Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!crash!snodgras
From: snodgras@crash.cts.com (John Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: H Maturana's definition of life?
Organization: CTS Network Services (CTSNET), San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 21:44:24 GMT
Message-ID: <snodgras.780097464@crash.cts.com>
References: <pvh.1.001128F7@slfoo.cybernet.za> <350o2j$baj@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <pvh.2.0014AA87@slfoo.cybernet.za>
Sender: news@crash.cts.com (news subsystem)
Nntp-Posting-Host: crash.cts.com
Lines: 45

In <pvh.2.0014AA87@slfoo.cybernet.za> pvh@slfoo.cybernet.za (Peter van Heusden) writes:

[del]

>Nope, they're not, I think. I don't think you can draw a line for the limits 
>of the organism with sandpiles and such. Maturana's def, I think, starts by 
>saying that you the organisation is a certain relation of constituent parts. 
>If, as with crystals, etc, the process continues even if the parts lose their 
>organisation, that isn't a living system. As one poster in this thread has 
>pointed out, this def has the problem that it doesn't deal with the genesis of 
>life: a cell is a living unit, it then divides, and suddenly what was 
>previously a non-living subdivision of cell is a living unit - so what 
>differentiates this from crystals, etc? Maturana's answer would probably be 
>that the cell, while not splitting, maintains its organisation as a cell, 
>whilst its constituent parts do not, whereas with a crystal, the crystal does 
>not maintain its organisation, the constituent parts just replicate a 
>structure. The problem is, the moment of the split - the move of things from 
>non-living to living, is not properly dealt with, imho.


      This whole contradiction arises out of the way you view the constituent
"parts". If these parts have an indefinate nesting of structure, then there
is no need for life as "emergent". The crudely self-organizing properties
of a crystal (or the atoms or molecules forming it) can be recognized as
the result of this self-organizing behavior on a lower level. Of course 
scientific models recognize that the crystal-forming behavior is a result of
the properties of the entities forming the crystal, but these properties are
not imagined to be the result of self-organizing behavior. The reason: it is
not convenient to the scientific modeling process as it is carried out today
to imagine it so. Equation-style modeling does not lend itself to this type
of hypothesis, nor does the notion of "physical law", meaning the fundamental
modeling principle of imagining matter as primarily inert and externally
controlled. At any rate, the behavior of living matter need not be seen
as fundamentally different, except in the degree to which the matter involved
has achieved organization (self-maintenance, reproduction being fundamental
strategies by which matter does this). Lifeforms are indeed structured as
the ultimate examples of matter organizing itself. One merely needs to take
the cognitive leap to perceive not just that this is what matter _does_, 
but that this is what matter _is_. Maturana may stop short of this cognitive
leap, but I don't believe he does so by much. But I too would like more
feedback on his exact position. Others such as Freeman Dyson have also made
suggestions along these lines, e.g. in "Infinite in All Directions".

      JES 

