Hi Jonathan and Squad
> 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."
It would have been more accurate to have said that (possibly) L5 PoV's
emerge from the Intellectual level. The virus itself comes about from the
interaction of L5 PoV's combined with the relationship to lower level PoV's.
This would keep the computer virus in L5 (barely). It may also place the
Internet firmly within L5.
>
> 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."
None of the above is sufficient to place a computer virus at a level higher than
intellect if taken in isolation. My purpose here was to show that the
conditions of necessity and sufficiency are fulfilled with regard to the
computer virus being a distinct and seperate life-form. I think it fulfills those
criteria. The differences between a computer virus and an 'organic' virus are
the levels from which and at which they emerge.
>
> 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.
It's mainly my fault for not having expressed myself as well as I should. The
main idea behind exploring a possible Level 5 is to test for necessity and
sufficiency within the MoQ.
Are 4 levels sufficient to explain Quality as the basis for reality?
Is a 5th level necessary?
The MoQ needs to be a robust metaphysics to survive in the face of various
competitors and their proponents. The notion that we must dogmatically
accept something written down - by whoever - without question is both
dangerous and futile. Inconsistency, insufficiency and dogma has damaged
many potentially worthwhile beliefs.
The L5 virus/alife/Internet etc. idea is as new to me as to most others in the
Squad. I've been toying with the possibility for a while but when it comes to
writing it down it doesn't pan out in quite the same way.
The feeling I get is that even if virus's, Internet etc. are not L5 then something
is stirring in that direction. They appear to have become (and/or are
becoming) distinct from their origins and this intrigues me.
What effect does it have on the MoQ.
Can the MoQ explain, without contradiction, the appearance of new life-forms
(which incidentally I do maintain) which differ in kind, though possibly not in
value/quality from other life-forms.
Is there a seperate/distinct social and or intellectual aspect to this new life.
> 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.
So a virus (computer or organic) is both exploitative AND explorative. A nice
SQ/DQ split. It's also explorative of its own patterns and assists in the
exploratory process of its host. In terms of DQ this is interesting as it
_appears_ to show that there is more than one aspect to DQ. If I could
borrow a couple of terms from Value theory, it has (or is) both intrinsic and
contributory value. Again this is conjecture so I would appreciate my throat
remaining unblocked by various objectors.
> 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.
There are very similar constructs that exist on the Internet which come under
the general catagory of 'Bots. They exist in various forms and the function of
some of their knid is to seek out and report on various occurences of data. I
heard some time back (I can't vouch for the veracity of the information) that
the Scientologist had various seeker 'bots running around the 'net looking for
occurrences of phrases like "the church of scientology" and "L.Ron
Hubbard". The first being some sort of trade name the second linked to
"heretical use". It may have been just a rumour - in which case the rumour
itself was a virus. Interesting. The thought police (of the social and
intellectual levels) are watching!!!
> 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.
I think we need to be careful when using the term "purpose". You're correct
(assuming I haven't misinterpreted you) when you say that purpose is a SOM
platypus, as in this context it is linked to value. Not the Value/Quality
proposed by MoQ but of the form "recognition of the value in the object by
the subject".
Purpose implies function. From a SOM perspective it is the function which
creates the value or worth and the Purpose is only fulfilled to the degree to
which the function is performed. This is where Value theorists come up
against brick walls time and again and where we may have some common
interests. I've been trying to get a useful essay going on this but time
restrictions (and, to be honest, an amount of confusion) keep getting in the
way.
I agree with you completely that we need to look at the levels and see if
there is some "purpose" there. But in terms of MoQ, which means looking at
the SOM idea first in order to be clear about the SOM and MoQ distinctions.
I think that this may also throw some light on a slightly more comprehensive
notion of Moral value within the MoQ which definitely needs clarification.
Howzaboutitthen? Are you up for it Jonathan?
Horse
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
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