Re: machines vs. living systems

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

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

It is evident from your comments below and previously that you are basing
your arguments on gross misinterpretations of Life Itself.

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of glen e.
> p. ropella
> Sent: Friday, July 01, 2005 2:42 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: machines vs. living systems
>
>
> 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