OK Magnus, This thing we're not going to call life, or organic .... because we would prefer to have a crisp boundary than a fuzzy one .... 3D-Fitness sounds interesting and I vaguely recollect you mentioning it before ;-)
(Fitness is a term I like in Quality circles ....) Sadly today and tomorrow I must focus on business ... so I need to re-read your earlier exchange(s). The basis for some interesting discussion. I'll be back. Ian. On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Magnus Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > Good morning Ian > > On 2010-07-12 11:32, Ian Glendinning wrote: >> >> before moving on to the AI side of this (which I already agreed with) >> a couple of preliminaries ... I really don't want to waste your time. > > Regarding that, I hope the wink in my eye made it to you. > >> I was already calling the second level "organic" - living, like an >> organism - in your exchange with Dan. Always been my habit. (This >> level really is about life .... but as we continue, that's nothing >> magical. Also the negative naming "inorganic" for the first level >> means the first and fourth levels both begin with "I" which is an >> inconvenience for abbreviations.) > > Wouldn't agree on the "life" issue, but I've stated my position on that in > my reply to Andy yesterday. > >> I see your concern, you said ... >> "none of that usual "magic of life" that is usually used to alienate >> the 2nd level from the first .... We have to come up with something >> better if we really want to keep that level." >> >> You are concerned whether, if the organic level is entirely >> "explicable" in terms of the inorganic (physical& chemical) level, >> the organic living level is in any sense fundamental ... it is simply >> contingent ? >> >> I say, not necessarily. The level is still fundamental in a >> metaphysical sense. Explaining the living in terms of the physical is >> "too reductionist" .... logically / physically the explanation may be >> complete and correct .... but it is not useful, it doesn't match with >> how patterns in that level are experienced (and lived). I'm saying >> life is qualitatively different from physics - a different nature. >> (ditto all the levels - except socio-intellectual difficulties remain >> ...) > > Nah, I don't fear for the 2nd level's continued existence. I'm totally in > agreement with everyone that we must keep it. But not for the "life" reason. > Heck, the whole evolution has been about life, so from the earliest > biological molecules until the most complex animals living in groups and > even cities with news papers, are about life, driven by life. As Pirsig put > it, in Lila I think, "One can almost define life as the organized > disobedience against gravity". That's all levels above the inorganic, not > just the organic. > >> I can see fuzzy boundaries of chemistry and life, proto-life, clearly, >> but the metaphysical choice to "define" life, set a boundary, is a >> sign of a pragmatic philosophy. Call that contingent if you want - but >> we don't need to lose (alienate) the value of the life. > > I think we can find very crisp borders, or rather, new dimensions, so we > don't have to resort to fuzziness. In my levels undressed essay for example, > I argue that the 2nd level's way of building things are using the 3D-fitness > of the molecules involved. It's not chemical bonding, or physical, it's must > be a totally different kind. And how molecules fit together seems to be a > good candidate. For example, when viruses and other bad stuff is entering a > cell or some other restricted area of the body, they use identical, so > called, receptacles, as door-openers to get in. I.e. they are faking the 3D > key that the real thing is supposed to use to enter. The DNA molecule is > made of 4 fitting molecules, each only fit with one of the others. I guess > some of these fitting molecules may use chemical bonding to "click into > place", but in order to get that close, they must first fit together. > > Another example is biological reproduction organs. Talk about high > biological quality! And the 3D fitness is quite obvious. > > 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 > 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
