Hi Horse and Squad
You wrote:
>
> I suppose that if it is the case that they are at a higher level, then the way that
> they perceive our reality would be inaccessible to us.
Yeah, like the four-dimensional lab rats in the Hitch-Hiker's Guide. :)
Maggie also had a good point saying that if we are 5 level beings, then we
would be aware of L5 patterns. Saying "We are aware of a computer viruses"
either says "they are L4", or "we are L5" and there's no way to decide.?
Hmm... What I think I'm saying though is not the above but "We are
*intellectually* aware of computer viruses", which changes the situation.
> But wouldn't the example of the virus, in the way I introduced it, be deductive
> rather than inductive.
I have a hard time with the possibility of deducting something completely new.
Deducting to me is to use a known system to say something about a statement
in the language of that system. Adding a level is to extend the system and
I don't think that is a deductive step.
> > Ok, I'll rephrase "because they are enough" to "to avoid redundancy".
> > Redundancy causes, or at least makes contradictions possible. You said that
> > "The ones and zeroes and the MLIR are an ANALOGUE of the inorganic level
> > and the 'laws' of physics". I don't think it's merely an analogue, I think that if you
> > generalize them into metaphysical levels they become identical and redundant.
>
> That sounds more reasonable. One thing that does intrigue me though is the
> ability of parallel evolutionary systems to co-exist. This may, in part, be what
> prompted me start this discussion. Difficulties of co-existence and antagonism
> are very similar to the moral conflicts between levels. What you say above
> prompts me to think that this would lead to the necessity of incorporating parallel
> moral equivalence. Maybe there is some form of co-operative relationship between
> equivalent levels of parallel systems. There is also the difficulty of recognition and
> acceptance of one system by another.
I don't think parallel systems is a problem. Since the MoQ is based on value it
follows that if one system doesn't know about the other, i.e. it doesn't value it,
it simply doesn't exist for the first system. Recognition and acceptance are direct
consequences of valuing.
> > Here's another proposed MoQ axiom:
> > Patterns of a lower level can't tell manipulations by a higher level apart
> > from DQ.
> > (It's not really fudging, we've talked about it before but I believe you're
> > not convinced.)
>
> Not entirely. How would this work between parallel evolutionary systems.
Now, if the second system knows about the first, that first system actually
becomes a part of the second. So, the computer viruses system is a part of
our system but our system is not a part of their system.
To talk about parallel systems you must raise above both systems and neither
of them must be aware of the other. There are no moral difficulties between
the systems since the don't value eachother, i.e. they don't exist for
eachother.
> > This means that since we're very well aware of the computer viruses and the
> > Internet and we're only 4 level beings, they can't be L5.
>
> We're aware of some aspects of of viruses and the Internet (and potential AL's
> and AI's) but I'm still not entirely convinced that we are necessarily aware of ALL
> aspects. Again, there is an amount of inductivism in your statement.
I guess.
> > Now I'm curious! I'm extremely catholic about the dependency and will begin
> > fudging as never before if you find counter-examples.
>
> Apologies! I wasn't very clear. What I meant was that at the 'object' level inorganic
> patterns of value are more easily discernible, physically, than at the 'subject' level.
> You can poke something at an inorganic or organic level but not at a social or
> intellectual level (by social level I don't mean collections of cells, but a religion or
> a university).
It's quite allright to include collections of cells in the domain of unpokable stuff.
It's not the social patterns that pokes, not even the biological patterns, it's the
inorganic building blocks.
> I agree. But any return to inductivism, as part of the MoQ, should be vigorously
> checked.
I am. :)
Magnus
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 - 16:02:34 BST