[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Andy

>> 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.

Don't get me wrong. I was only curious because I used it myself in an 
essay more than 10 years ago, with good reason I thought (and still think).

>> 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.

You may want to strengthen that argument, it bites itself in the behind.

> 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.

And I argue that the biological/organic level should not be limited to 
what we call life, not even a very broad definition of it. The only 
reason we only see living things as organic patterns, is because they 
had to be alive to be able develop up its evolutionary path. But since 
we're here now, we can make organic patterns without requiring them to 
be alive. They become much more static if we make them, but since we're 
discussing the levels (SQ), we can leave DQ aside. We *should* leave DQ 
aside to make things clearer. In fact, if we leave out DQ, they would be 
completely static, and as such inanimate.

>> 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.

When software developers make computer programs, or viruses, they 
completely disregard gravity, voltage, magnetism, etc. etc. I assure 
you. If, for some reason, there's a heat problem for example, they blame 
the hardware guys and let them fix it.

What I tried to say is that the software, or virus, in a computer is 
living in a completely new universe. Or to follow your card metaphor, 
it's not just a new stack, it's a new deck!

The new deck is supported by the intellectual level that the computer 
hardware exposes, and it becomes the new base level for the new deck. 
 From the hardware's point of view, it's voltage, currents and 
magnetism, but from the new universe (the new deck), it's ones, zeros 
and a completely new set of physical laws.

There's nothing magic here, and we don't have to change the MoQ or 
anything. It's just a wonderful opportunity to explore different 
universes, *and* to verify that the MoQ works in both!


> 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?

Ah, yes, why not? I haven't really thought about a new stack (or deck) 
built on intellectual symbols. But it might just prove to be extremely 
useful to untangle some of the endless discussions we have here 
"occasionally". :)

	Magnus