Hi Folks
My personal opinion is that I'd be very wary of defining the Biological
level/patterns as those containing DNA. DNA is the vehicle used to
enable self-replication or reproduction. It is, admittedly, the only
experience we possess of self replication thus far so within those
bounds it's not a major problem - I'm just very wary of making the
assumption that because it's all we know so far it's all we'll ever know!
I think Magnus Berg had some good ideas from the early days of the Lila
Squad (the original Lila Squad not the Johnny come lately bunch)
regarding AI and the biological level. Be nice if he read this and
joined in :)
Cheers
Horse
On 18/07/2016 21:35, Tuk wrote:
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
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
--
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take
our breath away."
— Bob Moorehead
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
