Hi Andy
First track: Spot on, I agree 100%. I'm also very intrigued by the name
"organic". Why did you use that name for the 2nd level?
I don't know. I haven't begun my rereading of Lila so Pirsig's words
are not as fresh in my mind as I'd like. I incorporate etymology into
my understanding of each word and so since you brought it up I feel
"organic" was a poor choice. "Biological" is a superior choice because
its root, bio, simply means life whereas "organic" implies something
about the way the thing's structure is understood.
Don't get me wrong. I was only curious because I used it myself in an
essay more than 10 years ago, with good reason I thought (and still think).
We can't just point to DNA and say that this is the big mystic step that
made life a new level on top of the first. We have to come up with something
better if we really want to keep that level.
I think you are blurring the distinction between the levels and the
patterns they describe. The biological level describes patterns that
behave in a manner that distinguishes them as biological rather than
merely physical.
You may want to strengthen that argument, it bites itself in the behind.
The DNA pattern alone is never a functioning
biological being. It only achieves the status of "living" in concert
with an environment that complies with its instructions. Thus the
entire system is the qualified pattern, from the DNA down to the
nucleotides and enzymes down to the local temperature down to the laws
of chemistry and physics. Mere DNA doesn't qualify as a
biological-level pattern because it lacks the context that makes it
live. It's the whole stack, not just the top card.
And I argue that the biological/organic level should not be limited to
what we call life, not even a very broad definition of it. The only
reason we only see living things as organic patterns, is because they
had to be alive to be able develop up its evolutionary path. But since
we're here now, we can make organic patterns without requiring them to
be alive. They become much more static if we make them, but since we're
discussing the levels (SQ), we can leave DQ aside. We *should* leave DQ
aside to make things clearer. In fact, if we leave out DQ, they would be
completely static, and as such inanimate.
I agree computer viruses can be seen as biological, or organic, patterns.
*But*, they don't use our inorganic level.
They have a completely new inorganic level. One where gravity, energy,
light, mass etc. doesn't exist. The physical laws of their inorganic level
are the laws of the processor, and the stuff of their world are ones and
zeros. On top of that, the computer viruses are organic patterns.
If we hold constant the logical functions of processor, memory, etc.,
as we consider that there laws of physics that are held constant
(whether or not we have accurately understood them), yes, we can
ignore gravity, etc. It is useful to do so in certain intellectual
phases, though not necessary or advantageous in absolute terms. We
would achieve greater success if we also considered the gradual
physical decay of electronic components and the accidental loss of
logical function that happens in the real world.
When software developers make computer programs, or viruses, they
completely disregard gravity, voltage, magnetism, etc. etc. I assure
you. If, for some reason, there's a heat problem for example, they blame
the hardware guys and let them fix it.
What I tried to say is that the software, or virus, in a computer is
living in a completely new universe. Or to follow your card metaphor,
it's not just a new stack, it's a new deck!
The new deck is supported by the intellectual level that the computer
hardware exposes, and it becomes the new base level for the new deck.
From the hardware's point of view, it's voltage, currents and
magnetism, but from the new universe (the new deck), it's ones, zeros
and a completely new set of physical laws.
There's nothing magic here, and we don't have to change the MoQ or
anything. It's just a wonderful opportunity to explore different
universes, *and* to verify that the MoQ works in both!
The stack of levels built on digital logic is interesting. Another
track I'd like to explore is the stack of levels built on intellectual
symbols. The inorganic level might be symbols and biological might be
memes. Maybe memes have social patterns among themselves that we can
identify. Would it break your heart to realize that the most
successful memes are ones that cleverly exploit not the intellectual
but the biological and social levels in our own stack, e.g. lolcats?
Ah, yes, why not? I haven't really thought about a new stack (or deck)
built on intellectual symbols. But it might just prove to be extremely
useful to untangle some of the endless discussions we have here
"occasionally". :)
Magnus
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
