> At 12:15 AM 7/27/96 -0500, Lyle Burkhead wrote:
>=20
> >Measure? in what units? Does this definition really say anything?
>=20
> Clearly it says a fair bit. It says, very basically, what extropy is an=
d
> thus what it is not. As a brief definition it does not purport to expla=
in
> the concept in depth. I have been torn between the virtues of brevity a=
nd
> informativeness in the definition. When I explain the idea verbally, I
> always expand on the definition, qualifying terms and ensuring the audi=
ence
> understands that it=92s not intended as a techical term (it=92s not mea=
nt to be
> exactly the opposite of entropy either in a thermodynamic or a informat=
ion
> theoretic sense).
On the other hand, the wording seems to imply that extropy is=20
quantifiable. But it is probably no good idea to try to quantify it yet,=20
complexity theory is still struggling with finding a good definition of=20
complexity (which is definitely *somehow* interlinked with extropy).
> An earlier definition I used described extropy as "the process of
> increasing=85" rather than as a measure. Someone objected to that. I do=
n=92t
> recall their grounds, though I presume it was that extropy should be th=
e
> thing or collection of things being increased rather than the process i=
tself.
Why not? I have begun to dislike reification (=3D turning concepts into=20
"things") lately; intelligence is not something you can increase (as if=20
it was some golden liquid in our brains), it is the ability to act/think=20
in an intelligent way. Extropy cannot be static, then it is not extropy.=20
Remember that the word is based on "Ex" ("out") and the "tropos" (move).=20
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
nv91-asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y