Magnus Berg (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 11 Aug 1998 20:02:26 +0100
Hi Maggie and Squad
> I see no doubt that the robots are a set of social patterns, made with
> inorganic building blocks, but not biological.
But that's the Donkey Kong approach, you lose the dependency between
> The social patterns are a subset of human social patterns, and they are
> preserved within the robots' functions. As Diana says, not everything
> has been replicated.
Not the flesh, not the gray cells, not the blood and not the DQ, but
enough to let it function as a part of the starship society.
> I think the deciding point on whether the robots are a "society" would
> whether this social grouping can, itself, grow (ie react with DQ),
> on human terms, such as charisma, etc or on new hitherto-unknown
> created from their own robot balance points.
But this is the static levels we're discussing, forget about DQ for a
> Of course, you and I talk about "social" very differently, and I might
> just figured out the difference. Perhaps it's the fact that when I say
> of social patterns I mean those interactions (within a society) that
> biology (and intellect, where available). I think when you say
> you are referring to viable sets of entities whose structure is enabled
> what I refer to as social patterns.
> But when I say patterns, I mean a function, and when you say pattern,
> mean the society.
Yes I do, I think it maps best to other levels. And I think that what
you refer to as "sets of social patterns" is what I call language.
-- "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:email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:38 CEST