Hi Magnus and Squad
> Yeah, like the four-dimensional lab rats in the Hitch-Hiker's Guide. :)
Squeak Squeak!!
> 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.
I would say that as viruses are written by programmers then the code is IntPoV.
We become aware of them at some point if one appears on a machine and
causes infection, so from this point of view we do become aware of them
intellectually. I'm not happy with the elevation to L5 of intellect as this changes
very little with respect to 'awareness' of a _possible_ higher level entity. Where I
think the problem lies here is in the way we may relate to a higher level entity.
Not that a computer virus is necessarily one of these but this whole discussion
shows the difficulty in either recognising or being able to recognise an entity of a
higher level.
> 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.
Well if deduction is "inferring of a particular instance from a general principle"
then wouldn't this be the case. Using what general principles there are within the
MoQ suggests that the computer virus (as a life-form as genuine as an organic
virus) fails to fit within the accepted 4 levels. In the absence of a better
explanation the computer virus would seem to be either part of a parallel system
or another level. Actually, I'm not completely sure either possibility fits too well so
I'll have to think about it some more.
> 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.
True. But we do recognise the computer virus at an intellectual level but are not
certain if what we recognise are all of the PoV's.
> 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.
But this also works the other way around. The problem is that we don't know for
sure the extent to which the virus is aware. I don't think there is a high level of
awareness but it is certainly aware in some sense as it is able to react in a
number of ways in a number of situations (dependent on which particular virus we
have in mind). Adaptive virus's operate by rules built into them, these rules are
only applied when the virus is aware of being recognised but there is also the
possibility that those rules can change in transmission and duplication - mutation.
> 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.
So we know that we are aware of the computer virus so your suggestion of a
parallel system of evolution is invalidated. Isn't it?
I think that a major problem here is the definition of SQ and DQ and how they
interact, both between and within themselves. It's certainly made me think about
both static and dynamic quality and given food for further thought. I can't help
thinking that the dynamics of complexity (or an interpretation) has some bearing
here so I'm going to find som good books about it and read them.
See y'all
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 - 16:02:34 BST