[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Magnus, this is hard work. Inserted ...
Andy, if we're talking past each other ... butt in.

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:
> 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.

[IG] It shows us how a  piece of chemistry depends on shape - but that
wasn't in doubt was it ?

The MoQ
> tells us *that* they are dependent and discrete, but not *how* that works. A
> 3D shape explanation *is* both dependent and discrete.

[IG] But not why one particular level of chemistry becomes "organic" -
I don't see the boundary as discretely related to 3D.
>
>>> 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?

[IG] Err no ! (Talk about straw men !) ;-) Life-limited in the organic
level ... just like a sterile man ... no further contributions to the
gene pool, life limited contribution to the nurturing of other
individual gene carriers, main contribution in the socio-intellectual
space where contributions to patterns can memetically outlive the
life.

>
> As you said, a significant point of disagreement here.

[IG] Our only difference is simply fuzziness on the time-axis. Static
patterns are "species" in a technical sense .... static is a matter of
time. You seem to want a very "objective" definition fixed once at a
single instant in time and for ever. (I could say more about this).
(Platonic idealization on the time axis too.)

>
>>>> 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.

[IG] A joke to suggest I hadn't noticed.

>
> 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] I suspect there are more than two stacks possible - but I totally
agree that we must find social and organic patterns before we find the
"intellectual" patterns  emerging. Been saying this on MD for 8 years
at least .... it was the point I led with in agreeing with Andy.
(Roughly, AI will arrive, it will be real and it will depend on a
substrate of A-Life.)

>
>
>> [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:

[IG] No sorry - you miss my point - I KNOW the chemistry of taste and
smell are shape optimised - never in doubt. I just don't by that this
property is the single distinguishing feature of "the organic".
(That's 4 or 5 times in this thread.)

>
> "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
> 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
>