[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Ian

On 2010-07-14 10:36, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>>> 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.

Oh, I thought you were unimpressed with the organic part of it, ok, then 
I'll switch sides. The chemistry of smell and taste is significant 
because that would show us how the organic level depends on the 
inorganic. The MoQ tells us *that* they are dependent and discrete, but 
not *how* that works. A 3D shape explanation *is* both dependent and 
discrete.

>> 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.

I'm of course not suggesting to stop evolution. What I suggest is to 
stop DQ from "trolling around" (extremely funny expression, thanks Ian 
:) )in a controlled environment, perhaps just in our gedanken experiments.

>>> 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)

So what you're saying is that all women after their menopause is not 
organic? And since higher levels are dependent on lower, they also lose 
their ability to socialize and engage in intellectual conversation?

As you said, a significant point of disagreement here.

>>> 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.)

No joke. Andy and I have been discussing this (in this thread as I 
recall) in terms of different stacks of cards, or rather, stacks of 
levels. I called it "Merry-go-round" in my classicist essay on moq.org.

There are two stacks in this case:

One stack is built using our physical universe, our trusty old inorganic 
level. The computer is built using inorganic patterns, but in the end it 
supports intellectual patterns. This means that somewhere inside that 
physical computer, we must find both organic and social patterns as well.

The other stack is built using the inorganic level that the computer 
provides, we usually call it a virtual universe. It is here we find 
those viruses Andy mentioned (and I also mentioned in my classicist essay).


> [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.

Ok, I present exhibit B:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olfaction

An extract:

"Odor receptor nerve cells function like a key-lock system: If the 
airborne molecules of a certain chemical can fit into the lock, the 
nerve cell will respond. There are, at present, a number of competing 
theories regarding the mechanism of odor coding and perception. 
According to the shape theory, each receptor detects a feature of the 
odor molecule. Weak-shape theory, known as odotope theory, suggests that 
different receptors detect only small pieces of molecules, and these 
minimal inputs are combined to form a larger olfactory perception"

	Magnus