Hi Horse, Squad,
Though this is mostly a continuation from the "4-levels" discussions,
I'll try and make it relevant to the current programmed discussion on
SOM platypi.
JONATHAN
>I don't think that a computer virus is a higher level any more that
>a biological virus is "above" the biological level.
HORSE
>What? Hello? Pardon!
>Our purposes seem to have gotten crossed somewhere, or I missed
something
>vital.
>I don't remember saying that an organic virus was above the
biological/organic
>level. I did say that the virus is more than just the PoV's at the
organic level...
Let me just remind you what was said earlier in this thread:-
Horse - 4/9/98:
"The floppy disk example also jogged my own IntPoV's. If the floppy
disk contained a virus then the disk is supporting a life form, even
though that life form is created by IntPoV's. This would appear to
be a level above the Intellectual level as the computer virus displays
nearly all of the values of organic life but its environmental starting
point is different to BioPoV's."
Horse - 9/9/98:
"As I see it the computer virus fulfils all the pre-requisites
to class it as a true life form. They are ubiquitous. They reproduce
and propagate, moving from computer to computer. They produce a
representation of themselves in binary code - similar to DNA. They
hijack the metabolism of their host to carry out their functions (as
biological virus's commandeer the molecular metabolism of infected
cells. They respond to stimuli in their environment. They mutate.
They evolve."
I apologise if I have misunderstood or misrepresented Horse's point of
view, but I still maintain that it is not valuable to regard the
computer virus as part of a higher level. As to the Internet, the idea
needs much more development.
JONATHAN
> I believe that the higher levels come about by EXPLOITING inherent
> tendencies within the lower levels. Life is driven by exploiting
> chemical reactions [snip]
HORSE
>Exploration and exploitation. A computer virus emerges from the
relationship
>between Intellectual PoV's of the source code, the system within which
those
>patterns exist etc. The key word here is emergence. One level emerges
from the
>relationships of the patterns of value at the lower level. The emergent
patterns
>then try and latch at the new level. Once latching occurs the patterns
of the new
>level interact with each other AND the lower levels - a form of
bootstrapping....
I agree here. Exploitation alone isn't a sufficient criterion, or
rather, it needs to be clarified. When a woman eats an apple, she is
exploiting it as food. The InPoV (i.e. chemical properties) are
exploited to support BioPoV. But when she plants an apple orchard, she
is exploiting the growth potential (BioPoV) of the apple tree. The
activity is called agriCULTURE and I would regard it as SocPoV. What is
important is not the physical objects, but the PoV being exploited.
Biological viruses are part of a group of elements which cannot LIVE on
their own and must rely on the host organism. However, the host can
survive perfectly well without the virus. The virus exploits the host.
But mobile genetic elements like viruses can also be biologically very
useful. That seems to a major mechanism by which bacteria suddenly pick
up genes for antibiotic resistance. Viruses can also be mutators,
pattern breakers, providing the dynamic force for evolutionary change.
So hosts can exploit viruses just as much as the other way round. Just
consider a human population in which the cowpox virus was endemic. They
would have a clear advantage when exposed to smallpox.
To turn to computer viruses, we think of them as malicious bits of code.
But consider a virus-like code that automatically sought out programs
with the "year 2000" problem and correct them. That would be a system
operator's dream! With all the new programs with "automatic update" via
the Internet, that dream would seem to be partly realised. Horse will
correct me, but I bet Microsoft and other software companies are
exploiting techniques which first appeared in computer viruses.
None of this helps me to determine what it is that makes a higher level.
IMO neither computer viruses nor biological viruses are a higher level,
but can easily be used as part of one. But then, any IntPoV can be used
as part of a higher level. I think that it all comes down to purpose and
value. A cowpox virus has biological value to its human host. A live
vaccine used in an immunisation programme has Social value, and using a
virus in a scientific experiment may have Intellectual value. For a
fifth level to exist, it would have to exploit IntPoV for some "higher
purpose". If we want to formalise that level, we need to identify and
characterise a purpose for that level. Otherwise we would have to call
it religion or mysticism.
In summary Horse, I believe that we can should define purpose for each
level of the MoQ. If we want to create level 5 with computer viruses or
the Internet, then we need to identify a clear purpose for the new
level.
At the start writing of this post, I was wondering how I was going to
end up "on topic". I think that "purpose", that SOM platypus, is the
bridge between the August and September discussion programmes.
Regards to all,
Jonathan
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:33 BST