Re: [life] Machines and wholeness - a speculative hierarcy

["John Kineman" <***>]

Hi Jon & list,

This makes a lot of sense to me. I think there is an inconsistency in
asserting efficient closure except as a relative matter. It would be
interesting to get reactions from the Rosen list, so again I'm
cross-posting this to both lists.

Jon raises another interesting point: If relationship with a formal
system is taken as a sole criteria for life, then can the basic concept
of life be extended to formal systems themselves? To frame an answer
space, I'd say that in a practical sense, i.e., a scientific sense, we
would probably want to limit any definition of life to realized systems.
Generally, however, we would have to recognize that theological
perspectives do exist that accord life to formal objects, i.e., the
living Christ, Bhuda, etc. So, again, seeking generality leads us to a
very different place than dealing with phenomenology - a place that most
scientists won't want to go. But I'll add perhaps an aside that our
conditioning as life scientists to avoid the abstract  realms because of
such logical extensions is largely a matter of conditioning. Life is so
much closer to these matters than physical systems that we are
especially prevented from considering them; while the physicist, having
a ready and safe retreat, can dabble and speculate about God at will,
and has famously done so. For example, consider that physicists have
been meeting spiritual leaders like the Dali Lama regularly to compare
notes about reality. Why do we hear less about life scientists doing
this? (I know that many do, but they seem to have less official licence
than the physicist).

John Kineman


Jonathan Maier wrote:

 > John Kineman wrote:
 >
 >> Rosen proposed "efficient closure" as an essential property for life
 >> (form). I'm re-thinking this a bit. I'm thinking that life may seek
 >> closure from a state of being an open system, and that there is
 >> perhaps a universal closure; but perhaps there are no truly closed
 >> systems outside of thought exercises.
 >>
 >> I would be interested to hear what others think about the definition
 >> of a "closed" or "open" system and how it applies to life.
 >
 >
 > John,
 >
 > In principle I agree with your assertion that there are no truly
 > closed systems. However, in engineering, in order to perform analysis
 > on any system, we make assumptions to reduce complex systems down to
 > simple(r) systems. In thermodynamics, in particular, to analyze
 > something as a closed system we simply assume that outside effects are
 > negligible. If what you're analyzing is a refrigeration system with
 > adequate insulation and valves that prevent leaking, then this
 > assumption works well and engineering can ensue.
 >
 > However, it was von Bertanlanffy that correctly realized that the open
 > nature of organisms is inescapable. Rosen's point, if I understand it
 > correctly, is that while organisms are open to flows of material and
 > energy, they are closed to ("efficient" or whatever) causation. In
 > laymen's terms, they do their own thing. That is the razor's edge he
 > used to divide the living from the non-living.
 >
 > I'm not sure I totally agree with this. On the one hand, organisms do
 > display a certain "independence", but on the other hand, they are
 > obviously influencible. As with any complex system, organisms cannot
 > be controlled but they can be influenced.
 >
 > Consider likewise Rosen's discussion of Godel's theorem and its
 > consequences for mathematics. Rosen's interpretation is that Godel
 > showed that mathematics is a complex system, by identifying
 > "complexity" with "incompleteness". Rosen does a great job of proving
 > the similar complexity and incompleteness of organisms.
 >
 > But we will be quickly confused by spinning the argument in the
 > opposite direction. Is mathematics to be considered alive because it
 > is incomplete/complex? Is mathematics not closed to causation too?
 >
 > Just some more thoughts...
 > -J.Maier
 >
 >
 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ***
 > For additional commands, e-mail: ***
 >