[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Arlo, Andy

I'm pretty sure we're well aligned with normal views of what it means
to be organic / living / biological without that "necessarily" being
carbon-based .... the debate here is Magnus believing those "organic"
criteria are not sufficiently well defined .... whereas his 3D
criterion is. We seem to agree in not buying that for the same
geometry-dependent non-organic-chemistry reasons.

On that point I still feel it falls to Magnus to explain why his
definition is better than a more generally accepted view of being a
living organism.

Andy used this phrase ... " tend to self-perpetuate against adverse forces".
I used the phrase ... "reproduce, repair or rebuild" (ie against entropy)
We're OK.

The computer virus question.
Yes, it's called a virus, because it's ..... like a virus. Doh!
A primitive form of living organism / organic, biological or otherwise.
Organic has nothing to do with being carbon-based - it's an adjective
"being like an organism"

And yes, you and I share a process / activity view of the world too.
Matter is just very intense localised activity, etc.

Ian

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Ian]
> I didn't say procreation, it's about being an organism, sufficiently
> self-organizing to "reproduce, repair or rebuild" I must have said 5 or 6
> times now.
>
> [Arlo]
> Interesting, Ian, I think I'm pretty much more or less in agreement with you
> here. Let me ask you (I think this has come up before, but its a fun and
> interesting topic), do you think a "computer virus" (that meets the criteria
> for self-replication) would count as a "biological pattern"?
>
> Personally, I dislike the notion of grounding the biological level in being
> "carbon-based" or something like that. I like the idea of seeing the fractal
> boundary between inorganic and organic as being something like "inorganic
> patterns that have evolved a mechanism for self-replication". This way very
> early microbes and virii are "organic" not because of their "composition"
> but because of their "activity" (of course, I argue that this distinction
> holds true for all the levels- not defined by "composition" but by
> "activity").
>
>
>
> 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
>