Re: When does an (M,R) system cease to be alive?

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

After mulling over my arguments below, I am not sure I agree with them
anymore. (I guess I'm not very persuasive!) How could it be that the
criteria for defining an organism involves _more_ constraints than the
criteria for being alive?? It may be that a more proper distinction between
"life" and "being alive" is that of the distinction between the
classification criteria and a property belonging to members of that class,
respectively. Seen in this light, "being alive" is one of many properties of
an organism, and in the (M,R) system, this property is exemplified by the
metabolism function.

If this is so, then perhaps this gedanken experiment will not lead us to any
answers, since it focuses on a property, and thereby does not illuminate the
answer to "what is life?". I am not sure yet. At the least, it seems to be
useful in helping to make the distinctions we are discussing.

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Tim
> Gwinn
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 8:22 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: When does an (M,R) system cease to be alive?
>
>
> Hi Jeff et al,
>
> So, then, is metabolism all that is necessary in order to say that an
> organism is alive? In an ameoba (for example) that has no heart, is the
> cessation of metabolism when life deemed to have ceased? It seems right.
>
> What, then, is this apparent distinction between "being alive" and "life"?
>
> Well, I just went back to section 1B ("Why the Problem is Hard") in "Life
> Itself". There he states that the question "what is life?" is
> really a "why"
> question in disguise, and "that we are really asking, in physical
> terms, why
> a specific material system is an organism, and not something else."
>
> Using this statement suggests rewording as follows:
> "Why life?":
> - We are really asking, in physical terms, why a specific
> material system is
> an organism, and not something else.
> "Why alive?":
> - We are really asking, in physical terms, why a specific
> material system is
> alive, and not dead.
>
> So, then, the questions are notably distinct, and as a result, it
> now seems
> to make sense that the answers will be different. It also seems
> obvious that
> the first question ("why life?") must include, as part of its answer, an
> answer to the second question ("why alive?") as well.
>
> But doesn't that also imply that the question "why life?" is
> about more than
> just being alive? What does that "more" consist of? It must be something
> other than just being closed to efficient causation, since Rosen
> apparently
> backed off of  "closed to efficient causation" as a sufficient condition.
> So, what else must it include?
>
> This intrigues me since we now have a different kind question than usual.
> Rather than "why an organism instead of not an organism?", we now
> are asking
> "Why is being an organism different than, and more than, being alive?"
>
> To me, what initially jumps to mind is 'persistence': the idea that an
> organism includes the notion of an innate ability to persist.This goes
> beyond an ability to be alive for a few more seconds or hours. But what is
> it that persists? Persistence implies stability: in order to identify a
> system as being the 'same' system over time means that some thing(s)
> identifiable about that system remain stable. Is it the functional
> organization that is what is stable and persists? Or, is persistence not
> even a crucial aspect?
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Jeff
> > Pridaux
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 5:39 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: When does an (M,R) system cease to be alive?
> >
> >
> > These is a very interesting thread...
> >
> >
> > One may make the "provocative" simplifying assertions that
> "metabolism" is
> > what proteins do...
> >
> > Repair is the manufacture of more proteins by RNA
> >
> > Replication is the manufacture of more RNA... (by special proteins)
> >
> > If one were to suddenly get a disease that prevented replication in the
> > above sense, then the person would no longer be "closed to
> > efficient cause"
> > but would by most people's definition still be alive until the persons
> > metabolism stopped.  Assume metabolism is sufficiently stopped when the
> > heart stops...
> >
> > I agree that "life" and "being alive" are two different notions.