Re: machines vs. living systems

["glen e. p. ropella" <***>]

Tim Gwinn wrote:
> TG: If after reading Life Itself you indeed feel its totally plausible that
> organisms are simply robust machines (and here I again mean 'machines' in
> the Rosennean sense), then you are probably right that this forum is not the
> right place. There are certainly a large number - if not a majority of
> people - elsewhere who would agree with you.
>
> We are not here to persuade you about Rosen's writings, only to offer
> clarifications if they are needed.

There's no persuasion necessary.  I agree with everything I've read of 
RR's to the extent that I've understood it.

RR's machines (particular formal systems with particular properties) and 
RR's organisms (particular formal systems with particular properties) 
are different and I believe I understand that difference.

My question was more about the comments on the list about Venter's work, 
which is not about formal systems.  In fact, Venter's work is totally 
unrelated to formals systems.  And that lead me to the conclusion that 
the discussion on this list was also about "machines" in the normal use 
of the word.

My mistake. 8*) I'll shut up, now.

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