[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Andy

On 2010-07-15 18:33, Andy Skelton wrote:
> Magnus to Ian:
>> 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.
>
> I don't buy this. Chemical reactions, no matter how complex, do not
> qualify as a biological pattern unless they tend to self-perpetuate
> against adverse forces. You can make 3D-fitting reactions in a test
> tube in an Organic Chemistry Lab but that doesn't mean anything inside
> that test tube has evolved to the biological level, i.e. is alive.

I wasn't talking about chemical reactions. Please read again, especially:

"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."


> Reproduction is a red herring. Drop it! There is a huge difference
> between reproduction and self-perpetuation. I chose that term for its
> precise meaning and I added "against adverse forces" to make it
> explicit that a pattern cannot be said to have evolved to Level 2 by
> merely being cyclical.

I don't know if self-perpetuation is much better. As I said to Ian in my 
last post, it only serves to keep the status quo of the organism. But 
status quo of what? What is it that the organic level adds to the soup, 
that the social level can use to do its stuff?

	Magnus