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!EU.net!sunic!news.uni-c.dk!diku!embla.diku.dk!gustav
From: gustav@diku.dk (Max Melchior)
Subject: Re: H Maturana's definition of life?
Message-ID: <gustav.780155399@embla.diku.dk>
Sender: gustav@embla.diku.dk
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 13:49:59 GMT
References: <pvh.1.001128F7@slfoo.cybernet.za> <350o2j$baj@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <pvh.2.0014AA87@slfoo.cybernet.za> <snodgras.780097464@crash.cts.com>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen
Lines: 38

snodgras@crash.cts.com (John Snodgrass) writes:

>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 

This cognitive leap sounds a little like a mystics jump to insight :)

Another example from biology: evolution of species.
By thinking about the individuals that make up a species, and their repro-
duction, it is clear that future members of the species will be better
suited to survive in the environment. Therefore we say, that what species
_do_ is evolve, but it is not what they _are_. In Maturanas terms "species"
is only a way we look at and describe a group of individuals, and species 
only exist as such. But all this rests on the insight that those individuals
that are wellsuited for surviving survive, the others die.

What I mean to say with this is that even though matter seems to organize 
itself this is just saying: stable configurations of matter are stable, and
other configurations are not, and disintegrate... I hope this makes some
sense.

In "Autopoiesis and Cognition" there are a number of requirements to an
autopoietic system, but I can't quote them right now. I hope they don't
accept crystals, etc., as alive. I'm quite fond of the autopoietic 
definition of life, but I really don't like the idea of living rocks :-)


Max Melchior (gustav@diku.dk)
