On Howard's critique regarding Rosen and Von Neumann

[John Kineman <***>]

Howard & List:

Here's part of a multiple post response to Howard's critique.:

HP: Rosen: “I think anything that we would want to call alive would have
to have at least these two basic functions: the function of metabolism
and what I call the genetic function.” Von Neumann’s model contains
these and much more.

JK: I think RR saw three big functional necessities: genetic,
metabolism, and repair. I think genetic was included in repair to some
degree, is that correct Judith?

HP: A more reasonable hope for Bob’s ideas would be to ‘complement’ von
Neumann’s.

From the traditional perspective one would try to complement the
existing theories. But when dealing with a new world view one has to
actually enter into that view and work with its assumptions. The
traditional view does not look directly at functions that have local
effect and are not in turn derivable from other mechanisms. It tries to
construct them from the mechanisms. That's a nobel excercise, but not
the quick way to model functional influences. I can't even talk about
the purpose that a gorilla may have using that universe of thought. The
very statement is thrown out. A gorilla selects its environment for
reasons that feed back only to its natural selection and the only
purpose considered is survival - a grand assumption if there ever was
one. But I've seen them do things more apparently because they like them
or dislike them - which I'd think of as them comparing possibilities
with a functional model of who they are and what they do - a self
concept. I'm not sure van Neumann's ideas would allow for a self-concept
throughout biology, would it? If not, then I can't use VN for this line
of development. But he may approach it in another form that could be
interesting - so I want to find out, as you suggest.

HP: The fact is that von Neumann explains, broadly but correctly, why
real cells are organized the way they are, and why unique, emergent,
novel complexity evolves in living systems and does not occur in
non-living systems.

JK: I'd like to know more. What are the best references I can get that
will get me up to speed on this quickly???

HP: Nothing in von Neumann’s model challenges Bob’s work.

JK: Your own paper demonstrated to me that the ideas were compatible. I
took exception only to the final conclusion, and there only to an
embedded assumption, not the statement itself given its assumptions.