Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Thu, 18 Sep 1997 17:54:25 +0100
Hi LilaSquad!
Bo:
> I think that the discussion over what category a chair or any other
> material application belongs to is futile. A material object is
> INORGANIC VALUE
Magnus:
Now, is that statement SOM-dominated or what? The other week you agreed
that the individual robots in my robot society represented organic patterns.
I think we all agree that neither a robot nor a chair should be called
life. So, what's the difference?
Now you say that (only) life is organic patterns. Ok then, how do you
define life without using reproduction in the definition, or if you do
use reproduction, you'll have to deal with my argument against it in
my comments to Diana yesterday.
Another option, that I'd vote for, is that life is merely one type of
organic pattern among many. So what do organic patterns have in common?
Choose a path, face the consequences, but make it consistent! That's what
MoQ is supposed to. If you do that, I will gladly accept it.
And Bo, this discussion is not futile! Without it, how can we ever hope
to define the levels. And that must be done before anyone can make
those SOM->MoQ transformations you requested.
Bo:
> The pending discussion smacks of
> Aristotelian substance-form-function subdivisions and before you know it
> you are back in Platonic idealist/materialist quagmire: the wellspring
> of
> Subject/Object-ivism and nothing is gained.
Magnus:
If you keep this preaching up much longer I'll stop reading them.
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 - 16:41:56 CEST