[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Ian Glendinning]

Inserted Magnus

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:
> 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?

[IG] - Hmm no it was you, but clearly a misunderstanding, sorry.
Good - one preliminary out of the way.

>
>> 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...

[IG] I will look at that link this evening. Not sure why you are
educating me in taste smell and quality. I get it. My point was it's
the experiencing, not the chemistry - you agreed.

>
>> 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.

[IG] OK, I see your motive now. Don't agree. I positively don't want
to lose all that DQ trolling around the static patterns - that's not
confusion, that's evolution. But at least we can have an intelligent
conversation.

>
>> 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?

[IG] Ignore it ... see my next comment about "living organism".

>
>> 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).

[IG] No. A significant point of disagreement. I'll repeat .... you
might look like an organic pattern, but you would no longer be
"organic" and organism. You would be a decaying ex-organic pattern -
without any organic life processes to "repair, rebuild, or reproduce"
your patterns would be wiped out by longer lived organic patterns very
quickly - (Glenn's rotting apple again - twice in one week)

>
>> (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.

[IG] I'm talking real shapes in the real world - not some Platonic
idealisations where lines have no width and planes no thickness. A
single "atom" is not a point - nor even a single electron, let alone a
molecule.

> 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.

[IG] - I suspect were are therefore closer to agreement, than might
appear. I'm defining organic or organism.

>
>> 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.

[IG] A joke I guess ? I preceded that whole paragraph with "I'm
guessing that's where we're going .... " (The title of the thread is
already there.)

>
>> 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.

[IG] Play fair Magnus. Obviously it's important, but which definition
is better than another in a quality (pragmatic experienced) sense is
what matters. It's your definition of it we're debating. I have my
preference (and Andy his) but it seems more of an issue for you, since
it's your definition. You need to sell it.

Perhaps you should explain your 3D-Fit theory a little more - the
taste and smell example didn't do it for me ? I can't see it.

>
>        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
>