Inserted Magnus On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Magnus Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ian > > On 2010-07-13 20:02, Ian Glendinning wrote: >> >> Sorry Magnus, it's not making sense, >> >> You said to Andy yesterday that you used organic for the second level >> 10 years ago and you still think that's right .... but didn't agree >> with my habit of using the term ? > > The funny thing is, I never commented on you using "organic" before you > claimed to have used it before (in your post yesterday 12/7). > > Anyway, I agree with the term. Perhaps it was someone else who disagreed?
[IG] - Hmm no it was you, but clearly a misunderstanding, sorry. Good - one preliminary out of the way. > >> I also read your 3D fit in the Levels Undressed essay ... I still see >> plenty of fuzziness in this idea too - no less than simply using >> organic or living definitions. >> >> 3D fit is relevant throughout physics and chemistry, not just organic >> chemistry. It will of course depend on the model you hold for atoms >> and electrons, but molecules generally always have 3D geometry ? (even >> if the dimensions are small or symmetries exist on or about one or >> more axes. > > In chemistry, the 3D shapes will be decided by the laws of chemistry. I > guess that can be said for some shapes constructed by physical laws as well, > not sure though. However, in my version of the organic level, these 3D > shapes are the deciding factor which molecules will fit together and which > will not. You say 3D fit is relevant throughout chemistry and physics, sure, > but chemistry is *constructing* the 3D shapes, organic patterns are *using* > them. Sounds like a level border to me. > > Just found this: (Click "Skip ads" if you see an ad, don't click the ad) > > http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news-IN-Ancestral-Eve-Crystal-may-explain-Origin-of-Lifes-Left-handedness-042210.aspx > > I think it's quite relevant. > >> Also not sure why the chemistry of smell and taste are seen as so >> significant ... the particular molecular interactions are only called >> taste or smell because of the living thing experiencing them, an >> organism of response. > > Exactly, *experiencing* them, on a new level, literally. > > Using smell and taste, organisms can tell whether potential food is good, > i.e. has value, or not. And that's the whole point of Quality. To be able to > know whether something is good or bad without having to analyse why. Need we > ask anyone... [IG] I will look at that link this evening. Not sure why you are educating me in taste smell and quality. I get it. My point was it's the experiencing, not the chemistry - you agreed. > >> I subscribe to the "reverse entropy gradient" view of life ... winning >> the war on gravity (and other physical laws) ... so I'm OK with that. >> Still seems to me that organic and living are key ... reproducing, or >> if not reproducing, sustaining by self-repair (against the physical >> degradation) over unlimited lifetime. > > The reason I think it's so important to remove both "life" and "biology" > from any definition of the 2nd level is because there's so much DQ going on > in both life and biology. I want to (at least mentally) build a 4 level > thing which is completely static but were it's possible to much easier point > at the different levels without being confused by DQ all the time. And > that's what I think we are when we talk about life and biology. [IG] OK, I see your motive now. Don't agree. I positively don't want to lose all that DQ trolling around the static patterns - that's not confusion, that's evolution. But at least we can have an intelligent conversation. > >> Particular cell chemistry like DNA (including viral invaders) are very >> precisely governed by 3D fit, yes .... but it's the fit that supports >> replication (or repair or rebuilding) over time that makes them a >> characteristic of living organisms surely ? > > I didn't quite get that. Can you clarify? [IG] Ignore it ... see my next comment about "living organism". > >> As you may know I'm a strange loopy person, so it's that cycle of >> reproduction (or repair or rebuilding) that makes the level shift for >> me. I can't see why that is too fuzzy to be a defining distinction > > Because even if I was sterile, I would still be an organic pattern. And yes, > I do think that argument is enough, because I require a direct level > dependency as some discussed a few days ago (in the LC comments thread I > think). [IG] No. A significant point of disagreement. I'll repeat .... you might look like an organic pattern, but you would no longer be "organic" and organism. You would be a decaying ex-organic pattern - without any organic life processes to "repair, rebuild, or reproduce" your patterns would be wiped out by longer lived organic patterns very quickly - (Glenn's rotting apple again - twice in one week) > >> (though as I admitted fuzziness is never an issue for me ... there >> will always be a fractal scale problem here in choosing your precision >> anyway ... just a question of how precise is good enough.) > > No, there's no fractal scale problem. If a rectangle has width and height, > it's a rectangle. If we remove the height, it becomes a line. [IG] I'm talking real shapes in the real world - not some Platonic idealisations where lines have no width and planes no thickness. A single "atom" is not a point - nor even a single electron, let alone a molecule. > Similarly, if an organism can value organic patterns, it's organic. If not, > it's simply an inorganic bunch of molecules. We "just" need to define what > those organic patterns are. [IG] - I suspect were are therefore closer to agreement, than might appear. I'm defining organic or organism. > >> Fuzzy or not, surely we are just going to end up with a "definition" >> of either 3D fir, or life, or organic ... ? >> >> Since this was a prelude to A-Life, I'm guessing even if we were to >> agree on 3D-Fit, this would become metaphorical or analogous in the >> computation space rather than 3D space ? > > Computation space? You're not jumping into the computer now are you? That > would be getting ahead of ourselves. First we need to investigate how the > computer gets to support intellectual patterns before we can move on to the > next stack of levels inside the computer. [IG] A joke I guess ? I preceded that whole paragraph with "I'm guessing that's where we're going .... " (The title of the thread is already there.) > >> We seem to be searching for a problem where there isn't one. As a >> pragmatist, Andy's line seems right ... what does 3D fit do for us >> that organic doesn't ? > > It may help defining what that level is using from the level below to build > its stuff. Pretty important if you ask me. [IG] Play fair Magnus. Obviously it's important, but which definition is better than another in a quality (pragmatic experienced) sense is what matters. It's your definition of it we're debating. I have my preference (and Andy his) but it seems more of an issue for you, since it's your definition. You need to sell it. Perhaps you should explain your 3D-Fit theory a little more - the taste and smell example didn't do it for me ? I can't see it. > > 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
