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

machines vs. living systems (was Re: J. Craig Venter - frabrication: in stores now!?!)

Hello! I don't think I've posted here before; but, I've lurked for quite some time and this is an interesting thread. But, I have a blind spot that you guys don't seem to have. Perhaps you can help me fill it in.

First, to set the context, the role of the mad scientist in sci fi is all about the lack of full coverage of the madman's teleology (or perhaps we could say what makes them mad is their myopia with respect to the causal entailment of their artifacts -- and the processes that produce the artifacts). So, it seems to me that this horse has been fully beaten. ;-)

What I don't understand is this distinction between "machine" and ... well, "non-machine". What do you mean by "life is no machine"? Similarly, what is the real (by which I mean _practically_ useful) distinction between "mechanistic" or "reductionist" thought or methods and ... well, whatever else there is? I ask this, here, because it seems to be a frequent accusation on this list.

To set a little more context for the above question, I'll add that I think of something like von Neumann's self-reproducing automaton as both a machine _and_ an artifact that attempts to tacitly demonstrate a common theme in Rosen's writings. (Or, I should say "what I infer as a theme from my limited understanding of Rosen's writings".)

That automaton (specifically that one, not the many impoverished reformulations) seems like it directly addresses the issue of a dynamical process being embedded in a logical ontology, where the logical ontology is rich enough to support causal entailment beyond the original prescription present in the automaton, but simple enough to prevent the automaton from "breaking" or evolving into something wholely different. And in so doing, it broadened the definition of "machine" to include at least one, if not two, of the properties of living systems that had been part of the popular distinction between machines and living systems.

My point is that entailment seems to be more about the structure of explorable possibilities than about any particular system doing the exploring. So, by asking my question above about "machines" and the denigrating way in which that term is used, I'm asking those of you who _feel_ a tacit difference between a living organism and a machine to talk about the key elements of the distinction you make.

I honestly can't make the distinction. A living organism seems very much like a "robust machine" to me. By "robust", I mean it is capable of persisting (in full dynamism) in manifold contexts. So, the problem of engineering (not science) is to find ways to increase the robustness of our artifacts. And we look to biology for help.

Thanks for your indulgence and I apologize if these points are too pedestrian. Feel free to tell me to RTFM. ;-)
-glen

Dan Fiscus wrote: 
This is the fabrication issue that Rosen warned about, upon
us now. What could we say about this or how events might
play forward? My immediate and first hunch which I think
would be compatible with Rosen (not sure) is that whatever
goal, purpose, function etc. Venter and fellow would-be
creators of life may have for their creations, these goals will
not likely be met, achieved, gained or under their control.

I say this since, again following Rosen, life is no machine. If
Venter's bacterium were a machine - no problem to assume
one can design, expect, achieve, control the outcome and the
goal/pupose/function/results/effects of the creation. But if
the bacterium is alive, then almost by definition it will also
embody and entail and create its own goals/purposes/
functions/results/effects/development/growth/evolution,
etc. There could be no way to expect, determine or control
that these goals endogenous to the life form would in any
way match up to the exogenous goals of the creator. A "good",
realistic, humble creator, perhaps, would not be attached to
the outcome or results, but would be detached and know
that the life form would literally "take on a life of its own".
The surprises may be nightmarish or happy, but they seem
to me guaranteed to be unknowable and truly surprising.
And as such, very hard to make any profit off of, unless one
billed the process as a freak show or adventure, like Russian
roulette maybe...


--
glen e. p. ropella              =><=                Hail Eris!
H: 503-630-4505                       http://ropella.net/~gepr
M: 503-971-3846                        http://tempusdictum.com