The Material?

[Vigile]

All I know, or rather think, is that when I'm dead I'll no longer appreciate or care or even be in any way aware of love, art, prose, music, etc... And unless I'm lucky enough to leave a mark like a Mozart, a Rembrandt, or a Thoreau, no one else will care or appreciate or even be aware of what I was aware of just 50 short years after I'm dead. I'm still a great lover of some of the arts. I don't understand painting or ballet, but music, writing, film, etc... mean a great deal to me even though I believe it's a mechanical process that allows me to appreciate them and allows others to create them.

 

It doesn't really matter what we believe regarding the mind does it? It doesn't lend to a greater appreciation either way and all we really have is here and now. It just seems so subjective to me to try and attach more meaning to these things than just simple appreciation.

 

Here's food for thought. Perhaps what we consider truly creative is that which appeals to our particular mechanical construct of our particular brains. Perhaps intelligent life that evolved somewhere else under different conditions could not and would not find any appreciation at all in what we consider beautiful and creative.

 

Perhaps we wouldn't find what they consider creative either and perhaps they wouldn't even have a concept of creativity in the first place.

[Antlerman]

I would hope so considering the size of that loom in our basement!! And I can't even hook up a basic 300 baud modem to it to download 25k gif files from my favorite BBS site!

 

Understanding the loom led to the development of mechanical computers, which in turn led to the development of electrical computers with 300 baud modems capable of downloading 25k gif files. Understanding how the loom works helps in understanding how more complicated computing machines work. Thank you for demonstrating this point.

And thank you for underscoring that you consider human beings to be a mechanical device, sort of like this little machine:

 

 

My point precisely. That defines reductionism. Reducing life to mechanics.

 

Maybe you didn't read what I said above? I say, yes the mind is dependent on the brain. You counter, it most certainly is. Umm... yes.

 

Your argument seemed to imply that the mind existed independently of the brain; my apologies if this was incorrect.

What was that you said about me making assumptions? I accept your apology, and would suggest you try to read deeper into what I'm saying, because this is not the first or only place where you are not following what I'm saying and leaping to what you imagine I think.

 

The brain is the mind in the sense that the structures of the brain, created by the pathways of neurons, provide the necessary framework for consciousness, memories, and ideas to happen.

I'm not sure how you can say that the brain is the mind because it has the supporting structures for it? If you were to deplete all humans out of a city, would it be a city still? Or would it be an empty city (technically not a city)? The buildings of a city and its sewers and various supporting infrastructures are necessary for a city to exist. Could you just have 10,000 people lump together in an open space without any supporting infrastructure, and call that a city? Or do you have a city when you have a sufficiently enough robust infrastructure to support what emerges when you do?

 

And then what happens? A city begins to emerge. It grows, the infrastructure becomes more complex, and that allows for more growth, more depth, etc. But the city is not the infrastructure itself. The city is the people who need the infrastructure to survive. There is interaction, dynamics, etc, etc, etc. Everything I'm trying to communicate. The mind is not the brain.

 

As I said, definitions of mind, and definitions of consciousness. You equate it with personality. I do not.

 

Is personality not a result of a conscious mind?

Personality is the result of many things, but it is not consciousness defined. My personality is really a feature, not what defines being; not what defines consciousness.

 

Insight into, yes. Understanding it, reducing it to that, no.

 

Reduction is necessary for understanding.

I've never denied this. But it is no more The Way™, then using the Bible as the system of authority. Is it a powerful tool? To be sure. But I've said all this......

 

Some people see a computer as a complicated device, which it is. Broken down to individual components, it becomes easier to understand. Depending on what you need to do, you have to select an appropriate level of reduction. The same goes for understanding the universe and our own conscious minds. Without reducing things, we wouldn't have the technology we enjoy today.

That is a lot of assumptions in there.....

[Legion]

Shyone I can't help but think of how many different ways there are to manifest or realize a clock. There are water clocks, pendulum clocks, quartz clocks, and atomic clocks. Each of these different kinds of devices are analogous to each other by virtue of the fact that they realize the same function. It's true that they cannot be realized without matter, but matter is not their essence. In fact, the most materially disparate systems can still be analogous to each other. I think this is a strong indication that we can study the organization of natural systems independently of matter.

 

The creation of these clocks came about because of our need to measure time. They are tools that we created because of a need to organize our day. This became necessary as there is a finite amount of time in a given day, and knowing that allows us to better manage our resources. The reasons for the existence of the clock can be found in the material world, because it is based on our own material needs. It is no more complicated than that.

PaulQ we seem to be talking past one another here. Or rather, we seem to addressing different definitions of materialism. I am trying to highlight how explanations that only look at the matter of a natural system are incomplete. You seem to be speaking of economic materialism which is a different idea than philosophical materialism. Personal values are personal things. But I am not speaking of values, or what ought to be. I am trying to speak of what is.

[Shyone]

Shyone I can't help but think of how many different ways there are to manifest or realize a clock. There are water clocks, pendulum clocks, quartz clocks, and atomic clocks. Each of these different kinds of devices are analogous to each other by virtue of the fact that they realize the same function. It's true that they cannot be realized without matter, but matter is not their essence. In fact, the most materially disparate systems can still be analogous to each other. I think this is a strong indication that we can study the organization of natural systems independently of matter.

Yes, we can study them independently of matter. The ideas we discuss here, the conversations, are independent of the matter of my computer. I'm even using two different computers, so the matter is virtually irrelevent to any discussion.

 

Spoken words, heard and transcribed, copied and discussed do not really depend any longer on the vocal chords of the speaker.

[Legion]

Reduction is necessary for understanding. Some people see a computer as a complicated device, which it is. Broken down to individual components, it becomes easier to understand. Depending on what you need to do, you have to select an appropriate level of reduction. The same goes for understanding the universe and our own conscious minds.

I agree that reduction can yield some understanding. And I believe that machines can be completely understood through reduction. But other natural systems are not so amenable to this technique, specifically organisms. I think someone could know every molecule of an organism and still not understand it. Some people think I am arguing for some form of vitalism here, or a soul, some animating spirit. But I am not arguing for any such thing.

[Shyone]

All I know, or rather think, is that when I'm dead I'll no longer appreciate or care or even be in any way aware of love, art, prose, music, etc... And unless I'm lucky enough to leave a mark like a Mozart, a Rembrandt, or a Thoreau, no one else will care or appreciate or even be aware of what I was aware of just 50 short years after I'm dead. I'm still a great lover of some of the arts. I don't understand painting or ballet, but music, writing, film, etc... mean a great deal to me even though I believe it's a mechanical process that allows me to appreciate them and allows others to create them.

 

It doesn't really matter what we believe regarding the mind does it? It doesn't lend to a greater appreciation either way and all we really have is here and now. It just seems so subjective to me to try and attach more meaning to these things than just simple appreciation.

 

Here's food for thought. Perhaps what we consider truly creative is that which appeals to our particular mechanical construct of our particular brains. Perhaps intelligent life that evolved somewhere else under different conditions could not and would not find any appreciation at all in what we consider beautiful and creative.

 

Perhaps we wouldn't find what they consider creative either and perhaps they wouldn't even have a concept of creativity in the first place.

I'm speechless. These words speak to me and resonate with my thoughts.

[Shyone]

PaulQ we seem to be talking past one another here. Or rather, we seem to addressing different definitions of materialism. I am trying to highlight how explanations that only look at the matter of a natural system are incomplete. You seem to be speaking of economic materialism which is a different idea than philosophical materialism. Personal values are personal things. But I am not speaking of values, or what ought to be. I am trying to speak of what is.

Talking past one another. Definitions.

 

I think that it's ironic that when I try to find common ground I'm shot down. Materialism doesn't preclude understanding of higher order systems. For cryin' out loud, materialists understand that you can discuss software function without knowing how to program, and you can discuss programming without understanding processors, and you can discuss processors without understanding how the fan that cools the computer works.

 

"explanations that only look at the matter of natural systems" don't really exist. Materialism just ties the organization to something concrete, even if only by example.

 

I guess that I have to think of it by way of malfunction. It's amazing what a brain tumor can do to thoughts.

 

Kind of like a fan malfunction affects the pictures on the screen of a computer.

 

That's why you should always back things up.

[Legion]

Shyone do you think it is possible, in principle, to simulate the behavior of any natural system on computers?

[Shyone]

Reduction is necessary for understanding. Some people see a computer as a complicated device, which it is. Broken down to individual components, it becomes easier to understand. Depending on what you need to do, you have to select an appropriate level of reduction. The same goes for understanding the universe and our own conscious minds.

I agree that reduction can yield some understanding. And I believe that machines can be completely understood through reduction. But other natural systems are not so amenable to this technique, specifically organisms. I think someone could know every molecule of an organism and still not understand it. Some people think I am arguing for some form of vitalism here, or a soul, some animating spirit. But I am not arguing for any such thing.

Doesn't this simply mean that organisms are more complex than mechanical systems? At least, so far...

 

"I can't understand how natural systems can be broken down and understood."

 

Ok. I see it as a "great chain of being." (bad choice of words...). The littlest things are crucial to the big things. Just as oil is necessary to a car (which reminds me, I should probably check my oil), sodium is necessary to cellular function. I have a patient now with a low sodium. I know that if it drops another 5 mEq/L, he'll become disoriented, confused, and may have a seizure. His potassium is also very low, and if it drops just a little more, his heart will have dysrhythmias and he may die. The "electrical systems" of the human will not function well without a simple atom present in sufficient quantities.

 

Atoms, molecules, cells (and their organelles), organs, function, being, thoughts. Parallel.

Simple reproductive chemical, cell, organism, survival by natural selection, sensory organs, consciousness, thoughts. Linear with time.

 

You can start with thoughts and do just fine, but is it really harmful to see thoughts as part of something bigger? Something tied to our physical being?

[Shyone]

Shyone do you think it is possible, in principle, to simulate the behavior of any natural system on computers?

Yes. I don't know that simulation is really important however except as a tool or entertainment.

 

Natural systems have a great advantage, built up over billions of years. No single celled organism or multicellular organism could be here if it weren't for the trials of life and death that eliminated the bad and hardened the good with respect to survivability. This process has embued us and other living things with some qualities that are difficult to reproduce de novo in any mechanical system.

 

In a sense, you could view the improvements in software, from simple systems to CPM to DOS to Windows to Linux (tee hee), as a form of elimination of the less suitable, but this suitability may not replicate the life and death purification in natural systems. Hard to say.

 

Deliberate design still involves trial and error, but towards a different goal than natural systems. maybe. Survival. Maybe they aren't so dissimilar... But the systems that result may require not just dozens of revisions and failures/successes, but billions.

 

And life is still working on getting it right.

[Legion]

Okay. Thank you Shyone. I appreciate this dialogue with you because it provides me with an opportunity to hone my own thoughts on these things. But I have to go to work now. I hope to pick this up again later.

[Shyone]

Okay. Thank you Shyone. I appreciate this dialogue with you because it provides me with an opportunity to hone my own thoughts on these things. But I have to go to work now. I hope to pick this up again later.

You know, if I were really optomistic, I'd say that machines are the next step in human evolution. But I think we are in the midst of a technology bubble fueled by oil and coal, and technology will burn out eventually. Dreams and hopes will be dashed, society will crumble, and humans will devolve (actually evolve) into something unrecognizable.

 

Have you seen The Time Machine?

[Vigile]

Okay. Thank you Shyone. I appreciate this dialogue with you because it provides me with an opportunity to hone my own thoughts on these things. But I have to go to work now. I hope to pick this up again later.

You know, if I were really optomistic, I'd say that machines are the next step in human evolution. But I think we are in the midst of a technology bubble fueled by oil and coal, and technology will burn out eventually. Dreams and hopes will be dashed, society will crumble, and humans will devolve (actually evolve) into something unrecognizable.

 

Have you seen The Time Machine?

 

You're a real glass is half empty sort of guy, huh?

 

This is certainly something to think about. What sticks out to me is the bubble analogy. It seems to get thrown around a lot lately. I have to wonder if it has any meaning when translated into the tech realm. It's true much of our lifestyle has been fueled by fuel, but the knowledge mankind has earned in the process won't be easily lost I think. Many seem hopeful that an alternative energy resource will result. It's hard to say. I'm not married to a position here.

 

BTW, Ortega y Gasset argued that true scientific progress is held in the hands of a very small relative few. Without them, those at the frontiers, progress atrophies and because they are few, the situation has always been tenuous. I can't quite wrap my brain around it, but it seemed to resonate with my late best friend who was a chemist from one of the leading European science universities.

 

I do think without cheap fuel things will get ugly as the haves work to protect what they have from the have nots. This situation probably would indeed slow scientific progress. Perhaps not as extremely as the dark ages did, but slow it nonetheless.

[Shyone]

Okay. Thank you Shyone. I appreciate this dialogue with you because it provides me with an opportunity to hone my own thoughts on these things. But I have to go to work now. I hope to pick this up again later.

You know, if I were really optomistic, I'd say that machines are the next step in human evolution. But I think we are in the midst of a technology bubble fueled by oil and coal, and technology will burn out eventually. Dreams and hopes will be dashed, society will crumble, and humans will devolve (actually evolve) into something unrecognizable.

 

Have you seen The Time Machine?

 

You're a real glass is half empty sort of guy, huh?

It's just a bad day. Tomorrow I'll be sunshine and flowers.

[PaulQ]

Apparently my mind was slipping in memory about the simple use of windings in commutators in DC generators is used to make a relatively smooth signal. I do recall it clearly now Plus, I also recall that in circuits that do convert the AC signal to DC it was the use of bridge rectifiers (such as in car alternators), and not what I was thinking about capacitors in their steadying the charge in a circuit. As I said, I don't focus on that world so much anymore, but I shouldn't have forgotten about those.

 

There are no windings on the commutator; it's simply a split ring on which the brushes ride on. It's an extremely simple way of reversing the negative polarity of the AC current. The additional windings are wrapped around the iron core, which are components of the armature.

 

That said however, what I said about windings of coils passing through magnetic lines of flux creating an alternating current signal is in fact correct, and specifically why it is necessary to reverse the windings.

 

Those windings are only a part of a DC generator. What I believe you've tried to do is reduce a DC generator to the windings and magnets; but at that point, it wouldn't be a DC generator at all. The term DC Generator means specifically a generator that generates DC current, and so includes all the components that make this possible. In the same vein, the frontal lobe is not the entire human brain.

 

Well, I wouldn't be so ungracious. It really wasn't an assumption about AC signals being created by passing coils of wire through magnetic lines of flux. That was correct. My forgetting about the simple windings reversal, then hearing you say that DC is created by passing coils of wire through magnetic lines of flux led me to latch on to that as a statement of error on your part - which technically it is.

 

Technically, it is not, because DC current is in fact generated by the passing coils of wire through magnetic lines of flux in a DC generator. That's precisely how a DC generator works.

 

The DC is created by reversing the windings - so that the naturally occurring AC signal comes out that way. As you stated it it, that when you pass coils of wire through magnetic lines of flux you get DC, is technically incorrect. You don't, unless you do that trick in windings to make it do that. So you do not get DC the way you stated, unless you manipulated the circuit to get it to do that.

 

Except for the fact that the very nature of a DC generator is the existence of a commutator which reverses the polarity of the windings. It isn't a trick, it's a fundamental concept. The DC generator generates DC current when the coils are passed through magnetic lines of flux. It does not generate AC current, because then it would not be a DC generator.

 

You really didn't follow what I said.

 

Apparently, this seems to be a mutual thing.

 

Technically, they don't leave. I'm imagining in your analogy that once we've let the water drain out of the source the electrons have all evaporated into the ether, leaving a bunch of depleted, electron-free atoms out there. (Now I am really nitpicking ).

 

The point is simply that whether it's water turning wheels and moving through valves or electricity flowing through gates, it's just a thing that makes the tool work; it's not the tool (or data) itself.

 

Now you are nitpicking. Why would I think electrons are necessary for a mechanical computer to work? You clearly could see I was referring to electronic computers, and the reasons why.

 

The point is to demonstrate that electricity isn't necessary for a computer to exist. You stated,

 

If you destroy electrons, then you will destroy the computer. The higher level is built on the lower level, and destroying the higher level will not destroy the lower level, but destroy the lower level and everything above collapses.

 

When discussing the concept of computers, destroying electrons does not destroy computer. I have illustrated that computers can (and do) exist that do not rely on electrons. Therefore, destroying the lower level does not inherently destroy everything above it, because the material world is so vast, other methods of accomplishing the same task are possible.

[PaulQ]

And thank you for underscoring that you consider human beings to be a mechanical device, sort of like this little machine:

 

 

My point precisely. That defines reductionism. Reducing life to mechanics.

 

I never made such a claim; that's something you arbitrarily came up with. In fact, there are distinct, recognizable differences between biological matter and mechanical matter. That said, the recognizable fact that many of our mechanical devices appear to mimic biological structures is due to the fact that we can only come up with ideas for tools based on what we see and know of the material world.

 

What I prefer to do is to reduce mechanics to extensions of our biological being. So, rather than seeing the duck as a machine that processes food, I see machines that prepare and process food for us as an extension to our digestive system. Computers are extensions of our brains, and power saws are extensions of our hands and nails. We create material tools to shape the material world to suit our material needs. Clearly, there are mechanical components to our biology (the ear is an excellent example); but to me the ear is yet another tool; albeit a biological one that came about by an evolutionary process. Even still, the evolutionary process of our ears and the evolutionary process of the clock share many similarities, and both evolved to suit our needs. The only real difference is one grew inside of us, and the other we created outside of us.

 

I'm not sure how you can say that the brain is the mind because it has the supporting structures for it? If you were to deplete all humans out of a city, would it be a city still? Or would it be an empty city (technically not a city)? The buildings of a city and its sewers and various supporting infrastructures are necessary for a city to exist. Could you just have 10,000 people lump together in an open space without any supporting infrastructure, and call that a city? Or do you have a city when you have a sufficiently enough robust infrastructure to support what emerges when you do?

 

Again, I refer back to my DC generator example. A DC generator is not simply a coil spinning between magnets; as you immediately recognized, such a device would not produce DC current. A DC generator is a device made up of various identifiable components, and when force is applied to the armature, DC voltage is produced. Likewise, the brain contains many different biological components, and when it receives proper nutrients, oxygen, and stimulus, it generates the mind. Therefore, the mind is a product of a working brain (with our thoughts and memories contained within the structures of that brain), just as DC current and voltage is the product of a working DC generator.

 

And then what happens? A city begins to emerge. It grows, the infrastructure becomes more complex, and that allows for more growth, more depth, etc. But the city is not the infrastructure itself. The city is the people who need the infrastructure to survive. There is interaction, dynamics, etc, etc, etc. Everything I'm trying to communicate. The mind is not the brain.

 

The city is also an extension to our material biological selves, and while the mind is not the brain, it is within the brain and a product of the functioning of that brain.

 

Personality is the result of many things, but it is not consciousness defined. My personality is really a feature, not what defines being; not what defines consciousness.

 

Personality is a product of consciousness, and definitely a useful way to measure and quantify the effects that physical changes in the structure of the brain has on the mind. While it may not be consciousness per se, it is recognized as the quality of being a person; existence as a self-conscious human being; personal identity.

 

I've never denied this. But it is no more The Way, then using the Bible as the system of authority. Is it a powerful tool? To be sure. But I've said all this......

 

Except for the fact that it has brought us greater understanding, as well as great technology that makes our lives less painful, more enjoyable, and longer. That can be demonstrated and proven.

 

 

Some people see a computer as a complicated device, which it is. Broken down to individual components, it becomes easier to understand. Depending on what you need to do, you have to select an appropriate level of reduction. The same goes for understanding the universe and our own conscious minds. Without reducing things, we wouldn't have the technology we enjoy today.

That is a lot of assumptions in there.....

 

What you call assumptions are things that actually work. These processes have allowed us to perform miracles, like travel to the moon, send robots to other planets, and fly around the world.

[PaulQ]

PaulQ we seem to be talking past one another here. Or rather, we seem to addressing different definitions of materialism. I am trying to highlight how explanations that only look at the matter of a natural system are incomplete. You seem to be speaking of economic materialism which is a different idea than philosophical materialism. Personal values are personal things. But I am not speaking of values, or what ought to be. I am trying to speak of what is.

 

How exactly would such a study be incomplete?

 

I agree that reduction can yield some understanding. And I believe that machines can be completely understood through reduction. But other natural systems are not so amenable to this technique, specifically organisms. I think someone could know every molecule of an organism and still not understand it. Some people think I am arguing for some form of vitalism here, or a soul, some animating spirit. But I am not arguing for any such thing.

 

And yet, by using this approach, we have been able to identify genes that are responsible for genetic diseases. It seems to me that medical science has come a long way.

[PaulQ]

You know, if I were really optomistic, I'd say that machines are the next step in human evolution.

 

They already are, and we already passed that point. We just take it for granted, like opposable thumbs.

 

But I think we are in the midst of a technology bubble fueled by oil and coal, and technology will burn out eventually.

 

I don't think so. Consider the bicycle. It's a machine that allows us to travel significantly greater distances at significantly faster speeds than we normally could without them. These are not fueled by oil and coal, they are extensions of our own biological selves. If we suddenly had no oil for our cars, you'd see bicycles everywhere.

 

Dreams and hopes will be dashed, society will crumble, and humans will devolve (actually evolve) into something unrecognizable.

 

For some. For others, dreams and hopes will be realized, a society they envisioned will arise, and our evolutionary path will mean increasingly clever machines designed to overcome the obstacles put before us.

 

Have you seen The Time Machine?

 

I read the book, it was a fine piece of fiction.

[Legion]

Shyone do you think it is possible, in principle, to simulate the behavior of any natural system on computers?

Yes.

Shyone if you're interested in these things then I encourage you to read the following article by A.H. Louie Ph.D.

 

http://www.panmere.com/rosen/Louie_noncomp_pre_rev.pdf

 

It's entitled "A Living System Must Have Noncomputable Models". I am going to lift some excerpts from it and present them here.

 

A natural system N is a mechanism if and only if all of its models are simulable.

 

If a closed path of efficient causation exists in a natural system N, then N cannot be a mechanism.

 

If a closed path of efficient causation exists for a natural system N, then it has a model that is not simulable.

 

An iteration of “efficient cause of efficient cause” is inherently hierarchical. A closed path of efficient causation must form a hierarchical cycle. Both the hierarchy and the cycle (closed loop) are essential attributes of this closure. In formal systems, hierarchical cycles are manifested by impredicativities, or the inability to replace these self-referential loops with finite syntactic algorithms. The nonsimulable model in Theorem 2.6 contains a hierarchical closed loop that corresponds to the closed path of efficient causation in the natural system being modeled. In other words, it is a formal system with an impredicative loop of inferential entailment.

 

A necessary condition for a natural system to be an organism is that it is closed to efficient causation

 

A living system must have noncomputable models.

 

Note that Rosen’s conclusion is not that artificial life is impossible. It is, rather, that life is not computable: however one models life, natural or artificial, one cannot succeed by computation alone. Life is not definable by an algorithm. There is, indeed, practical verification from computer science that attempts in implementation of a hierarchical closed loop leads to deadlock, and is hence forbidden in systems programming

[Legion]

Paul in your last post, #68 in this thread, you attributed Shyone's words to me. The quotes are wrong.

[Legion]

How exactly would such a study be incomplete?

I think that reductionism misses the organizational aspects of natural systems.

 

And yet, by using this approach [reductionism], we have been able to identify genes that are responsible for genetic diseases. It seems to me that medical science has come a long way.

I am not arguing that reductionism has no value. It has its place. I think it is fantastically suited to understand mechanisms. But if we want to understand why organisms are alive then I strongly suspect that reductionism will provide either no answers or the wrong answers.

[Rev R]

Ya' know, I'm sure we've all heard those arguments of Christians that go along the lines of this:

 

"Atheists and non-religious people are denying so much about the world by going away from faith! They get rid of the spiritual and cling to the material! How sad..."

 

Recently, I thought, what is really wrong with the material?

 

To get back to the original topic for a sec.

 

Forsaking the material is a strain that runs through most (if not all) religious systems. Basically the idea is that the realm of gods and miracles make up a higher or ultimate reality and that in rejecting whatever specific conception of this ultimate reality the non-believer is missing out.

 

It's kind of a negative view, if you ask me, because it focuses only on the parts of day to day life that we would consider bad: aging, sickness, death, war, taxes, politicians, reality shows, we can go on and on. People develop what seems to me to be an aversion to the human condition that this so called ultimate reality becomes all they crave. Who wouldn't want a utopia right?

 

Personally I don't see anything wrong with the "material" or "mundane" world. It's where we live. Yeah it's not perfect but in imperfection there is room for growth.

[Legion]

Rev I have forsaken the material in the pursuit of understanding. I am gaining ever better clarity on why I actually need a sandwich.

[PaulQ]

Sorry about the misquote; don't know what happened there...

 

How exactly would such a study be incomplete?

I think that reductionism misses the organizational aspects of natural systems.

 

What exactly is lacking in reductionism that prevents recognition of the organizational aspects of natural systems?

 

And yet, by using this approach [reductionism], we have been able to identify genes that are responsible for genetic diseases. It seems to me that medical science has come a long way.

I am not arguing that reductionism has no value. It has its place. I think it is fantastically suited to understand mechanisms. But if we want to understand why organisms are alive then I strongly suspect that reductionism will provide either no answers or the wrong answers.

 

I think the problem there is the fact that the question itself is inherently flawed. This was covered in The Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy series. The question was, "What's the meaning to life, the universe, and everything?" The problem was in the question, rather than the answer. The question makes the assumption that there is some meaning to life, the universe, and everything beyond what we attribute to these things. The assumption is false, so the answer can be very well anything you want. In the case of this story, the computer determined the answer, at least for it, was 42.

 

Now, think about your question: Why are organisms alive? To me, the question is really not that well defined. If you really mean, what is it about organisms that make them alive, then you can furnish answers, such as the fact that they eat, metabolize, reproduce, and so on. If, on the other hand, you're asking for the purpose as to why organisms exist, the question becomes absurd and is easily challenged; why assume there needs to be a purpose for organisms to exist, beyond your own conclusions? I can explain why my son exists, and my parents can explain why I exist. These answers are perfectly satisfactory and provide reason for my existence.

[Legion]

Sorry about the misquote; don't know what happened there...

No problem.

 

What exactly is lacking in reductionism that prevents recognition of the organizational aspects of natural systems?

I will address this question in greater depth later. I think it's a good question, but I'll need to dig out some books and provide some quotes.

 

I think the problem there is the fact that the question itself is inherently flawed. This was covered in The Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy series. ...

 

Well, I agree that the way we phrase the question is important. I'm not talking about inquiring into the purpose of life. The question we are asking is... Why is a natural system an organism and not something else? Why is an organism different from a rock?