On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:58 PM, Jan Anders Andersson < [email protected]> wrote: Good morning all
I think it's time to summarize the former thread called "step one". I was asking for the exact definition of the delimiter between the inorganic level and the organic level. Sorry J-A. I've wanted to wade in and add my perspective to your thread but I've been trying to get a project done and been too busy. Today tho I'm taking a break and doing something different. Sorry Dan. When I think of the delimiter between the organic and the inorganic, I think of choice. An amoeba makes rudimentary reactions that express avoidance of sulphuric acid but inorganic crystals have no choice. This is just a subjective observation but by seeing things from an MoQ perspective, it seems to me that all the levels can be seen as escalating levels of available choice. Another way of saying that is escalating levels of self-ness as any organic "thing" is a self-contained organism 0 a whole that is non-existent as a simple addition of parts. The whole is only a whole when it's constituent parts are organized into a certain structure that makes a whole, and replicates. Life replicates while inorganic matter just degrades to lower levels of being, energy wise. Organic patters seem to defy the rules of entropy in some ways. J-A > Dan and David put in some interesting read whether DNA was the most > important or if a speculative and unexperienced XNA should be included. > DNA and molecules are, however, inorganic patterns and would not qualify to > be included in a definition of the difference between the inorganic level > and the organic level. > John: To my way of thinking, that's a perspective that's trying to be too objective. To understand the difference between organic and inorganic we can't get there by just looking at the objects (inorganic constituents) of life but at the overall higher pattern of organization that makes life what it is. DNA is a constituent part of life's organizing pattern - saying that life is a part of DNA's constituent pattern is a relic of a SOM -oriented scientific worldview. Assigning cause to the lower pattern, rather than the higher. J-A: I forgot to mention that most of my thinking comes from a small essay by > Anthony McWatt and Eric Priezkalns called "The role of evolution, Time and > Order in Robert Pirsig's "Metaphysics of Quality"" > It's a tiny little 10 pages essay that you will read in 15 minutes or so. > Even some words from RMP in it. I am sure you can find it on the web. On > page 4 there are a picture of the 4 levels. please notice the little t at > the bottom of it. T for time. > > J: Well I've got some time, but unfortunately not THAT much time so I hope you have construed and summarized correctly. J-A: > Andre had a good suggestion about self-reproduction as a distinctive > delimiter between inorganic and organic patterns which I supported. I wrote > that the time-concept is crucial for a self-reproducing pattern as > succesion and organic evolution by mutations and so on would be impossible > without a working time concept. > > J: I agree with Andre but repeat the key here to "self-reproduction" _is_ the "self". That self that is reproduced is the defining aspect of life. Life = Self. J-A: > Time is important at the inorganic level also because enthropy shows us > that chemical reactions doesn't work backwards at all. > > J: Dr. Lanza's thesis that Time and Self are interrelated is relevant here - without self (life) there is no time. J-A: > Another specific difference is that chemical reactions are mostly ignited > by outer circumstances. Of course we have all representatives for the > periodic table ignited by Big Bang but most of all these atoms are so > stable that time and age is not an actual issue for them. The inorganic > level is also good at describing the time as the millions of > two-dimensional, expanding and diminishing rings, that appear on a water > surface when its raining. Time is also showing as three-dimensional bubbles > of sound waves in the air. Radiowaves from electronic devices. Bubbles of > intensive force from explosions is another example. But it is still events > and patterns at the inorganic level. > > The main difference that puts the organic patterns in its own level is not > the different compositions of organic material, it is the cycles. A living > thing has age, has a characteristic cycle between birth and death. An > organic pattern without this cycle is just dead inorganic materia. Right? > It is these revolving cycles, daily, monthly, yearly, lifely cycles that is > following a superior set of morals that is placed above, or after the first > inorganic level. The organic level is called as a level above the the > inorganic because the organic level is both dependant of the inorganic and > using it for its own purpose. > > John: An "it's" in your statement is what I mean by self-ness. I think we agree but I think I'm putting it more clearly :) J-A: > These cycles are not passive automatas driven by circumstances from the > surroundings but are ignited from inside. This inside motivator cycle > patterns is what is passed over to the next copy. This inside placed spark > has to work for keeping the energy level balanced, maintaining the correct > shape and also keep up the communication and interact with the > surroundings. Busy all day long. > > John: The parts are driven by the larger whole, not the other way around. Self-ness is not the effect of the Big Bang, it's the cause. Thanks for the interlude. Back to work John 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
