|
JohnM,
My
misunderstanding. I thought you were asking if he wrote
about what happens to an organism's organization post-death.
Rosen did write
on senescence and death in "Anticipatory Systems", chapter 6.4. There
he describes how it is entirely possible for a system with an internal
predictive model to "die" (i.e., experience a "global failure") without there
being any identifiable failure of any specific components (i.e., a "local
failure") as the cause.
Instead, the death is due is a growing
discrepancy between the internal model's predictions and the actual
inputs. Over time, these discrepancies may cause the system to act in ways that
cause it to be inviable. However, if one were to examine each individual
component of such a system, each component may appear to be functioning
properly.
In my view, it is
a scenario where diagnosis of the parts is not equivalent to
diagnosis of the whole.
Regards,
Tim
Tim (and in part: Judith):
I think you misunderstood me.
I have no squalms with the 'afterdeath' that I
leave to discuss between the Dalai Lama and the Pope<G>. What I asked
about is
the life-process of
"dying" - as definitely part of it, - comparable to the many-tackled 'beginning' vs the totally neglected
'ending' of it.
The age-old religious brainwashing (in almost
all religions) left it
to the mystery of the supernatural. Except,
perhaps for the faith of reincarnation. (We have something of that kind in the
mental (ideational) area, it is called: b o o k . <G1> see also
<G3>)
People were scared to handle this topic
although every one of us is prone to it (at least once). So they rather
indulged in the tales.
Learn to play the harp. Prepare sexually for
the huris - not knowing that those are asexual 'cus nobody has potency
for eternity <G2>.
((aside: since Christian heaven admits women,
too, not as Muslim, is there sex in Christian heaven? but never mind
that)).
So I guess your answer latently includes the
response (including Judith's reply as well): Rosen did not make a (mental)
study case of understanding the endig function of the 'life process'.
True?
It would be highly remarkable. The
closed-mindedness of the (reductionistic) biological sciences, completely
brainwashed into a selective modeling. Just as biochemistry did not start
for a long time to analyze human excrement. It only came from the medical
advancement as a feedback. (This is no criticism on physicians).
Interestingly, Jewish faith did not include
the afterworld or hell. The 'soul' (unidentified) hangs around (the grave?) as
long as people remember the person. (A tragedy: Gutenberg's
invention<G3>).
So it would have been very natural if RR
made a point of the dismantling of 'living' organizations - unless he found it
so natural that any further handling seemed redundant to him.
Exectly this line was which I wanted to learn
about.
Regards
JohnM
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 11:32
PM
Subject: Re: Death and experience
I don't know
of anything in his writings regarding this topic of 'after
death' specifically.
Tim
Thanks, Tim,
you spoke my heart. Is there anyhing to
this topic in RR stuff?
JohnM
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003
12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Death and
experience
JohM,
In my
view, a living organism's functional organization is lost at death. I do
not think that experience can be separated from the context of the
living organism as a context-independent structure of any
kind. Therefore, with death, so too is lost any kind of
"accumulated experience" because it no longer has a context within which
to be meaningful or relevant.
I also do
not place much importance in energy as a quantity that represents
anything close to a measure of organization (including "accumulated
experience") of the organism. Particularly since organisms are not
energetically or thermodynamically closed, invoking ideas of
conservation of energy or entropy as a way to talk about
continuance of some aspects of an organism after death is a non
sequitor, in my view.
Regards,
Tim
Tim,
I am no expert in biology (the
understatement of the 3rd millennium) but tackled a bit the question
of procaryotes in the aspect of 'complicating' the living structures.
Corrections accepted.
The procaryotes are - if not
necessarily the smalles - the simplest creatures considered 'alive'.
Citoplasm and cell membrane. With most chemical procedures of cell
life. Lynn Margulis (frmr Mrs. Carl Sagan) developed the theory
of symbiotic associations - as far as I read not extended down to
prokaryotes, which I did: Assuming that there were several of
them "meeting" and "cooperating" when the 'social' contract
started: the conglomerates of the
diverse cells separated the functions and all 'worked' together for
the community. Then - by permeability of the cell membranes - some
slipped inside others - keeping the functions from the inside, some
became mitochondria, others the cell nucleus. At this point the
eucaryotes were evolved, our stuff.
The procaryotes "did not die" their
simple functions did not include senescence, they underwent mitosis,
divided into two similar ones and (renewed) kept on living. All on
environmental impact. They could be destroyed by outside brute forces,
not by aging. This was before the invention of the biological clock.
Which brings me to the question I
wanted to raise for awhile, but procrastinated:
Did RR develop a conclusion of death?
Lately a friend wrote an article about "soul, that remains after
death" (not a religious theory, he is an astronomer and did not
identify an 'eternal soul') just the accumulated experience bothered
him - as energy - how and where can it go when a person dies?
I have a different opinion (as
always<G>) about the phenomenon of living, we call: dying. The
living structure functions in its adjusted complexity, certain
secondary failures are repaired, yet when some substantial component
gets busted, the complexity does not function together anymore.
Everything is there - almost - just some essential factor stepped out.
Now the experience: it is not some sort of 'mental energy' as the
reductionistic science imagines which can be accounted for in some
'equilibrium' inventory. It is a process of 'experiencing' in the
atemporal mindfunction and the act of 'remembering' is not to scratch
out a stored contraption which represents the past event, rather a
'second look' at it within the ever changing conditions of the world
(and the brain). This accounts for 'forgetfulness' and 'shaping' of
memories, unknown in computers, where the memory is frozen into
matter. Erazing such frozen memory IS an energy-application, while the
"inability to take a second look" is not.
I wonder how Rosen adjusted the idea
of 'death'? also I would appreciate opinions to the question.
Please do not include the eternal soul which goes into heaven and
plays the harp: it can be very boring after the first 30,000
years playing the same hymns.
Apologizing for the moribund
question
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003
12:16 PM
Subject: Mycoplasma
information?
Hi
all,
A
relative was recently diagnosed with "walking pneumonia", and
wondering what that actually was, I did a little research. In the
process I came to learn some about mycoplasmas (or Mollicutes), a
kind of prokaryote bacterium (or bacterium-like) which apparently
are the smallest known living organisms. Because of this latter
fact, they intrigue me as perhaps being informative about
"minimum requirements" for an organism being
alive.
I
wondered if anyone on the list was very familiar with them, or knew
of a good web resource regarding their inner workings? Most web info
I found is related to the infections they cause, rather than their
internal structure or workings.
Tim
|