Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Thu, 9 Oct 1997 02:27:17 +0100
Hi Magnus,
Thanks for this fine response. For your consideration, below is my "take"
on the problems you pose.
>
> I haven't got Lila here at work but I think he mentions "society of
cells"
> once, maybe I've dreamt it but that's not the point. These ideas I have
are
> not just something that popped up in my head which I use to bug you with.
> They are solutions to a few problems I see with the MoQ as most
(including
> me) perceive it from Lila.
>
> Some of the problems are:
>
> 1. I still think, despite Bo's arguments, that my individual intellectual
> patterns of value are superimposed upon *my* body, not our society.
> My intellectual patterns will still exist if the world goes under and
> I'm the only one left. They will on the other hand disappear if *my*
> body disappears. The problem here is that intellectual patterns must
> be superimposed upon a society, and I see no other solution than to
> make bodies into societies of organs.
>
> 2. Most people who read Lila equals the biological level with life. And
> then defines life as something that is able to reproduce itself. In
> that case, societies and ideas are also life and therefore biological.
> I say, No. And I believe Pirsig says no, Lila states that biological
> reproduction was the most dynamic process ever invented, and later
> when sexual reproduction was invented, that was an even greater
> dynamic success. Note *Dynamic*, the ability to change, static levels
> don't want to change, so reproduction can never be a part of any
static
> level.
>
> Note also that in SODV, Pirsig describes this level as: "senses of
touch,
> sight hearing, smell and taste", no life or reproduction here.
>
> 3. My robot society example. I think most agreed that the society of
robots
> was in fact social patterns of value. The problem here is, what
organic
> patterns was the society built upon?
>
>
> If you acknowledge some or all of these as problems and come up with
> other solutions, please let me know. I will discuss them with an open
mind.
>
>
>
> > As Diana wrote, "A couple of days ago I was explaining the four levels
to
> > someone who had never heard of the MoQ before. She picked up the gist
of
> > the levels in about ten minutes. As Pirsig says, there's nothing very
> > original about the four levels."
>
> Great, you can also explain the gist of Einstein's relativity in ten
> minutes. That doesn't mean you can use it constructively. Don't get me
> wrong here, I do think it's great that it is easily accessible to most
> people. But don't be fooled into thinking that everyone who knows MoQ
> will be able to get the Nobel prize just by implementing it on SOM-
> problems.
>
1. If you are the only one left in the world, your intellectual patterns
would still exist. You'll need them to survive, like Robinson Crusoe. They
will be supported by your bio-patterns, but will be independent of those
patterns. Intell-patterns do not operate with the laws of bio-patterns.
Your bio-pattern immune system has no idea how to keep you from freezing in
cold weather; your stomach has no idea how to cook squirrel meat much less
how to catch the squirrel in the first place. As for your intellect, it
will have no society in your scenario to superimpose itself on; society has
disappeared. However, your intellect will remain operative in your memory,
having been previously trained and supported by the now extinct society,
but operating independent of society. When you die, your intellect will die
with you (we believe), but bio-patterns and inorg-patterns in general will
continue on, hopefully to create a new you someday.
2. We agree that "ability to reproduce itself" can apply to societies and
ideas and is therefore not an exclusive description of the bio-level. Bio
reproduction was invented by DQ, but became a static latch--a static
pattern of change within the bio-level just as the motion of the planets is
a static pattern of change within the inorg-level. Dynamic in the Pirsig
lexicon doesn't simply mean change. The change is always towards freedom
from static patterns. Reproduction simply means copying already established
patterns. The senses of touch, sight, taste, hearing, smell are reproduced
minute by minute by static bio-patterns.
3. A society of robots is no more a society in Pirsigian terms than a
school of fish. So the "problem" is mute. Robots are imitations of
intell-patterns supported by inorg-patterns. Since they skip bio and social
patterns, they will forever remain dumb compared to humans. The major
hurdles for robot builders is how to make electronic circuits pay attention
to what is important from everything that's going on around them (the key
word being "everything"), evaluate the situation and respond appropriately.
What will a robot do when one of it's wires pops loose, a truck is bearing
down on it, rain starts to fall and a kid is taking pot shots at it with a
22 rifle? You can think of a thousand situations where a robot would be
helpless. Which is why humans, not robots, are up there in the MIR space
station. When did Al research start, 30 years ago? What have we got so far,
a computer that can play chess, a robot on Mars that bumps into rocks, a
toy that needs to be "fed" or it "dies"? We gotta do better than that
before robots approach even the capabilities of a cockroach.
My reply to your last observation is:
Well, as Pirsig said, "If you don't generalize, you don't philosophize."
Not a complete answer by any stretch, but you get my drift. Gists,
generalizations and abstractions allow intellect to roam about more freely
to make new, sometimes breakthrough connections.
Platt
>
-- 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 - 16:42:05 CEST