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

["John M" <***>]

Tim,
not that I want to solve the problem of "life", just a technicality:
As far as I am concerned, the world )nature, wholeness, complexity, you name
it) is a PROCESS. Not a static skeleton. Not a snapshot of a structure (call
it organization or whatever). So live means an activity and this is why I
consider it wider than just biological. I could not identify it - don't even
want to, because I disagree with the biological framework of viewing
things/processes.
Regards
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: When does an (M,R) system cease to be alive?


> 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.
>