[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Ian Glendinning]

Sorry Magnus, it's not making sense,

You said to Andy yesterday that you used organic for the second level
10 years ago and you still think that's right .... but didn't agree
with my habit of using the term ?

I also read your 3D fit in the Levels Undressed essay ... I still see
plenty of fuzziness in this idea too - no less than simply using
organic or living definitions.

3D fit is relevant throughout physics and chemistry, not just organic
chemistry. It will of course depend on the model you hold for atoms
and electrons, but molecules generally always have 3D geometry ? (even
if the dimensions are small or symmetries exist on or about one or
more axes.

Also not sure why the chemistry of smell and taste are seen as so
significant ... the particular molecular interactions are only called
taste or smell because of the living thing experiencing them, an
organism of response.

I subscribe to the "reverse entropy gradient" view of life ... winning
the war on gravity (and other physical laws) ... so I'm OK with that.
Still seems to me that organic and living are key ... reproducing, or
if not reproducing, sustaining by self-repair (against the physical
degradation) over unlimited lifetime.

Particular cell chemistry like DNA (including viral invaders) are very
precisely governed by 3D fit, yes .... but it's the fit that supports
replication (or repair or rebuilding) over time that makes them a
characteristic of living organisms surely ?

As you may know I'm a strange loopy person, so it's that cycle of
reproduction (or repair or rebuilding) that makes the level shift for
me. I can't see why that is too fuzzy to be a defining distinction
(though as I admitted fuzziness is never an issue for me ... there
will always be a fractal scale problem here in choosing your precision
anyway ... just a question of how precise is good enough.)

Organic is still my preferred adjective for that living layer - its
the self-organization of that reproductive / repair / rebuild cycle
that gives us the organism. (the name inorganic for level 1 already
suggests the distinction from level 2 - not-in-organic)

Fuzzy or not, surely we are just going to end up with a "definition"
of either 3D fir, or life, or organic ... ?

Since this was a prelude to A-Life, I'm guessing even if we were to
agree on 3D-Fit, this would become metaphorical or analogous in the
computation space rather than 3D space ?

We seem to be searching for a problem where there isn't one. As a
pragmatist, Andy's line seems right ... what does 3D fit do for us
that organic doesn't ?

Regards
Ian

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Ian Glendinning
<ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>