Re: [ox-en] Germ of a new form of society ? [Phylosophical Investigation]
- From: "Niall Douglas" <s_fsfeurope2 nedprod.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:16:49 -0000
On 30 Jan 2004 at 3:31, Adam Moran wrote:
I found a striking similarity in the method of the investigation ...
almost mathematical ... but I can't quite but my finger on it ... and
I don't want to go off lists because I'm a bit swamped at the moment.
Computer types think alike. You will get far less variance here than
among artists for example, despite that any programmer worth their
salt is an artist.
Why I harp on about the Greeks so much is because I find in them a
striking similarity also in the self / other, *I*/*We* method of
investigational which occur across the lists I'm on, and suspect that
we are experiencing the same phenomenon.
Greek philosophy is good for gaining an interest, but it's riddled
with logical typing errors. As Bertrand Russell said, most of the
questions they posed are solvable with rigourous application of
logic. I would recommend reading it once or twice, then moving on.
Oh ... I've remembered what the point of this email was - its come
from your Ecosystem thread ... On the 28-01-04 you wrote:
> Software development is an ecosystem
Hmm, and yours was the only reply :(
Could you conclude from this, that the following were true / false ?
*Information systems are ecosystem
*Ecosystems are information systems
An information system is an ecosystem. The reverse is not true
(typing error).
*information is an ecosystem
*ecosystems are information
Both false.
*information is life
*life is information
Both definitely false.
Software is something quite special - a bit like a live fish is
special when compared to the same fish dead.
I think it was this nature of software that programmers from the 60's
intuitively realised before their brains caught up which led them to
make such wild predictions. True, we've doubled transistor density
every year for nearly thirty years now which no one expected, but
computers aren't like HAL yet.
This is stranger than it should be. In the next ten to fifteen years,
the computer will exceed the raw processing capacity of the human
brain yet it will not be intelligent nor alive. Why?
My definition of software as illustrated on
http://www.nedprod.com/programs/definition.html solves the problem.
Software is maths + the set of relations between the maths. We have
hammered ahead with the maths angle but paid scant attention to
improving the ability to manage and organise complexity - and most
especially for software to create complexity on its own.
If you look at biological life, wherever complexity exceeds a certain
amount, new forms of order emerge. Actually this is also true of the
quantum mechanical substructure of the universe - this universe and
all matter is merely an emergent strand of new order from increasing
complexity. Thus it is inevitable that with time, new and ever more
complex species of life/order/creation of more complexity will
emerge.
Similarly, those complex species of life will reach a certain
threshold of complexity of their own to create their own strands of
new order eg; how to talk and converse or to invent machines. We have
created computers which are a new and very interesting form of order
because nothing naturally would work as they do.
Venture capital has migrated to bioengineering (a very dangerous
arena as it reduces diversity) and back to pharmaceuticals which is
always a consistent earner. However I think we've barely scratched
the surface of computers - they do less than 0.1% of what they're
capable of. I won't live long enough to see them past a 100x
improvement, but I can certainly give the boat its push!
Cheers,
Niall
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/