Hi Ian, yes, hard work indeed.
Magnus:
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.
It's a bit confusing to call it "level of chemistry" in this context.
But anyway, since one of the most important organic experiences to me is
taste and smell, I simply wanted to know how those experiences (quality
events) were supported by the level below. Now I know, and you seem to
agree. However, since your definition of the organic level is more about
procreation, perhaps it doesn't matter much to you.
However, the boundary *is* really discrete because of that 3D fit. It's
simply a completely new way of building things, and it's more dynamic
and therefore more moral.
Think of some chemistry experiment. It was way too long ago I studied
chemistry so I can't think of any particular one. But the way you
normally do it is to mix two substances, often liquids, perhaps stir it
and then the reaction happens in more or less the whole mix at once.
There's not much dynamic choice involved in such a reaction. One
molecule may of course bond with any of the other molecules it happens
to be closest to, but more or less the only factor that decides the
outcome of the reaction is the proportions of the substances involved.
When larger molecules bond using 3D fit however, there are many more
conditions that need to be fulfilled in order to join them together, to
make the organic experience happen. They need to be in the same place
(similar to the chemical reaction), and they also need to be oriented
correctly so the two shapes will fit. It's like Luke Skywalker in Star
Wars when he must destroy the death star by firing a missile into the
exact right tube, much harder than just having to hit the whole death
star. But it's not just harder, the two molecules are simply *not*
attracted to eachother chemically, so it's not a fuzzy border. If they
are attracted chemically, then it's an inorganic event. But if they are
not, but just happens to click into eachother anyway, it's organic.
[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.
But such arguments doesn't count in my view. I require direct
dependency, remember? So, to me that's evidence that reproduction is
*not* a requirement for the organic level.
[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.)
I didn't quite get that. Who's time axis are we talking about? Is it a
person's reproduction abilities that may be fluctuating over time
without affecting the person's organic status?
Or is it a definition of the level that should be able to change, and be
refined, over time?
I agree that static can be seen as a matter of time, yes. It's keeping a
pattern static between quality events. But many static "states" are
independent of time, such as an oscillator.
[IG] A joke to suggest I hadn't noticed.
Sorry, but I still haven't understood what you meant by:
[IG]
if we were to agree on 3D-Fit, this would become metaphorical or
analogous in the computation space rather than 3D space ?
[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.)
So, would you require reproduction in this "substrate of A-Life"?
[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.)
Great. I don't think it's the single distinguishing feature either. For
example, it doesn't help spotting the organic level in a computer. But I
honestly did not get that you agreed earlier, I've had to answer pretty
many questions of doubt.
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
