Magnus Berg (email@example.com)
Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:02:18 +0100
Hi Diana and Squad
> According to the explanations of social value given by Pirsig it would
> be impossible to built robots that can function socially like humans.
> Such robots would have to understand and respond Dynamically to values
> such as charisma, fashion, celebrity, ego, shame, humor. That is what
> the social level of the MoQ is about and that is what AI has yet to
Granted. I just don't think such robots are metaphysical
I frequently use robots as examples to illuminate the contradictions
within a one dimensional "rainbow view" of the four levels. Some try
to get around the contradictions with fuzziness or a Donkey Kong
approach (finish a level then leave it), some use a life chauvinist
level ladder and denies robots any static patterns except inorganic,
and some deny the contradiction altogether.
We're discussing the static levels here so I don't think the amount
of DQ should matter. Static patterns of level X are not able to
change but they're still patterns of level X.
You also refer to Pirsig's explanation of social value. But I don't
think you accounted for his example that plants and animals are
societies too. The church, a nation and a family are social patterns,
and so are a bunch of cooperative cells.
-- "I'm so full of what is right, I can't see what is good" N. Peart - Rush-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:38 CEST