Re: Question, version 2

[John Kineman <***>]

Tim, Dan,

I think I get Tim's point, and I would agree, but I don't think it
contradicts what Dan was saying, is that possible?

Dan was saying they cannot be separated. Langton said they were being so
for modeling purposes. Rosen said get rid of the material concept and
keep the concept of organization, which as I see it keeps material and
formal domains connected and inseparable. I think when RR said throw
away the physics and keep the organization he meant the thought systems.

Langton's claim that life would be associated with the non-physical
separates material from formal - that's the old Platonic concept and it
remains mechanical, pushing life off into some never-never land.

eh?
JJK

Tim Gwinn wrote:

> Dan,
>
> Building models (relational or reductionistic) is an epistemological act of
> abstracting from a natural system to a formal system. As I read it, "can be
> separated from" appears to refer to fractionation: an ontological claim that
> "aliveness" (as Langton calls it) is some logical property that can be
> fractionated from a material system. As such, I see no real similarity
> between the two quotes.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Dan
> > Fiscus
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 3:47 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Question, version 2
> >
> >
> > Tim,
> >
> > I don't think I get your drift - can you say more?
> >
> > Are you saying that Langton's "can be separated from"
> > is different from Rosen's "keep the organization and
> > throw away the matter"? I mean, I think the two have
> > big differences when these comments are seen in total
> > context of their full works. But I am not sure what you
> > are asking/saying...
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Tim Gwinn wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Dan, John,
> > >
> > > Look at the quotes again. Think about the difference between
> > building models
> >
> >
> > > of some material system versus the notion that "the ‘logical form’ of an
> > > organism can be separated from its material basis of construction". In
> > > particular, what does the phrase "can be separated from" mean?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tim
> > snip
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > Langton’s and other’s view of Artificial Life is that they also want
> > > > > > to get beyond particular material realizations of life. Langton says:
> > > > > > “Of course, the principle assumption made in Artificial Life is that
> > > > > > the ‘logical form’ of an organism can be separated from its material
> > > > > > basis of construction, and that ‘aliveness’ will be found to be a
> > > > > > property of the former, not of the latter.” (Artificial Life,
> > > > > > Langton, ed., Addison-Wesley, 1989, p.11.)

--
© 2004 John J. Kineman
all rights reserved