[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index

Re: Dr. Gilbert Ling, "The Physical Basis of Life"



This soundbite seems to nicely summarize his view of living/non-living:

Being alive doesn't mean that a cell must continue with functional activity of one sort or another, but rather means that a cell exists in the specific, discrete high-(negative)-energy, low-entropy state called the living state.

"A functionally active (living) state and death represent two other discrete metastable equilibrium states of increasingly higher entropy and lower (negative) energy in the direction toward the ultimate random state."

It is from: http://digilander.libero.it/bioem/correctlay.html
 
Regards,
Tim
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:***On Behalf Of Judith Rosen
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 2:38 PM
To: ***
Subject: Re: Dr. Gilbert Ling, "The Physical Basis of Life"

I need to do some more reading of Ling's ideas before I can claim even a rudimentary understanding of what his body of work stands for. But my intuitive reaction thus far is that he is trying to understand and/or define the organization of a living cell via the mechanics of a living cell. This is where my disquiet is coming from. I think he's got so many basic ideas right that it would be tragic if he were to categorically state something that turns out to be beside the point....
 
I don't know if he's read any of my father's work, but I don't see echoes of it in what he's done in his career. That's not a good sign, because he knew George Karreman, who was a colleague/friend of my father's and they seemed to travel in some of the same circles. He got his PhD at U of Chicago, albeit ten+ years before my father was there to work on his. There should have been some overlap...
 
Judith