[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[ian glendinning]

Case, Arlo,
More agreement ... many a true word about the fractal view.

I use the maxim "everything comes in three layers, including each
layer" - the net result is the same, as Slartibartfast's fjords.

Ian

On 1/17/07, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> [Ian]
> It clearly has "encoded" within it the organisation of some higher layer
> (like a brain or a liver), but maybe not a level higher that might take a
> brain to organise (like new york city or an e-mail).
>
> [Arlo]
> What I guess I'm arguing against here is the notion that there were these
> two cells, and one cell said to other "hey, look, let's form a human body
> with a brain and a liver", and the other said, "do you think we'll need a
> stomach and legs", and the first said "i guess so, and let's try this
> appendix thingy, but if it doesn't work out we'll scrap it", and they went
> out and recruited some other cells saying "if we work together to make a
> brain, we'll be able to do more things".
>
> [Case]
> Exactly, Arlo cells are themselves collection of complex molecules that
> behave in extraordinary ways by virtue of the ways they are constructed and
> their reactions to their surrounding. No two protein molecules get together
> and plan how to build a cell.
>
> It depends on what level of resolution you adopt. Do you want to understand
> the complex relationships among molecules or the interactions of cells or
> the function of organs or why the flavor of sugar water stimulates the honey
> bee.
>
> [Ian]
> I think the distinguishing thing about one layer from another, is that it
> possesses the resources / information for the NEXT to emerge.
>
> [Arlo]
> Sure it does. I just don't think it was a "planned event" for one level to
> create the level above it.
>
> [Case]
> And... because the higher levels of complexity involves relationships among
> higher orders of stability there is no way to even predict what these new
> relationships will involve.
>
> [Ian]
> I support the idea that we really have many more levels to explain the whole
> of reality, and Pirsig's four are simply pragmatic convention, useful and
> valuable, but not fundamental in any explicatory sense.
>
> [Arlo]
> I think Pirsig's level mark, in broad strokes, the significant points of
> emergence. But each level has quite a bit of gradation in complexity, and
> like Case points out, getting closer and closer to the actual "line of
> demarcation" things get interesting... like a fractral pattern perhaps?
>
> [Case]
> Indeed, the closer to the edge of a boundary condition you get, the fuzzier
> the set itself looks. Depending the level of resolution you seek the
> boundary can be smooth or infinitely bumpy. Mandelbrot asked, "How long is
> the coastline of England?" He determined that it is infinitely long.
>
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>