[MD] Levels in electronic computers

[Magnus Berg]

> [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?

The point?

If we can connect the established sciences with the levels, and 
incorporate thousands of years of research into the MoQ (instead of 
fight it as many here tend to do), I think that would be pretty darned 
useful. I'm actually a bit perplexed by your question.

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

Ok, I didn't mean that DQ implied life, it's the other way around. 
Whenever you have life, DQ is around. Even the simplest life wouldn't be 
called life if it weren't able to adapt and try to survive in harsh 
environments. The quote "life finds a way" from Jurassic park captures 
what I mean quite well.

> [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.

I said cell, not particles, atoms or molecules. A cell is much more 
complex than just a molecule.

> [Krimel]
> I have seen some of Nilsson's work in a PBS program about embryonic
> development call Life's Greatest Miracle.

Yes, that's his older work. The Cell city film is from 2009.

> 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?

As I said, not molecular, cellular. A cell is (or can be for single cell 
organisms) self-sufficient, but its parts are not.

Not really sure it does offer anything that systems theory does not, in 
isolation that is. But incorporated in the MoQ, with the other levels 
and the discreteness and dependence, I think it *is* quite a step forward.

	Magnus