[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Krimel]

> [Krimel]
> I'll stick with brittle in the sense that they break down when pressed.
They
> are not discrete and attempts to make them so are strained at best.
>
> With respect to the notion that biology plays any role inside the
computer;
> that just doesn't fly. Biology depends, arises from, exists as a result of
> organic (carbon) chemistry. If we ever elect to extend the definition of
> "life" to include anything outside of carbon based complexity that might
be
> another thing but using life and biology in this context at this point is
> meaningless.

[Magnus}
I agree completely with you, especially on "life" and "carbon based".

BUT! That doesn't mean it's impossible to make level definitions that 
can't take much pressure.

[Krimel]
The question is, why bother? Levels are only useful if they are intuitive
and easily processed. If you have to expend much taxonomic energy what would
be the point?

[Magnus]
The "life" part in the most commonly used biological level definition, 
is simply DQ that confuses things. Life is what makes an organism able 
to adapt to new circumstances, makes it something different than any 
static definition can capture, i.e. DQ.

[Krimel]
Carbon chemistry not-with-standing life is what make an organism an
organism. Rivers, currents, fires and storms all adapt to changing
circumstances.

[Magnus]
To make level definitions that can take pressure, we must remove DQ, 
i.e. life, and make it dead. *Then* we can start looking at what the 
different levels are. That's why a computer, or a robot, or a bunch of 
robots, are so good examples to use when discussion this.

It can also be extended to higher levels. For example, my version of the 
social level is usually smiled at, but it can take the pressure from 
social structures like countries, cities, wolf packs, multicell 
organisms, and even the social structure inside a single cell. 

[Krimel]
I think you are confusing systems with societies. Societies are classes of
systems. I agree with you up to a point. I think it was stupid to claim that
"social" only applies to human societies. Human societies are a continuation
and elaboration of a particular evolutionary strategy; strength in numbers
and more strength in numbers cooperating. But I really don't see the point
in extending this to systems of particles, atoms or molecules.

[Magnus}
Have you 
any idea how intricate the inner workings of a single cell is? Have you 
realized how much it resembles a city? If you haven't, you should watch 
Lennart Nilsson's wonderful photographs in his (swedish only I'm afraid) 
film about the cell. 

[snip] 

After recognizing that a cell is a society in itself, we must of course 
realize that the organic level starts earlier than that. But this 
doesn't break anything, it just makes it easier to find similarities in 
a cell and a computer and then define the organic level.

[Krimel]
I have seen some of Nilsson's work in a PBS program about embryonic
development call Life's Greatest Miracle. He is very good and his work is
stunning. But I think you are trying to push this metaphor too far. What
does extending the social into the molecular level offer that systems theory
doesn't already supply?