand
would be social patterns, which is primarily built on computers. The
language used between computers is easy to see. The language used
between the chair and its users is more unorthodox, it's purely
physical,
you simply move it.
I must also comment on "value is identified by what it does". I think
we have a need to identify exactly *what* different levels do for the
level above. *What* do the second level want from inorganic? *What*
do social patterns want from the second level etc. This is what I've
been trying to answer these past weeks, but I've been unable to
stir anyone's interest on this issue. I totally agree that social
patterns
uses the function of its parts. I won't repeat my other suggestions
here.
2. I think that the definition of bilogical life all too much dominates
what is and what is not regarded to belong to this "second level". I
don't exactly remember it but it contains, like you said, able to
reproduce itself, eat food and some more. This definition is about
to become obsolete any decade now. Robots, (yeah, more robots)
are to sent to planets and make more robots using the material
from the planet. These robots would fully comply to the definition
of bilogical life, but would hardly be considered biological. The most
probable solution would be to change the definition. That might be
ok for biologists, but we can't do that! We're talking about
metaphysics here. And whether or not these robots will ever be
a reality is of no importance, the thought experiment is enough.
3. Societies do not work against biology. If they were, they would
destroy every society ever formed by destroying its building blocks,
since social patterns are more powerful than patterns of "the second
level".
4. Static patterns of value are discrete. They are either of one level
or another, there are no fringe-zones. How could social patterns
know the difference between one body and a cell? Patterns of value
have *nothing* to do with scale. A discussion some time ago tried
to determine at exactly what point the inorganic and the proposed
quantum level met, in terms of *size*. That is completely irrelevant
and SOM-dominated.
5. Now I don't know what to call it anymore :-(. I think I'll stick to
organic anyway from now on. :-)
6. You're doing it again. First you say that the society of robots are
social value, then you say that each robot is social. I really can't
tell
if I'm just misinterpreting it or if I should interpret it as, you can
view
each robot as either social patterns of value or inorganic.
Anyway, each level is like that. An entity that can be used as if it
belonged to level n, can be used as if it belonged to all levels below
n also. If I'm just intersted in 82 kg of mass, I can use myself.
And if you agree that the society of robots are social patterns of
value, you have no choice but to accept the robots as organic
(as in patterns of value, not as in tissue).
7. No biological being has to build robots. Robots can build them-
selves. Robots build cars every day. Yes, the first robot that build
other robots will have to be man-made, but that's not the point. The
point is that each level is always and every second dependent on
the patterns they are built on. The long term survival of the robot
society and them being able to conform to new environments needs
as you say dynamic quality. This is of no concern to the definition
of static levels. If you mix them up you'll never know which is which.
We'll have to study static patterns without dynamic quality, even if
it's only thought experiments, otherwise they'll change and a definition
will be impossible.
And I wouldn't say inorganic patterns are chaotic, most of the time,
they are more predictable than you or me.
9. Yes, you might think I'm egotistical but that's just me, my current
set
of intellectual patterns of value. And the tense is still present, "are"
:-)
10. Please be careful with analouges between the MoQ world and
our current vocabulary, they have a tendency to stick too hard once
you get used to them. Rationality for me is what the word intellect
usually means, not *static* intellectual patterns of value. Rationality
involves a great deal of dynamic quality, and I'm not quite ready for
that yet. Then it's the word "learn", what is learning if not the
ability
to change *your* current set of intellectual patterns of value.
Time for some sleep in my time-zone, good night guys, and thanks
Diana for the chance to straighten out some misunderstandings about
previous posts.
Magnus
>
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:55 CEST