Re: Rosen cf. Kauffman

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Ayten,

Your original question:
> After having written these passages, I asked myself the question of how
> close Kauffmann and Rosen in their views on this question of What
> is Life?

>From your quotes of Kauffman and my cursory reading of his book
"Investigations", there seems to me to be some notable differences in how
they approach the question "what is life?". Specifically, on the centrality
(or not) of thermodynamics, as well as the grounds for their arguments. In
very rough terms, Rosen's argument in "Life Itself" proceeds from our basic
empirical knowledge of an organism as a system with particular persistent
functional organizational characteristics. He proceeds to an examination of
the capabilities of mechanism and machines, and finds them inadequate to
answer the problem even at their theoretical limits. This means organisms
are outside of the logical limit of these kinds of organization and he then
proposes the model with the particular organization of closed loops of
entailment among functions as the answer to the problem. Thermodynamics does
not directly enter into the discussion.

Kauffman seems to begin from a proposed hypothesis that the answer to "what
is life?" rests on the idea of the "autonomous agent". This appears to be
based on empirical observations of what organisms do. Specifically:
"An autonomous agent is a physical system, such as a bacterium, that can act
on its own behalf in an environment. All free-living cells and organisms are
clearly autonomous agents".[p.8]
"What must a physical system be such that it constitutes an autonomous
agent? I will leap ahead and to state now my tentative answer: A molecular
autonomous agent is a self-reproducing molecular system able to carry out
one or more thermodynamic work cycles."[p. 8]

The "thermodynamic work cycle" comes into play in his hypothesis because he
feels that, thermodynamically, organisms are like Carnot engines, insofar as
they are cyclic: when they complete a thermodynamic work cycle, they return
to an initial state of organization ready to perform the next work cycle.
This is presumed to account for - at least in part - the retaining of
organization in an organism (as opposed to some non-living non-equilibrium
system of chemical reactions which would presumably degenerate into
thermodynamic equilibrium and disorganization).

Further, Kauffman states:
"I have a hunch - a hunch verging on conviction - that the coherent
organization of the construction of the set of constraints on the release of
energy which constitutes the work by which agents build further constraints
on the release of energy that in due course literally build a second copy of
the agent itself, is a new concept, the proper formulation of which will be
a proper concept of "organization"".[p. 72]

After it is all said, Kauffman does not actually provide us with any model
per se of an organism or its organization, much less a verifiable empirical
model; instead, it remains a hypothesis with some suggestive evidence and
argumentation as support. As Kauffman himself states: ""Investigations" is a
search for an answer. I am not entirely convinced of what lies within this
book; the material is too new and far too surprising to warrant conviction.
Yet, the pathways I have stumbled along, glimpsing what may be a terra nova,
do seem to be worth serious presentation and serious consideration."[p.7]

There seem to me to be some interesting ideas in Kauffman's book, but I
don't perceive it as the way to solve the problem "what is life?". For
example, Kauffman notes:
   "We are struggling with a circle of concepts involving work, constraint,
constraint construction, propagating work, measurements, couplings, energy,
records, matter, processes, events, infomation, and organization. It has
been said by many that we do not understand the linking of matter, energy,
and information. The circle above points at something we must trouble
ourselves to understand, and I suspect that the triad of energy, matter, and
information is insufficient. Rather, the "missing something" concerns
organization. While we have, it seems, adequate concepts of matter, energy,
entropy, and information, we lack a coherent concept of organization, its
emergence, and self-constructing propagation and self-elaboration."[p.104]

Rosen's approach, conversely, is centrally about the role of organization
and the ability to study it divorced from matter, that leads to his results.
There is no Carnot-like "work cycle", no energy-based constraint building
without some organization upon which both notions rest. Likewise, the
problem of realization probably requires all these notions but would have to
flow, it seems to me, from organization down to constraints, matter, energy,
etc.; the latter are necessary to implement organization, but without the
former - organization - there is no coherence or bauplan.

Regards,
Tim