[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Ian, yes, hard work indeed.

Magnus:
>> 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.

It's a bit confusing to call it "level of chemistry" in this context. 
But anyway, since one of the most important organic experiences to me is 
taste and smell, I simply wanted to know how those experiences (quality 
events) were supported by the level below. Now I know, and you seem to 
agree. However, since your definition of the organic level is more about 
procreation, perhaps it doesn't matter much to you.

However, the boundary *is* really discrete because of that 3D fit. It's 
simply a completely new way of building things, and it's more dynamic 
and therefore more moral.

Think of some chemistry experiment. It was way too long ago I studied 
chemistry so I can't think of any particular one. But the way you 
normally do it is to mix two substances, often liquids, perhaps stir it 
and then the reaction happens in more or less the whole mix at once. 
There's not much dynamic choice involved in such a reaction. One 
molecule may of course bond with any of the other molecules it happens 
to be closest to, but more or less the only factor that decides the 
outcome of the reaction is the proportions of the substances involved.

When larger molecules bond using 3D fit however, there are many more 
conditions that need to be fulfilled in order to join them together, to 
make the organic experience happen. They need to be in the same place 
(similar to the chemical reaction), and they also need to be oriented 
correctly so the two shapes will fit. It's like Luke Skywalker in Star 
Wars when he must destroy the death star by firing a missile into the 
exact right tube, much harder than just having to hit the whole death 
star. But it's not just harder, the two molecules are simply *not* 
attracted to eachother chemically, so it's not a fuzzy border. If they 
are attracted chemically, then it's an inorganic event. But if they are 
not, but just happens to click into eachother anyway, it's organic.

> [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.

But such arguments doesn't count in my view. I require direct 
dependency, remember? So, to me that's evidence that reproduction is 
*not* a requirement for the organic level.

> [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.)

I didn't quite get that. Who's time axis are we talking about? Is it a 
person's reproduction abilities that may be fluctuating over time 
without affecting the person's organic status?

Or is it a definition of the level that should be able to change, and be 
refined, over time?

I agree that static can be seen as a matter of time, yes. It's keeping a 
pattern static between quality events. But many static "states" are 
independent of time, such as an oscillator.

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

Sorry, but I still haven't understood what you meant by:

[IG]
if we were to agree on 3D-Fit, this would become metaphorical or 
analogous in the computation space rather than 3D space ?

> [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.)

So, would you require reproduction in this "substrate of A-Life"?

> [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.)

Great. I don't think it's the single distinguishing feature either. For 
example, it doesn't help spotting the organic level in a computer. But I 
honestly did not get that you agreed earlier, I've had to answer pretty 
many questions of doubt.

	Magnus