[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Andy Skelton]

Magnus to 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?

I don't know. I haven't begun my rereading of Lila so Pirsig's words
are not as fresh in my mind as I'd like. I incorporate etymology into
my understanding of each word and so since you brought it up I feel
"organic" was a poor choice. "Biological" is a superior choice because
its root, bio, simply means life whereas "organic" implies something
about the way the thing's structure is understood.

> 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?

True. If you are considering the thing qua itself, you are the
implicit second referent. If you are considering the thing in relation
to another being, you can almost convincingly ignore yourself as
referent to the set of thing and other being. But not quite. That's
another thread in the making.

> 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.

I think you are blurring the distinction between the levels and the
patterns they describe. The biological level describes patterns that
behave in a manner that distinguishes them as biological rather than
merely physical. The DNA pattern alone is never a functioning
biological being. It only achieves the status of "living" in concert
with an environment that complies with its instructions. Thus the
entire system is the qualified pattern, from the DNA down to the
nucleotides and enzymes down to the local temperature down to the laws
of chemistry and physics. Mere DNA doesn't qualify as a
biological-level pattern because it lacks the context that makes it
live. It's the whole stack, not just the top card.

> 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.

If we hold constant the logical functions of processor, memory, etc.,
as we consider that there laws of physics that are held constant
(whether or not we have accurately understood them), yes, we can
ignore gravity, etc. It is useful to do so in certain intellectual
phases, though not necessary or advantageous in absolute terms. We
would achieve greater success if we also considered the gradual
physical decay of electronic components and the accidental loss of
logical function that happens in the real world.

Success in digital logical AI requires success in artificial life
which itself exists in an inconstant artificial inorganic environment.
Since its environment is unstable and tends to decay or disappear
suddenly, e.g. when a meteor strike damages a building full of
computers, artificial life will experience sudden death and must have
a mechanism for perpetuating itself beyond such events.

> 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?

No. Rudimentary artificial biological patterns have already lived and
died in the internet ecosystem. There will be more complex patterns
but the precedent is there in viruses.

>> 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 stack of levels built on digital logic is interesting. Another
track I'd like to explore is the stack of levels built on intellectual
symbols. The inorganic level might be symbols and biological might be
memes. Maybe memes have social patterns among themselves that we can
identify. Would it break your heart to realize that the most
successful memes are ones that cleverly exploit not the intellectual
but the biological and social levels in our own stack, e.g. lolcats?

Andy