Re: Fw: Rosennean definition of "life"

["John M" <***>]

Dan,
I am with you (if that is any good). Just one objection: I feel that you
(and many others) define "life" (not defined as such by RR I think, only
"living") as a concept of the carbon etc. based biological chapter of our
reductionist science.
Cuit out "reproduction": nothing reproduces (not even those molecules what
Kauffmann idolifies as the startup of life) - not even the prokaryotes,
where some senescence and mutation still may occur - not even the "species"
as an evolutionistic remark of Stan Salthe pointed out, because even in the
best kopykat case there is a changing environment involved with changing
inputs.
I try to widen this "life"-model into reactive cases with variations, waste
and qualia-production (I refrain from "using energy - what is it? or
building entropy - what is it).  Nature is 'live'. We can restrict the term
into a model.

Biological life is part of the biological ecosystem, so it is not likely to
have a "more complex than the total" part in something. Besides: the
complexity of natural systems is not restricted to the items we included
into the model.
Discussion of such misleading features is just that: misleading.

I consider the universe, the galaxies, the biosphere, an amoeba or a social
organization "live" - it evolves by effects of the environment (all of it)
and responds accoedingly in an ever changing pattern - beyond the snapshot
we define today. Just look at the complexity of a H-atom - how many big
books have been (and still are) written on it, - in only the physical
chapter of our reductionist science.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Fiscus" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Rosennean definition of "life"


> Judith,
>
> Re: this:
>
> Judith Rosen wrote:
> >>  What defines life is a certain critical level of complexity, a
> >>threshold, whereby the organization of the system causes unique
properties
> >>to emerge in the behavior of the system.  Those properties are the ones
my
> >>father nailed down in his written work and are represented in his
> >>(m,r)-system diagram. In that sense, an amoeba, while microscopic, is at
a
> >>higher level of complexity (or if you prefer; "more complex") than the
> >>ecosystem of the planet.
>
> I would have to say that this view is perhaps 1/3 of the story, and
> that the two other views of life would suggest that 1) life is at least
> as much an ecosystemic, network or extensive/non-local property as
> it is an organismal, cellular or localized property, and 2) the relation
> of the two seemingly contradictory (but likely complementary) views
> or models of life - organismic vs ecosystemic - is where it gets really
> interesting, in the sense of reolving an apparent paradox.
>
> If you doubt that life is necessarily more than organismic, try these
> thought experiments:
>
> 1. Hold your breath, stop drinking water or fast. Life will cease for
> a human or for *any organism* so disconnected from the fully
> necessary influxes of energy and matter that are largely provided
> by other life forms (i.e. life provides O2 or CO2, H2O and either
> organic or inorganic food/nutrients to other life *faster* than
> would be possible via physical process alone).
>
> 2. Plan a self-sustaining life colony on another planet. The minimal
> complement of functional components will be ecosystemic - no
> organism could achieve self-sustenance off-earth.
>
> I do not think organismic life is closed to efficient cause - as subset
> in organismic form, life depends on other life, other functional life
> forms. I do think that ecosystemic life is closed to efficient cause.
> With the coupled combo of autotrophic and heterotrophic
> functional forms life is much more truly self-causing, self-sustaining
> and self-perpetuating.
>
> Dan