Elliot, Magnus, Squonk, Joao,
ELLIOT
> Ok, please give us a description of both Reality and Truth. You must
admit
> everything that exsists in only in your head and there is no way of
proving
> otherwise. we bother because we have nothing better to do, becaue
guessing
> and finding the quality within it is the cutting edge of reality. Admit
> first that your studing human perception and not objective reality or your
> making the same mistake as the church or reason and Science (capital S).
>
MARCO
Reality is all there is, even illusions are real. Reality is Quality. Truth
is a static intellectual pattern of value. The Truth that says that
everything is in my head is a static pattern of value. You can't prove it
too. I'd say it is good, but with many limits. The MOQ surpasses both the
"all in my head" truth and the "distinct outer reality" truth claiming that
they are both high level intellectual patterns.
Actually the Truth that says that there is something else "outside there"
has proven to be more effective in many occasions. I'd not say that science
is making a mistake, I'm glad science is curing cancer. Science is good,
with limits, and good science knows its own limits.
PIRSIG
"Anders is slipping into the materialist assumption that there is a huge
world out there that has nothing to do with people. The
MOQ says that is a high quality assumption, within limits. One of its limits
is that without humans to make it that assumption cannot be made. ..."
MAGNUS
Doesn't that sound a lot like Descartes, "I think, therefore I am"?
It sounds like:
We can't say anything about what we can't experience first-hand, syo why
bother?
Boring, if you ask me.
MARCO
But when we start talking about something we can't experience we are
actually experiencing it. The MOQ doesn't hold that everything is in our
head, just says that the world out there can't be separated from people.
That the first metaphysical division of reality (DQ/SQ) is better than the
inside/outside option. We are involved into reality (the One Reality) and
can't be passive observers.
JOAO
Consider communication between humans and an internet-based artificial
intelligence software.
Assume, if you like, that the humans think that they are communicating with
other humans.
The "electronic characters" learn from human communication and replicate
themselves.
Imagine that they become very good "managers", and that they end up
organizing human activity/production.
How do you see this in the light of the MoQ levels?
MARCO
About artificial intelligence, I suggest considering dropping the adjective
"artificial": actually, even a human clone would be artificial while
biologically identical to its original. The artificial/natural division is
tricky: even artificial things are natural. If in the future we will be
able to create intelligent organisms even without making sex, I don't see
the problem (just hope we don't stop making sex :-). And moreover if we will
be able to "run" their software out of human bodies again I don't see the
problem. If (a big IF) all that will be intelligence, it will be
intellectual level... supported by some diverse basic pattern.
If you think all that is new, consider this. I can read Aristotle's
metaphysics, and that means that a dim form of the Aristotle's intelligence
has survived after his death, supported by books. OK, Aristotle's
intelligence is not alive, 'cause he is not *biologically* alive. But the
invention of writing has been the first step of AI. A next step will be to
run intelligence out of the original brain, in order to keep it alive after
the brain's death.
I agree with Elliot that that day has yet to come and is not easy. Science
is everyday discovering that intelligence is not merely logic and can't be
separated from reason, emotions, abstraction, language, social behavior,
hormones and "all that's Human".
So to the question of Joao I'd simply answer that if I communicate with a
software and I think it's another human, well, I'm probably just wrong. But
if (the big IF) the program is really autonomously replicating and learning,
well it's alive. And if it can learn from other copies of the program, well
it's social. If different groups of programs will start behaving according
to different patterns, they will have different cultures. And the day one
program will say to its fellows: I exist and I'm not like you, it will be
intellectual. I'll be glad to welcome it.
Even SF can confirm the MOQ.
Ciao,
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:11 BST