Access/ITS, Inc. (its@icanect.net)
Sat, 11 Oct 1997 04:01:09 +0100
Doug wrote:
> The INTERRELATIONSHIPS among quantum systems have properties.
<…>
>To answer your question, it appears that the action of the subject and/or
>object observing (attempting to >observe) the superposed state causes the
>latch.
Thank you Doug, for recapping the previous posts for me. I agree, the
quality events occur every time patterns interact and I guess, most
valuable events happen when Intellectual patterns interact with any others.
I'd rather use 'interrelationships' as opposed to 'observation', because
'observation' bears for me a connotation of putting one object/subject in a
preferred position/viewpoint of the observer.
Magnus wrote:
>1. I still think, despite Bo's arguments, that my individual intellectual
>patterns of value are superimposed upon *my* body, not our society. My
>intellectual patterns will still exist if
>the world goes under and I'm the only one left. They will on the other
hand
>disappear if *my* body disappears. The problem here is that intellectual
>patterns must be superimposed upon a society, and I see no other solution
>than to make bodies into societies of organs.
Combination of all types of patterns everybody agreed to call Magnus,
started from being just a set of biological patterns, then some social
patterns were acquired and then some intellectual on top of them. In other
words, Magnus, I think, *your* intellectual patterns are superimposed upon
*your* social patterns. Your specific combination of social patterns will
not disappear even if you get away from siciety (I wish it was that easy).
Each of us is a unique combination of patterns and only that particular
combination is ruined when one of our bodies disappears.
Magnus wrote:
>2. Most people who read Lila equals the biological level with life. And
>then defines life as something that is able to reproduce itself. In that
>case, societies and ideas are also life and therefore biological. I say,
>No.
I agree with No part, life is not only >something that is able to reproduce
itself<, reproduction ability is one of the descriptions of life, as to its
definition I'll hide behind the Bohr (see the quote in my previous post)
and would not attempt to define it. But to be able to reproduce is not
enough for a pattern to be called alive, so, societies and ideas are not
biological.
Magnus wrote:
>3. My robot society example. I think most agreed that the society of
robots
>was in fact social patterns of value. The problem here is, what organic
>patterns was the society built upon?
If the first robot was originally created by humans then the patterns of
all levels imbedded in those humans are the foundation for the robot
society.
Gene.
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:05 CEST