Re: Rosen cf. Kauffman

[Ayten Aydin <***>]

Tim,

Thank you for sharing your views with me. I am, however, further puzzled
after having read the following paragraphs from your post:

  Referring to Kauffman:  " ....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],

and then referring to Rosen you say:

"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."

How come could, these two scientists being contemporary and I guess knowing
the work of each other, not think of  benefiting from each other and
collaborate, if not when Rosen was alive, but now Kauffman could think of
finding the missing something in the Rosen's work?? With all the knowledge
around why could disciples of Rosen make an attempt to merge the two not
close but perhaps complementary theories? Therefore, can we not do the same
by to applying Rosen's theory into practice in variety of fields which
requires organization as their central concern by making the whole system
(mostly complex) function synergistically? Are they naive questions or even
so can they take put us on a right track? Sorry for all these inquisitions.
Thank you for your patience.
Ayten

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: Rosen cf. Kauffman


> 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
>
>