Re: Why is this machine not an MR Organism?

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

Steve,

Nice example and good questions. I can't help with
the answer it seems you want, to say why or why not
the machine is not an organism or MR system. Instead,
I think what you have outlined is an example that helps
to support what I have said on this list many times, that
organisms are not closed to efficient cause or complex
and alive in the most important way that I think Rosen
meant to elucidate (even though he himself used the
term organism and almost all life science assumes and
asserts that the fundamental and original unit of life is
the cell or organism). Instead, for me, the better closure
and more complex and life-capable system to identify
is a community or ecosystem that includes two
functional components in couple complementary
interdependence - 1) an autotroph or plant-like
functional type able to "eat" abiotic, inorganic nutrients
like sunlight, NO3, CO2 and 2) a heterotroph or
animal-like functional type able to "eat" organic matter
from plants and via life process return them to the
elementary inorganic forms needed by the type 1,
autotroph sub-system thus completing a *life cycle*.
These two in concert, coupled, unfractionable, forever
in co-operation and co-self-organization is the living
system in my view. From this starting cycle of coupled
complementary process could arise both metabolism
and genetic higher order functions, each of these a
variation on the fundamental theme of molecular
compound composition-combined-with-decomposition.
And also from this basic cycle of building and breaking
down, metabolism and repair, could come cells and
organisms - these being non-free-standing and
dependent subsets of life that require inputs from
other life, much as you suggest is required for the
machine and human body in your example. Thus I
would say neither the machine nor a cell/organism is
full self-entailed for efficient cause, whereas an
ecological community or ecosystem with both autotroph
and heterotroph able of coordination is truly and
more fully self-entailed. Even this though does need
certain inputs from abiotic environment, but these are
general enough that I think they can be considered as
generally available in many environments (solar or stellar
energy or chemical energy, electron donors/receivers,
etc.) whereas the human body's needed amino acid or
machine's starting system design and purpose are
special case and not reasonably considered generally
available in the environment.

Some comments...

Dan Fiscus


Steve Johnson wrote:
> I'm fairly new to Rosen and like many on this list I'm struggling to
> understand the concept of closure under efficient causation as described in
> Life Itelf. It would help me greatly if the more enlightened ones than me
> could comment on why the machine in the following example would not qualify
> as an organism by Rosen's definition. Intuitively, it seems to me that it's
> not an MR systems but I can't find a specific flaw in the argument.
>
> Example:
>
> It's faily easy to imagine a machine (built with currently available
> technologies) that can repair itself. It consists of CPUs, motors, levers
> etc. Everything is redunant so for instance when one CPU fails another one
> is available to execute the repair program. When one of the components
> fails the diagnostic software automatically detects it (e.g. a motor failed
> or a cpu failed) and initiates a program for replacement of the component.
> Say, the program says that the machine has to walk over to a certain box
> take the a new cpu and replace the broken one.
>
> Of course, this is a very crude example and it can immediately be noticed
> that it's not closed under efficient cause since the question "why CPU?" is
> not anwserable within the organism. The answer is "because such an such
> company made it" leads out of the proposed organism and thus it's not
> closed under efficient cause.
>
> So, far so good. But the same criticism on a different level can be applied
> to the human body. The answer to "Why such and such amino acid or why such
> and such protein?" leads out of the organism. The answer to "why such
> protein?" can be "because this beefsteak the human just consumed" so this
> particular substance was manufactured outsite the organism. In Rosen's
> terminology the proteins from the beefsteak will be the material cause,
> the "A" from "f:A-->B".
>
> Here is my question: why can we not consider the CPU in the above example
> as the material cause the same way we consider the beefsteak the material
> cause? Granted the CPU is very complex but then again protein molecule from
> the beefsteak is probably a lot more complex than the CPU.
>
> Why can we not regard CPUs, mortors etc of the machine as the material
> causes and thus consider the machine described above an organism?
>
> Why the is the program that tells the machine to walk over to the box and
> replace the broken component not equivalent to the "program" that tells the
> fox to go and get replacements for its broken components by eating a rabbit?
>
>
> Thank you for your help!
>
> - steve