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

["John M" <***>]

Tim, Hi,

Is it meritful - that is my question - to break our heads on differences
between
names we apply to some hard-to-identify phenomena? (I don't call it
structure as organization, betcause it is our view of a function we
identified as our model to speak about).
We "can" discriminate according to our definitions. I try to look at it from
the outside of biology, not nihilistically or anarchistically.
There is always a danger of the "homousion - homoiusion" medieval battles in
which hundreds were killed. (words in Webster, remember?) All of them
thinking in the same lines just riding the letters.
I find the language we use scientific, but very difficult.
I would love to use easier words, closer to common sense; with the ongoing
vocabulary I do not have the concepts "sunk in" sufficiently to understand
them clearly.
As Judith wrote, her father used a 'lighter' language when explaining things
to her. Now, instead of recapping this, she adjusts to the heavy one.
(Sorry, it is after a fatiguing day)

Best regards

John M

PS:Motto: endogenous impredicative - closed loop causal entailment etc.
Y'all are so used to it that you find it toddlertattle. - J
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: When does an (M,R) system cease to be alive?


> Hi JohnM,
>
> But do you agree that we can discriminate between organisms and
> non-organisms, living and non-living? If so, doesn't it make sense that
> there must be some kind of unique characteristics in the
> processes/activities of organisms underlying those discriminations? These
> are the characteristics worth seeking, I think.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John M
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:09 AM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: When does an (M,R) system cease to be alive?
> >
> >
> > 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