[MD] Quantum computing

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Platt

pholden at davtv.com wrote:
>> At 02:54 AM 3/14/2007, Magnus wrote:
> 
>>> 1. The first thing you need to think about is the dimensional view of the
>>> levels, a *thing* can be manifestation of many different types of 
>>> patterns, not just one as you seem to think.
> 
> Seems to me a "thing" belongs to the level of its highest evolved state. Thus,
> while a jellyfish consists of inorganic level "things" (atoms, molecules and
> such)but belongs as a manifestation to the biological level -- and so forth on
> up the evolution of consciousness ladder until you arrive at the independent
> thinking human individual, the highest form of evolutionary progress to date.

It may seem simpler at first sight to do that. But it backfires pretty fast for 
(at least) three reasons:

1. You get the fuzzy borders between the levels

2. The dimensional aspect of the levels gets hidden and is replaced by a ladder 
view, which only causes arguments about what thing belongs where. The inorganic 
value of a thing is not removed just because it's alive. In other words, you 
still have weight, even though you happen to have legs to move that weight around.

3. In my view, animals are societies of organs, but that doesn't mean they lose 
their biological value. If you use your level rule above, it would end up in the 
social level, but that might not be the best way to describe an animal. (In 
fact, I'd even raise it to the intellectual level. Please read back a few posts 
in this thread to see why.)

	Magnus