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

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

Glen,

I thought of another angle, way to reply...

glen e. p. ropella wrote:
snip
> 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.
snip

Perhaps a round about way to suggest that maybe a
hard distinction is not only possible, but also practical
and good and of real value, consider these other real,
hard, practical differences that we would not likely
want to blur or blend:

Autotrophic versus heterotrophic functional types -
can you imagine an animal that can eat sunlight
directly?

Male and female - why strive to create a male that
could carry and deliver babies?

Art/creativity and physics/determinism - would you
want to be able to model, explain, formalize, predict
the Mona Lisa?

Machine/controllable vs life/self-empowered - would
you want a toaster or a jet airplane that asked why?
or gave you back sas when you give it a command?
Would you want to have to consider the feelings and
rights of a space craft that you send to the edge of the
solar system (Voyager is there now...started in the
70's).

More fodder for the grist mill...

For cited and well-reasoned answers to your questions,
I think Tim Gwinn and Steve Kercel have provided great
ones that ought to be in the archives of this list. I love
those and keep going back to such formal/logical/science
answers, but I also try to rework the ideas of Rosen in
my own analogies that make sense to me and fit with
my own experience.

Dan

PS - I saw your website - it was swarm; and I was also
born in Houston, TX! Small world...