Hi Magnus, this is hard work. Inserted ... Andy, if we're talking past each other ... butt in.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Magnus Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Ian > > On 2010-07-14 10:36, Ian Glendinning wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. > > Oh, I thought you were unimpressed with the organic part of it, ok, then > I'll switch sides. The chemistry of smell and taste is significant because > that would show us how the organic level depends on the inorganic. [IG] It shows us how a piece of chemistry depends on shape - but that wasn't in doubt was it ? The MoQ > tells us *that* they are dependent and discrete, but not *how* that works. A > 3D shape explanation *is* both dependent and discrete. [IG] But not why one particular level of chemistry becomes "organic" - I don't see the boundary as discretely related to 3D. > >>> 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. > > I'm of course not suggesting to stop evolution. What I suggest is to stop DQ > from "trolling around" (extremely funny expression, thanks Ian :) )in a > controlled environment, perhaps just in our gedanken experiments. > >>>> 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) > > So what you're saying is that all women after their menopause is not > organic? And since higher levels are dependent on lower, they also lose > their ability to socialize and engage in intellectual conversation? [IG] Err no ! (Talk about straw men !) ;-) Life-limited in the organic level ... just like a sterile man ... no further contributions to the gene pool, life limited contribution to the nurturing of other individual gene carriers, main contribution in the socio-intellectual space where contributions to patterns can memetically outlive the life. > > As you said, a significant point of disagreement here. [IG] Our only difference is simply fuzziness on the time-axis. Static patterns are "species" in a technical sense .... static is a matter of time. You seem to want a very "objective" definition fixed once at a single instant in time and for ever. (I could say more about this). (Platonic idealization on the time axis too.) > >>>> 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.) > > No joke. Andy and I have been discussing this (in this thread as I recall) > in terms of different stacks of cards, or rather, stacks of levels. I called > it "Merry-go-round" in my classicist essay on moq.org. [IG] A joke to suggest I hadn't noticed. > > There are two stacks in this case: > > One stack is built using our physical universe, our trusty old inorganic > level. The computer is built using inorganic patterns, but in the end it > supports intellectual patterns. This means that somewhere inside that > physical computer, we must find both organic and social patterns as well. > > The other stack is built using the inorganic level that the computer > provides, we usually call it a virtual universe. It is here we find those > viruses Andy mentioned (and I also mentioned in my classicist essay). [IG] I suspect there are more than two stacks possible - but I totally agree that we must find social and organic patterns before we find the "intellectual" patterns emerging. Been saying this on MD for 8 years at least .... it was the point I led with in agreeing with Andy. (Roughly, AI will arrive, it will be real and it will depend on a substrate of A-Life.) > > >> [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. > > Ok, I present exhibit B: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olfaction > > An extract: [IG] No sorry - you miss my point - I KNOW the chemistry of taste and smell are shape optimised - never in doubt. I just don't by that this property is the single distinguishing feature of "the organic". (That's 4 or 5 times in this thread.) > > "Odor receptor nerve cells function like a key-lock system: If the airborne > molecules of a certain chemical can fit into the lock, the nerve cell will > respond. There are, at present, a number of competing theories regarding the > mechanism of odor coding and perception. According to the shape theory, each > receptor detects a feature of the odor molecule. Weak-shape theory, known as > odotope theory, suggests that different receptors detect only small pieces > of molecules, and these minimal inputs are combined to form a larger > olfactory perception" > > 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
