Hi Krimel
[Krimel]
Ok, I share your concern with integrating the MoQ into the mainstream of
thousands of years of research. I just don't think a refined system of
levels can accomplish this. I think we form levels of analysis all the time
on the fly and within given contexts.
Actually, that leads to the notion of stacks Andy and I have been
discussing. I plan to initiate a new thread about that.
Setting up some master set of levels
that are alleged to apply in any context, seems quixotic to me.
Had to look that up, but disagree.
[Krimel]
Carbon chemistry not-with-standing life is what make an organism an
organism. Rivers, currents, fires and storms all adapt to changing
circumstances.
[Magnus]
Ok, I didn't mean that DQ implied life, it's the other way around.
Whenever you have life, DQ is around. Even the simplest life wouldn't be
called life if it weren't able to adapt and try to survive in harsh
environments. The quote "life finds a way" from Jurassic park captures
what I mean quite well.
[Krimel]
But DQ is not restricted to living things either. One could as easily say
that whenever you have rocks you have DQ.
Sure. It's actually quite hard to accomplish an environment where DQ
doesn't affect anything. The inner workings of a computer comes pretty
close though.
[Magnus]
I said cell, not particles, atoms or molecules. A cell is much more
complex than just a molecule.
[Krimel]
Perhaps I have misunderstood then. I thought you were saying that a cell is
a society of complex molecules.
Yes, that's what I meant. (And many others agree I might add)
[Krimel]
I would agree that "society" is a biological evolutionary strategy and
should be considered as such. Societies of cells or colonies of ants and
baboons thrive because they produce survival.
I wouldn't say it's *just* a biological evolutionary survival strategy.
All new levels are survival strategies, but they are also new moral
steps on the level ladder. Biology (or rather DQ) is just the agent that
is able to climb that ladder without outside help.
[Magnus]
Not really sure it does offer anything that systems theory does not, in
isolation that is. But incorporated in the MoQ, with the other levels
and the discreteness and dependence, I think it *is* quite a step forward.
[Krimel]
If it doesn't offer something substantial that systems theory doesn't, why
bother trying to rescue the MoQ from the hardheaded and clueless?
But I just said it does offer something substantial. And I bother
because I care about the MoQ, and I'm trying to save it from being
transformed into something ludicrous by the hardheaded and clueless.
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
