[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Ian

On 2010-07-13 20:02, Ian Glendinning wrote:
> 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 ?

The funny thing is, I never commented on you using "organic" before you 
claimed to have used it before (in your post yesterday 12/7).

Anyway, I agree with the term. Perhaps it was someone else who disagreed?

> 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.

In chemistry, the 3D shapes will be decided by the laws of chemistry. I 
guess that can be said for some shapes constructed by physical laws as 
well, not sure though. However, in my version of the organic level, 
these 3D shapes are the deciding factor which molecules will fit 
together and which will not. You say 3D fit is relevant throughout 
chemistry and physics, sure, but chemistry is *constructing* the 3D 
shapes, organic patterns are *using* them. Sounds like a level border to me.

Just found this: (Click "Skip ads" if you see an ad, don't click the ad)

http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news-IN-Ancestral-Eve-Crystal-may-explain-Origin-of-Lifes-Left-handedness-042210.aspx

I think it's quite relevant.

> 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.

Exactly, *experiencing* them, on a new level, literally.

Using smell and taste, organisms can tell whether potential food is 
good, i.e. has value, or not. And that's the whole point of Quality. To 
be able to know whether something is good or bad without having to 
analyse why. Need we ask anyone...

> 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.

The reason I think it's so important to remove both "life" and "biology" 
from any definition of the 2nd level is because there's so much DQ going 
on in both life and biology. I want to (at least mentally) build a 4 
level thing which is completely static but were it's possible to much 
easier point at the different levels without being confused by DQ all 
the time. And that's what I think we are when we talk about life and 
biology.

> 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 ?

I didn't quite get that. Can you clarify?

> 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

Because even if I was sterile, I would still be an organic pattern. And 
yes, I do think that argument is enough, because I require a direct 
level dependency as some discussed a few days ago (in the LC comments 
thread I think).

> (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.)

No, there's no fractal scale problem. If a rectangle has width and 
height, it's a rectangle. If we remove the height, it becomes a line.
Similarly, if an organism can value organic patterns, it's organic. If 
not, it's simply an inorganic bunch of molecules. We "just" need to 
define what those organic patterns are.

> 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 ?

Computation space? You're not jumping into the computer now are you? 
That would be getting ahead of ourselves. First we need to investigate 
how the computer gets to support intellectual patterns before we can 
move on to the next stack of levels inside the computer.

> 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 ?

It may help defining what that level is using from the level below to 
build its stuff. Pretty important if you ask me.

	Magnus