Re: What is Maslow's hierarchy really?

JGCASEY wrote:
> > Oh, well. I am not that much into DNA.
> > But thank you very much for the lecture.
>
> Sorry I didn't mean for it to be a "lecture".
> I was just stating it as I saw it and expected
> agreement or disagreement.

I apologize. Your remarks pertaining to DNA make perfect sense to me. I
am a proponent of the computational world view. Imho, there isn't
anything beyond computation to anything. So far I did not dare tackle
the algebra of DNA. This is why I refrained from making arguments I
could never be sure the value of.

> Open ended intelligence I see as part of what
> would be called self-organization and that
> includes the intelligence of a single cell
> that doesn't have a brain made of neurons
> but can still react to its environment.

Yes. It is perfectly clear.

> Also the proteins in the cell do "intelligent"
> things. It is the system that is intelligent
> not the components.

Right. Still, imho, there are no emergent, unreducible properties of
the whole, like e.g. qualia. Frankly speaking, in no system are there
any properties beyond the spatial ones.

Now, had I spoken against your views, I deeply apologize. I merely have
developed to fail to recognize anything beyond spatiality.

> You may not be "much into DNA" but it is
> the working program required by the hardware
> in the cell just as the string of binary
> patterns is the working program required by
> computer hardware.

Yes. Exactly.

> > [snip]

> You have lost me there. For me AI is just the
> attempt to get machines/programs to do things
> we would normally say required intelligence
> if done by a person.

I agree. (I must have misexpressed my own views previously.)

> There are spatial patterns and temporal patterns.

But temporarity *is* eliminable in terms of spatiality. I mean, all
imperative code can be rewritten as declarative one.

> I don't know why you should think there exists
> only spatial relations.

I was HOPING you'd ask this question. :-)
The answer is, one, the declarative paradigm is Turing complete, and
two, one can (possibly) not name a single type of relation in _any kind
of discourse that would not be a spatial primitive, or would not be
reducible to the solely required spatial primitive of the Peano's
successor.

John, please, DO NOT hesitate to criticize me, and very severly, too.

Thank you very much for writing.
Tom

.