[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Andy

> This thread about computers "supporting" MoQ levels above inorganic
> has yanked me out of newbie lurk mode. My thoughts take two orthogonal
> tracks. First, the "organic" level is not necessarily limited to or
> defined by what we have found and classified as "life" in the
> universe. Second, the reality of any given thing under Quality cannot
> be considered to exist without a second referent to provide point of
> view.

First track: Spot on, I agree 100%. I'm also very intrigued by the name 
"organic". Why did you use that name for the 2nd level?

2nd track: To me, that's the quality event producing the subject (point 
of view), and the object (given thing). Does that chime with you too?

> To follow the first track, first review what constitutes biology or
> life. Pooping is not a defining characteristic. An organism that
> accumulates all of its waste until death or outsources its energy
> production is still an organism. I say that a biological pattern it is
> any pattern that tends toward self-perpetuation despite adversity.
> Atoms and most molecules do not qualify but DNA is such a pattern. In
> a favorable environment, DNA perpetuates its pattern by building
> defenses and making copies of itself. These activities are the result
> of molecule-manipulating programs embedded in the DNA. We are capable
> of manipulating DNA and thus capable of rudimentary hacking of
> biological programs. (Please correct me if I need correction on the
> biological level.)

Nothing to correct here. It's just great to see you're writing very 
technical and none of that usual "magic of life" that is usually used to 
alienate the 2nd level from the first. We know pretty much about how a 
cell works, that DNA is used only as a library where ribosomes can fetch 
the sequence/recipe they need to create a new protein. There is no 
mystery left. We can't just point to DNA and say that this is the big 
mystic step that made life a new level on top of the first. We have to 
come up with something better if we really want to keep that level.

> This definition of the biological level does not necessarily exclude
> patterns invented or circulated by man. We have already seen man-made
> self-perpetuating patterns in the wild: computer viruses. These
> patterns are self-replicating in that they can spawn viable copies of
> themselves in favorable environments. To varying degrees, they exploit
> their environment despite adversity. To varying degrees, they take
> part in communication of information about their environments, so they
> can be said to have a social level. To varying degrees, they have been
> programmed to mutate to gain advantage against other patterns in their
> environment. The fact that one can easily defeat the pattern by
> pulling the plug is no proof against its being biological as the same
> effect could be applied to you by suffocation.

I agree computer viruses can be seen as biological, or organic, 
patterns. *But*, they don't use our inorganic level.

They have a completely new inorganic level. One where gravity, energy, 
light, mass etc. doesn't exist. The physical laws of their inorganic 
level are the laws of the processor, and the stuff of their world are 
ones and zeros. On top of that, the computer viruses are organic patterns.

Do you agree?


> So you could say that a computer "supports" biological patterns in
> that a computer "is a suitable medium for" biological patterns. This
> is no different from saying that the ocean supports life, if you can
> suspend whatever social or theological precepts prevent you from
> attributing to man the ability to breathe life into matter, at least
> outside of polite company.

However, if what I wrote above is true, then we need to look for our 
version of an organic level inside the computer. The one that is built 
on our inorganic level with voltage, currents and magnetism.

The organic level with the computer viruses doesn't count. Agree?

> I am too fuzzy on the second novel to embark on any proof that we have
> created self-supporting intellectual patterns in electronic computers.
> That will be in my mind as I study.

Can't wait. :)

> The second track is more firmly grounded in the first novel, with
> which I am currently becoming reacquainted. Consider an unpowered
> computer lying in a dark closet with nobody around to see it. Does it
> exist? At what levels? If it is online and connected to the internet
> and communicating with other computers, yet nobody is aware of it at
> this specific moment, does it exist? At what levels? Let me make it
> more concrete.
>
> At the present moment in your time frame, you are reading these words
> from a screen (or hearing them from an assistive device) and
> suspending your knowledge that the symbols ride on signals composed of
> electronically controlled pixels (or vibrations of speaker membranes)
> that convey symbols from me to you across thoroughly inorganic air.
> The medium of communication need not have the capabilities of the
> participants.
>
> That we have interposed electronic computers in our communication loop
> is no more significant than had we had this discussion via paper or
> smoke signals or mind melding. Smoke is no more capable than a
> computer is of "being" intellectual, yet both are capable of conveying
> patterns between intellectual beings.

Hmm... Perhaps not being intellectual, i.e. thinking new thoughts. But 
it *is* capable of handling static intellectual patterns. It can correct 
misspelled words, it can foresee weather, it can do pretty much anything 
a person can do, except inventing new things to do. It's not dynamic at 
all, but I would still claim it's way more capable than a piece of paper.

Again, welcome!

	Magnus