[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Magnus Berg]

Good morning Ian

On 2010-07-12 11:32, Ian Glendinning wrote:
> before moving on to the AI side of this (which I already agreed with)
> a couple of preliminaries ... I really don't want to waste your time.

Regarding that, I hope the wink in my eye made it to you.

> I was already calling the second level "organic" - living, like an
> organism - in your exchange with Dan. Always been my habit. (This
> level really is about life .... but as we continue, that's nothing
> magical. Also the negative naming "inorganic" for the first level
> means the first and fourth levels both begin with "I" which is an
> inconvenience for abbreviations.)

Wouldn't agree on the "life" issue, but I've stated my position on that 
in my reply to Andy yesterday.

> I see your concern, you said ...
> "none of that usual "magic of life" that is usually used to alienate
> the 2nd level from the first .... We have to come up with something
> better if we really want to keep that level."
>
> You are concerned whether, if the organic level is entirely
> "explicable" in terms of the inorganic (physical&  chemical) level,
> the organic living level is in any sense fundamental ... it is simply
> contingent ?
>
> I say, not necessarily. The level is still fundamental in a
> metaphysical sense. Explaining the living in terms of the physical is
> "too reductionist" .... logically / physically the explanation may be
> complete and correct .... but it is not useful, it doesn't match with
> how patterns in that level are experienced (and lived). I'm saying
> life is qualitatively different from physics - a different nature.
> (ditto all the levels - except socio-intellectual difficulties remain
> ...)

Nah, I don't fear for the 2nd level's continued existence. I'm totally 
in agreement with everyone that we must keep it. But not for the "life" 
reason. Heck, the whole evolution has been about life, so from the 
earliest biological molecules until the most complex animals living in 
groups and even cities with news papers, are about life, driven by life. 
As Pirsig put it, in Lila I think, "One can almost define life as the 
organized disobedience against gravity". That's all levels above the 
inorganic, not just the organic.

> I can see fuzzy boundaries of chemistry and life, proto-life, clearly,
> but the metaphysical choice to "define" life, set a boundary, is a
> sign of a pragmatic philosophy. Call that contingent if you want - but
> we don't need to lose (alienate) the value of the life.

I think we can find very crisp borders, or rather, new dimensions, so we 
don't have to resort to fuzziness. In my levels undressed essay for 
example, I argue that the 2nd level's way of building things are using 
the 3D-fitness of the molecules involved. It's not chemical bonding, or 
physical, it's must be a totally different kind. And how molecules fit 
together seems to be a good candidate. For example, when viruses and 
other bad stuff is entering a cell or some other restricted area of the 
body, they use identical, so called, receptacles, as door-openers to get 
in. I.e. they are faking the 3D key that the real thing is supposed to 
use to enter. The DNA molecule is made of 4 fitting molecules, each only 
fit with one of the others. I guess some of these fitting molecules may 
use chemical bonding to "click into place", but in order to get that 
close, they must first fit together.

Another example is biological reproduction organs. Talk about high 
biological quality! And the 3D fitness is quite obvious.

	Magnus