Magnus Berg (MagnusB@DataVis.se)
Sat, 30 Aug 1997 19:18:21 +0100
I do not, by any means, consider the quantum level thread finished.
I do, however, propose a new thread. The question has popped up in
my mind a couple of times during the discussion here about quantum
levels, but also when Bodvar suggested a new thread about "the most
elusive top notch".
My question is: Are static levels really and absolutely dependent
on the next lower level?
As some others in the Lila squad, I studied computer science and
am now working with computers every day. So I often get to think
about AI, wondering if it is possible to "get intellectual patterns
of value into a computer", which rather would be, "get intellectual
patterns of value to devour the inorganic patterns of value called
the computer".
According to Pirsig, this would be utterly impossible because it
involves skipping not only one but two static levels. And this
really bugs me! Is there no way in h-ll anyone, anywhere or
anytime, can build such a thing?
A "real world" observation: A research team, in the states I think,
are making small mechanical insect-like robots. The robots can walk
on their six legs and communicate with each other. The idea is to
send them to Mars or somewhere similar and explore the vicinity.
This team of robots, I think they were talking of about six, are
worth much more together, than any of them alone. Each robot can
have a unique ability in some area, but basically, everyone are similar.
This is a team, and when I'm saying team, I mean team, as in a static
social pattern of value. The robots themselves are expendable, any
robot can fall into a cave and break into thousands of pieces, but
the team is still there.
>From now on, I'll assume that this team really *is* social patterns
of value. So this is a good place to write your thoughts about that.
There are, at least :-), two ways out of this dilemma. Either you say
that static patterns of value are independent of the next lower level,
or you say that the robots are artificial "organic patterns of value".
I'd go for the latter, and I'll try to explain why.
The static patterns we see around us, are built using lower levels of
static patterns. Why? Because at the time they "appeared", there was
nothing else around to build it upon. Or, rather, the lower patterns
that formed was the first pattern that the higher level *could* use to
build upon. Just because our world looks like it does in terms of
what specific patterns of each level have formed, doesn't mean that
it *has* to be that way.
An analogy from Lila would be the novel that is able to exist on
paper, on a disk or in the computer's memory. It's still the same
novell.
This is why I say that the robots in the team are "organic patterns
of value". The problem seems to be the name given to the level.
Organic life is not the only possible manifestation of this level.
It is one of many possible groups of patterns belonging to the level.
My answer to the original question would be:
Yes, a pattern of a higher level is dependent on some pattern of the
next lower level, but not necessarily as we know it.
So, maybe one day, it will be possible to build that machine I
mentioned earlier. Using artificial social and organic patterns
in between.
Maybe the internet will develop intellectual patterns one day?
Magnus
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@geocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:26 CEST