[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Ian Glendinning]

OK Magnus,

This thing we're not going to call life, or organic .... because we
would prefer to have a crisp boundary than a fuzzy one .... 3D-Fitness
sounds interesting and I vaguely recollect you mentioning it before
;-)

(Fitness is a term I like in Quality circles ....)

Sadly today and tomorrow I must focus on business ... so I need to
re-read your earlier exchange(s). The basis for some interesting
discussion. I'll be back.

Ian.

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:
> 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
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>