Re: MD Coherence and A.I.

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Thu Jun 17 2004 - 19:42:09 BST

  • Next message: Paul Vogel: "Re: MD Cosmotheism: Questions and Answers- for the Record"

    On 27 May 2004 6:15 PM Mark M writes:

    Dear forum,
    Artificial Intelligence is helping scientists understand how biological
    evolution works. It is becoming more and more apparent that Biological
    evolution is most Dynamic at a sweet spot or state of tension between chaos
    and order. This state may be common in all patterned evolution?
    If A.I. is going to develop, it appears it is going to do so at a coherent
    state?

    Hi Mark and all,

    I have been out of touch at my son's wedding in Moldova. I am sorry if I
    seem so out of touch on the list.

    As I read through your post I wondered if there were a MOQ analogue to the
    'subjective' and 'objective' points of view of SOM? IMO 'mystical' and
    'degenerate mystical' describe DQ and SQ respectively. Everyone experiences
    the 'mystical' DQ so that would be 'objective'. Not everyone experiences
    'degenerate mystical' SQ in the same way, so we have definitions. Some
    words have many definitions. 'Degenerate mystical' would then be
    'subjective'. Words can be more or less degenerate! Sometimes I feel I am
    an idiot, or saying something really degenerate.

    I do not know if 'order', 'chaos', 'coherence', the equation '1 over e
    squared' are mystical or degenerate mystical points of view. In reading
    through your post I returned to the law of seven, everything can be
    described in terms of the octave, to help me understand your thesis. The
    sweep spot of harmony is intersecting octaves or different notes in the same
    octave.

    Dan Simmons in his SF series, Hyperion, The fall of Hyperion, Endymion, and
    The Rise of Endymion describes the Techno-core (A. I. society) as a parasite
    to sentient existence. I guess he accepted GIGO as gospel. A different
    speculation about level 5.

    Joe Maurer

    Hi Joe,
    Many philosophers use science fiction to explore ideas. So i have no problem
    with it.
    One may examine many an old and knotty philosophical problem in science
    fiction. The Encarta CD-ROM encyclopaedia says that Plato's Republic is one of the
    earliest works of science fiction, as the Republic explores a hypothetical
    society ruled by philosophers who have access to the nature of all form.

    Your two terms 'mystical' and 'degenerate mystical' are interesting. I shall
    go with these for now and tell you what i feel coherence is by using them if i
    may?
    You feel DQ is mystical, SQ is degenerate mystical.
    I would say coherence is a move from degenerate mystical towards mystical. I
    do not know if it is possible to live as a mystic all the time? I do feel it
    is possible to move towards a mystical view point, and stages along the way are
    described in the MOQ as states of increasing coherence.
    I feel artists of all sorts understand this. In fact, if you begin with an
    artists approach you can see everything in terms of art if you wish. Having made
    this move, further developments can be seen to be an ever experienced sense
    of coherence.

    "I do not know if 'order', 'chaos', 'coherence', the equation '1 over e
    squared' are mystical or degenerate mystical points of view. In reading
    through your post I returned to the law of seven, everything can be
    described in terms of the octave, to help me understand your thesis. The
    sweep spot of harmony is intersecting octaves or different notes in the same
    octave."

    Off the top of my head i should say order is static understanding. Chaos is
    worse - there is no understanding at all. Coherence is open to Dynamic
    influence without a move towards either order or chaos, and yet a state is
    discernible.
    I have to be careful when it comes to music because music is the love of my
    life. It would be easy for me to do as you do Joe. One could write a thesis on
    Quality and Music, it's a huge area of enquiry.
    It's going to hurt me to say this, but the formal 'laws' of music are a bit
    of an idealisation. However, there is something more exciting for you to think
    about: 'Just intonation.' Just intonation sounds different depending on which
    key you use, because the intervals are not tweaked to allow transposition
    between keys. This has only been possible since J.S. Bach explored the 'well
    tempered clavier.' Here, all keys sound the same.
    The Octave is a formalised convention which is adhered to because it is
    pragmatic. But in just intonation there is more scope for expression - more keys,
    more harmony, more sounds. As you move between octaves, the sound of the higher
    key is different. (This is true even on a concert pitch piano, but you have
    to have perfect pitch hearing to find it annoying!) More potential for SQ-SQ
    tension and DQ?

    I can't see an MOQ analogue of SOM. I find myself thinking less in SOM terms
    and more and more in value terms with each passing year. I had to learn SOM
    because my culture told me to. I can think for myself today!

    All the best,
    Mark

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 17 2004 - 19:44:41 BST