The Material?

[Rev R]

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

 

What is it exactly that you claim to have forsaken Legion?

[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.

 

What is it exactly that you claim to have forsaken Legion?

Lamborghinis

swimsuit models

a grand house on the beach

a personal chef

etc. ad nauseum

 

So much could have been mine if only my thoughts had been directed towards that end.

[Rev R]

Lamborghinis

swimsuit models

a grand house on the beach

a personal chef

etc. ad nauseum

 

So much could have been mine if only my thoughts had been directed towards that end.

 

And here you are wallowing in the mud like the rest of us.

 

 

From where I sit it appears you have merely exchanged one set of opportunities or goals for another that you hold in higher esteem.

[Ancey]

 

Lamborghinis

swimsuit models

a grand house on the beach

a personal chef

etc. ad nauseum

 

So much could have been mine if only my thoughts had been directed towards that end.

 

That sounds more like economic materialism than the materialism being addressed here. just saying.

[Legion]

From where I sit it appears you have merely exchanged one set of opportunities or goals for another that you hold in higher esteem.

Then I think you sit in a good place Rodney.

 

That sounds more like economic materialism than the materialism being addressed here. just saying.

Yes it is. But we seem to have the economic and philosophical materialism entertwined in this thread.

[PaulQ]

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 look forward to these quotes.

 

 

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?

 

To that, I reply; why should a natural system be expected to be something else than what it is? Why should an organism be in any way similar to a rock?

 

I know; it's often rude to answer a question with a question, but when the question presents itself in such a way that it requires further questions for clarification, it's necessary to present those questions for the sakes of clarity. Clarification of the question often renders the question itself irrelevant, which can lead us to better understanding of what we really need to know in order to make positive progress in our understanding.

[Legion]

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

For those who have already seen me quote Robert Rosen too many times, I apologize. Surely you must grow weary of it. But he was a pioneer into an alternative to reductionism which he called a relational approach. So here I will quote him yet again.

 

To illustrate the vast difference between the two kinds of approach, let us see how each of them would go about telling us about an organized material system, say, a biological cell.

 

A Newtonian approach starts from the premise that our cell, as a material system, is to be studied and understood in the same universal terms as any other material system. That means: it must be analyzed down to a family of constituent particles. These particles define or specify a formal state space, or phase space, as we have seen; the orginal system, the cell, is then imaged by some special set of points in this space.

...

In empirical terms, then, the very first step in the analysis of an organized system (e.g., our cell) is to destroy that organization. That is, we kill the cell, sonicate it, osmotically rupture it, or do some other drastic thing to it. We must do this to liberate the constituent particles, which are then to be further fractionated.

...

In any case, I can epitomize a reductionistic approach to organization in general, and to life in particular, as follows: throw away the organization and keep the underlying matter.

 

The relational alternative to this says the exact opposite, namely: when studying an organized material system, throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization.

...

However there is nothing in the relational strategy that is unphysical, in the sense of "ideal" physics. The organization of a natural system (and in particualr, of a biological organism) is at least as much a part of its material reality as the specific particles that constitute it at any given time, perhaps indeed more so.

 

Life Itself, pgs 118-119

[Legion]

why should a natural system be expected to be something else than what it is? Why should an organism be in any way similar to a rock?

Well apparently they can be made of nearly the same matter, right? I imagine that there are plenty of rocks which contain carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfer. So the question remains... Why are organisms alive whereas rocks are not alive?

[PaulQ]

why should a natural system be expected to be something else than what it is? Why should an organism be in any way similar to a rock?

Well apparently they can be made of nearly the same matter, right? I imagine that there are plenty of rocks which contain carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfer. So the question remains... Why are organisms alive whereas rocks are not alive?

 

Again, the question you ask is very broad. I could simply answer, "42," and my answer would be correct.

 

On one level, we can answer the question by stating, organisms have characteristics that rocks do not have, which is what makes us determine that organisms are alive, and rocks are not.

 

On another level, we need to ask the question; why should we assume that rocks and organisms should share characteristics? Is the fact that rocks contain carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorous and sulfur enough for us to assume that rocks should share the same characteristics as organisms? Or, are we reducing rocks and organisms to a level that is inadequate for answering the question? Is the question even relevant?

[Shyone]

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

Rosen, or whoever these quotes come from, is starting with a conclusion and working backwards.

 

He has examined natural systems, but his conclusions come from the arbitrary determination that it just can't be done.

 

Simulation is irrelevent. Natural systems can be simulated, so that in essence blows his argument out of the water. Sheesh. There are computer models of evolution, bird flight, and even behavioral models. You can argue that "they're not perfect" or "they only approximate or superficially immitate natural systems", but they have been simulated.

 

And I don't care. Do you realize that one can compute the (average) maximum calculating capacity for the human brain? The maximum data storage? Total computing power? Brains have limitations. Big ones. Gigantic limitations. Human brains are pathetic when it comes to memory, data processing, and calculating. I'll provide links if you're interested. You may be disappointed.

 

I also find that the vast majority of "ideas" that people have amount to a mixture of regurgitated data and opinion.

 

Creating a distinction based on natural versus unnatural systems where one deliberately tries to make the natural system superior by some arbitrary criteria is as anthrocentric as the people that claimed a computer could never beat a human at chess. "Well, they can play chess, but they'll never [enter falsifiable limitation here]."

 

Natural systems have limitations - number of neurons, size of the brain, and functional limitations that are inherited by natural selection. "Mechanical systems" are absolutely unlimited in principle, especially compared with human systems.

 

4.5 billion years to get to where we are today, and some people would like to compare these results to 60 years of computing evolution.

 

Part of the irony is that I don't think that natural systems are constituted of a closed path of efficient causation. External factors are crucial to the natural systems from energy requirements, heredity, competition, environment, etc. Presuming that natural systems have closed pathes of efficient causation is tantamount to the error that creationists make when the assume the second law of thermodynamics applies to the earth - when the earth is not a closed system. Duh.

 

No man is an island.

 

Additionally, I think the problem of hierarchichal closed loop in computational systems has been exaggerated. Look it up yourself and you'll find many examples, like "Closed loop hierarchical control for non-linear systems using quasilinearisation."

 

Or "Monochrome image coding using hierarchical closed loop vector quantizer on a multiprocessing system."

 

Or "Team-optimal closed-loop Stackelberg strategies in hierarchical control problems."

 

And, my favorite: "Stability and robustness analysis of a two layered hierarchical architecture for the closed loop control of robots in the operational space."

 

Until Rosen or Louie or anyone can show why a natural system has some property that is not strictly physical, then the best and most logical approach to natural systems it to consider them as complicated physical systems.

[Shyone]

Legion quoted the following:

 

In any case, I can epitomize a reductionistic approach to organization in general, and to life in particular, as follows: throw away the organization and keep the underlying matter.

 

The relational alternative to this says the exact opposite, namely: when studying an organized material system, throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization.

 

This is so wrong. I can't even begin to say how wrong this is.

 

The reductionist approach - specifically addressing one major part of life, DNA - initially required the "breakdown" of a cell, but that's not where it ended. It isn't even over yet, but after analyzing the DNA, the component parts were then reassembled and inserted into a cell without DNA, and the cell was kick-started and lives - and breathes - and reproduces.

 

That's how you learn, and that's what reductionism is. It is the total, complete understanding of the ORGANIZATION of the matter that is obtained from the inital breakdown and then the synthesis.

 

Incidentally, if no one had ever broken down a cell, if no one had ever chemically analyzed the DNA to find that it consisted of a certain number of nucleic acids (How many? If you know, then you have benefited from reductionism), if no one had ever analyzed the chemical bonds, their angles, their alignment, then no one would know jack shit about the ORGANIZATION of DNA.

 

That's what I don't understand. If the world were led by people who never wanted to analyze something, they would still be talking about the hierarchy of heavenly beings because we would know absolutely nothing about nature.

 

But now, the people who have done nothing to understand the organization of nature take the work of the people who have figured it all out and then say that they shouldn't have done all that reductionist work - just "know" that DNA is a frickin' double helix.

 

The quote suggests that someone took DNA, isolated Adenosine, and figured out it was C₁₀H₁₃N₅O₄. Whoop-de-dooooo!

 

That was the first step. Then they figured out it was (2R,3R,4S,5R)-2-(6-amino-9H-purin-9-yl)-5-(hydroxymethyl)oxolane-3,4-diol. That is, they determined the organization of the molecule.

 

Then they looked at the bonds and got this:

 

 

Then they looked at the three dimensional angles, volumes and spatial relationships and got this:

 

 

Then they took the other three (oops, I gave it away) nucleic acids and did the same.

 

I'm going to stop here because it's a lot of stuff. Lots, and lots and lots of ORGANIZATION that was learned from reductionist methods.

[Antlerman]

 

Rosen, or whoever these quotes come from, is starting with a conclusion and working backwards.

On a cursory glance of those statements you assume sloppy science?

 

Complexity science has a lot more history and status than just some ill-conceived quackery. I like this map of the complexity sciences that this wiki entry showing the history and various fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems

 

 

If you want to compare this with Creationists or some pseudosciences that's your choice. I don't.

 

(You may wish to read that entry as well for some additional information about what they are).

 

 

He has examined natural systems, but his conclusions come from the arbitrary determination that it just can't be done.

Arbitrary? (See above)

 

Natural systems can be simulated, so that in essence blows his argument out of the water. Sheesh.

 

And therein lies the rub! You believe honestly that you can in fact include all the myriad, countless, subtle, unseen variables of nature in a natural system in a laboratory? I think this goes to underscore the difference in approach (and subsequent worldviews and philosophies) right there. The mere fact of observation alone alters what is observed. Yet it appears you think you can sufficiently ignore factors that you assume don't have any effect!

 

I'm trying to imagine how this translates into a philosophical worldview. It would seem to view things in rather stark "fact" terms, rather that flowing, ebbing, dynamic systems - which cannot be easily quantified and categorized in our Science Books, Bibles, or what-have-you. It would lead to limits placed upon understanding, as expressed so far, IMO.

 

There are computer models of evolution, bird flight, and even behavioral models. You can argue that "they're not perfect" or "they only approximate or superficially immitate natural systems", but they have been simulated.

Hardly. Only certain aspects of it, and as such understanding will be limited, incomplete.

 

And I don't care.

I would think you should.

 

Creating a distinction based on natural versus unnatural systems where one deliberately tries to make the natural system superior by some arbitrary criteria is as anthrocentric as the people that claimed a computer could never beat a human at chess. "Well, they can play chess, but they'll never [enter falsifiable limitation here]."

Actually, I don't see that anyone is trying to make them "superior". I think a better way is to say only a natural system can produce what we see in nature. Is that "superior"? Hell, isn't that a matter of subjective opinion as to value matters? I would argue that without the fluid, unpredictable, dynamics, and all that is yet unseen, unrecognized, uncomprehending by that little, limited human brain that is doing this science, variables at play in a fully natural system, you cannot produce what nature produces.

 

A simulation, is and will always be "2 dimensional" by comparison, so to speak. I cannot see how any simulation can offer a fully understanding of something that occurs in a natural system. Insights, certainly. But not anything where you can conclude 'this does not matter', "I don't care," as you have stated.

 

Natural systems have limitations - number of neurons, size of the brain, and functional limitations that are inherited by natural selection. "Mechanical systems" are absolutely unlimited in principle, especially compared with human systems.

Based on this, I'm beginning to believe you don't have an understanding of what we're talking about in leveling criticisms and dismissals of it.

 

Natural systems have no limitations to being a natural system. You don't see how that to understand something in nature, you have to understand natural systems. Systems, not just the effects of the individual, isolated bits. It doesn't matter if nature is limited, it is nature.

 

4.5 billion years to get to where we are today, and some people would like to compare these results to 60 years of computing evolution.

And some people believe they can reduce it down to simply examining the little bits the current science of the last 300 years approaches it with. 60 or 300 in comparison to 4,500,000,000 years is pretty much the same.

 

What I hear here is almost a religious devotion to one methodology that is going to ignore new information that comes along: sort of like rejecting the novelty of Galileo and his silly telescopes.

 

 

Part of the irony is that I don't think that natural systems are constituted of a closed path of efficient causation. External factors are crucial to the natural systems from energy requirements, heredity, competition, environment, etc. Presuming that natural systems have closed pathes of efficient causation is tantamount to the error that creationists make when the assume the second law of thermodynamics applies to the earth - when the earth is not a closed system. Duh.

 

No man is an island.

Is this you saying this? What exactly are you arguing against here? Reductionism? I'm confused. Is this a quote from Rosen? This sounds like something I would say.

 

I'll let you clarify before continuing further.

 

Just as a FYI, where you will see me come from is looking at these complexity sciences in dynamic systems from an anthropological perspective, for one. The Wiki entry I linked to mentioned a number of names I am familiar with. I'll just this one here:

 

"Gregory Bateson played a key role in establishing the connection between anthropology and systems theory; he recognized that the interactive parts of cultures function much like ecosystems."

 

Again, if you wish to take people like Rosen and others as being sloppy scientists, that's your prerogative. But I can't share your reaction.

[Legion]

Why are organisms alive whereas rocks are not alive?

... organisms have characteristics that rocks do not have

Yes, but what are those characteristics?

 

Is the question even relevant?

I think it is directly relevant to this thread in that I think the essence of life is not to be found in matter. This is not to say that organisms are are possesed of some animating spirit, or soul, or elan vital, or what have you. When we look across the Earth we see a staggering variety of organisms. And if someone suspects that the organization of life could be expressed with exotic chemistry then I think they are tacitly acknowledging the organization we call "life" is independent of matter.

 

And think too. What would making an organism entail? I do believe it is possible for people to create organisms from scratch. I don't know. But whatever it requires, it will not be because we found some special kind of matter which bestows life upon a natural system which we would sprinkle on things like fairy dust.

[The-Captain]

I think it is directly relevant to this thread in that I think the essence of life is not to be found in matter. This is not to say that organisms are are possesed of some animating spirit, or soul, or elan vital, or what have you. When we look across the Earth we see a staggering variety of organisms. And if someone suspects that the organization of life could be expressed with exotic chemistry then I think they are tacitly acknowledging the organization we call "life" is independent of matter.

 

This got me thinking; upon death an organism begins to through a staggering amount of chemical changes, but prior to that, immediately after a subject is dead is there really a physical difference between life and death?

[Legion]

I think it is directly relevant to this thread in that I think the essence of life is not to be found in matter. This is not to say that organisms are are possesed of some animating spirit, or soul, or elan vital, or what have you. When we look across the Earth we see a staggering variety of organisms. And if someone suspects that the organization of life could be expressed with exotic chemistry then I think they are tacitly acknowledging the organization we call "life" is independent of matter.

 

This got me thinking; upon death an organism begins to through a staggering amount of chemical changes, but prior to that, immediately after a subject is dead is there really a physical difference between life and death?

I think this is an excellent line of inquiry Doc. I hope to explore it more when time allows.

[Shyone]

A simulation, is and will always be "2 dimensional" by comparison, so to speak. I cannot see how any simulation can offer a fully understanding of something that occurs in a natural system. Insights, certainly. But not anything where you can conclude 'this does not matter', "I don't care," as you have stated.

 

Part of the irony is that I don't think that natural systems are constituted of a closed path of efficient causation. External factors are crucial to the natural systems from energy requirements, heredity, competition, environment, etc. Presuming that natural systems have closed pathes of efficient causation is tantamount to the error that creationists make when the assume the second law of thermodynamics applies to the earth - when the earth is not a closed system. Duh.

 

No man is an island.

Is this you saying this? What exactly are you arguing against here? Reductionism? I'm confused. Is this a quote from Rosen? This sounds like something I would say.

 

I'll let you clarify before continuing further.

 

Just as a FYI, where you will see me come from is looking at these complexity sciences in dynamic systems from an anthropological perspective, for one. The Wiki entry I linked to mentioned a number of names I am familiar with. I'll just this one here:

 

"Gregory Bateson played a key role in establishing the connection between anthropology and systems theory; he recognized that the interactive parts of cultures function much like ecosystems."

 

Again, if you wish to take people like Rosen and others as being sloppy scientists, that's your prerogative. But I can't share your reaction.

This is a complicated subject. I'm using very few words to describe things that are complicated, so when I, say, make a comparison between natural and unnatural systems with respect to limitations, I'm leaving out lots of the details of the comparison. Time frame is an important dimension, and I just don't have the "time" to hash it out. And how would you define "complete" simulation? Simulations are never complete "by nature."

 

And my lack of interest in simulation is for very very good reasons. I think the Japanese are on the wrong path with their frickin' robots. I think that many of the strategies for simulating human behavior, speech and so forth may have good practical applications, but they alone are not the be all and end all of research into consciousness - and they are not intended to be. I think that ultimately an unnatural system that emerges will be completely different from humans (except superficially), but with its own properties, abilities, and purpose. The Turing model may be a starting point, but just because something may be "indistinguishable" from humans does not make it alive. Can you see how simulation can be misleading?

 

I also know, in some respect, what Rosen et al is talking about when they say "closed loop causation." I think, however, that natural systems are just simply not "closed" in any understandable sense. From the chemical, to the microscopic, to the environmental to the social, natural systems have substantial interactions that affect what they do and how they operate. I don't have time to hash this out either, but I think you know what I mean here.

 

Research into thoughts, consciousness, memory and the like will produce an understanding that may provide insights into how unnatural systems may operate better, but then I'm not sure that immitating a natural system is "better." The current limitations of the human mind are dumbfounding. Unnatural systems may be able not to duplicate, immitate or simulate natural systems, but to surpass them by orders of magnitude.

 

Here's some food for thought: Do neurons operate in binary fashion? (I think not). What is the mechanism for memory? (possibly related to sequences of DNA transcribed into proteins).

 

It seems clear that natural neurologic systems have had to sacrifice in some areas of thought, learning, storage and retrieval in order to focus on other areas. We can't undo these limitations by will power. (see short term memory studies versus decision making).

 

It's really kind of peculiar to consider that what I write, what you write, what we cite and read to support what we say, and the very method of exchanging ideas has created a fusion of natural and unnatural systems. The internet is our "peripheral memory", and while you may see it as a tool, I see us more like the Borg - a fusion of systems.

 

I'm not sure you can simulate something where a human is part of the system. Why even try?

 

You could take away the computers and still have thoughts, but I foresee a day when you could take away the humans and still have thoughts.

[Antlerman]

And my lack of interest in simulation is for very very good reasons. I think the Japanese are on the wrong path with their frickin' robots. I think that many of the strategies for simulating human behavior, speech and so forth may have good practical applications, but they alone are not the be all and end all of research into consciousness - and they are not intended to be. I think that ultimately an unnatural system that emerges will be completely different from humans (except superficially), but with its own properties, abilities, and purpose. The Turing model may be a starting point, but just because something may be "indistinguishable" from humans does not make it alive. Can you see how simulation can be misleading?

I don't have any disagreements with you here.

 

I also know, in some respect, what Rosen et al is talking about when they say "closed loop causation." I think, however, that natural systems are just simply not "closed" in any understandable sense. From the chemical, to the microscopic, to the environmental to the social, natural systems have substantial interactions that affect what they do and how they operate. I don't have time to hash this out either, but I think you know what I mean here.

I honestly can't address what Rosen means or is thinking here, since I'm not the resident Rosenite. But I would agree in principle with what you say.

 

Research into thoughts, consciousness, memory and the like will produce an understanding that may provide insights into how unnatural systems may operate better, but then I'm not sure that immitating a natural system is "better." The current limitations of the human mind are dumbfounding. Unnatural systems may be able not to duplicate, immitate or simulate natural systems, but to surpass them by orders of magnitude.

And this is where I come in in saying that the reductionist approach will not offer the insights you or others hope for in these areas either. I too don't have the time to get into that now.

 

(This point actually specifically will come back to the OP if we go there in discussion).

 

It's really kind of peculiar to consider that what I write, what you write, what we cite and read to support what we say, and the very method of exchanging ideas has created a fusion of natural and unnatural systems. The internet is our "peripheral memory", and while you may see it as a tool, I see us more like the Borg - a fusion of systems.

Are you really sure you're a materialist? You sound more like you agree with me.

 

I'm not sure you can simulate something where a human is part of the system. Why even try?

And I will add, that to try to even understand what is "life itself" (to acknowledge Rosen), or being human really is or means, what consciousness is, etc, with only tools measuring and examining the exteriors, the effects.

 

It is my belief that something more is required, something that doesn't reduce it to components, but explores it in limitless, internal potentials. Consciousness, for one example, isn't as much studied as it is experienced and explored. Looking at it, and living in it, are two different, but interacting realities. And again, the act of examining it, removes it from it's dynamic, natural state.

 

Life is as much a hermeneutical reality as it is an empirical one. And neither is isolated and authoritative to the 'how' of things.

[PaulQ]

And therein lies the rub! You believe honestly that you can in fact include all the myriad, countless, subtle, unseen variables of nature in a natural system in a laboratory? I think this goes to underscore the difference in approach (and subsequent worldviews and philosophies) right there. The mere fact of observation alone alters what is observed. Yet it appears you think you can sufficiently ignore factors that you assume don't have any effect!

 

The problem with this assumption is that it assumes that these models will not improve; when in fact, they already are. The computer models we have today are way beyond what we had only a decade ago, and one should expect that the models a decade from now will yield even greater accuracy. That said, even the models today are surprisingly accurate, given their inherent limitations.

 

There are computer models of evolution, bird flight, and even behavioral models. You can argue that "they're not perfect" or "they only approximate or superficially immitate natural systems", but they have been simulated.

Hardly. Only certain aspects of it, and as such understanding will be limited, incomplete.

 

Also continually improving, getting better, constantly demonstrating that it works and delivers real results and knowledge growth.

 

Actually, I don't see that anyone is trying to make them "superior". I think a better way is to say only a natural system can produce what we see in nature. Is that "superior"? Hell, isn't that a matter of subjective opinion as to value matters? I would argue that without the fluid, unpredictable, dynamics, and all that is yet unseen, unrecognized, uncomprehending by that little, limited human brain that is doing this science, variables at play in a fully natural system, you cannot produce what nature produces.

 

We already can produce what nature produces. http://blogs.yourdiscovery.com/discovery-news/2010/05/artificial-life-created-in-lab.html

 

A simulation, is and will always be "2 dimensional" by comparison, so to speak. I cannot see how any simulation can offer a fully understanding of something that occurs in a natural system. Insights, certainly. But not anything where you can conclude 'this does not matter', "I don't care," as you have stated.

 

Simulations can, in fact, exist in as many dimensions as can be imagined in a computer model. Your problem is that you see these models on a flat 2 dimensional screen, so you assume (incorrectly) that the simulation itself must be 2 dimensional.

 

Natural systems have no limitations to being a natural system. You don't see how that to understand something in nature, you have to understand natural systems. Systems, not just the effects of the individual, isolated bits. It doesn't matter if nature is limited, it is nature.

 

Natural systems are limited by the laws that govern them; these laws are measurable and quantifiable. We are only limited by our capacity to understand and comprehend.

 

4.5 billion years to get to where we are today, and some people would like to compare these results to 60 years of computing evolution.

And some people believe they can reduce it down to simply examining the little bits the current science of the last 300 years approaches it with. 60 or 300 in comparison to 4,500,000,000 years is pretty much the same.

 

Except for the fact that our progress over even the past 60 years has greatly eclipsed the last 300 years (which itself eclipsed the past thousands before it), and we continue to cover a great amount of ground.

[Shyone]

It is my belief that something more is required, something that doesn't reduce it to components, but explores it in limitless, internal potentials. Consciousness, for one example, isn't as much studied as it is experienced and explored. Looking at it, and living in it, are two different, but interacting realities. And again, the act of examining it, removes it from it's dynamic, natural state.

 

Life is as much a hermeneutical reality as it is an empirical one. And neither is isolated and authoritative to the 'how' of things.

As I said earlier, someone "reducing consciousness to its components" will provide the data necessary to understand the organization of the mind, and then we'll have something to talk about other than "Feelings... Nothing more than Feelings...."

 

We were, in a sense, fortunate that DNA has only four nucleic acids and there are only 21 amino acids. The language, organization and function are now so well understood that we duplicated it. I think the brain is beyond our ability to duplicate biologically, but if we knew what the nature of the functional units is and how that is translated into actions of brain tissue we might be able to emulate or surpass the abilities of the brain. We'll probably start with a fly brain.

 

How much hermeneutical reality does a fly have?

[Antlerman]

And therein lies the rub! You believe honestly that you can in fact include all the myriad, countless, subtle, unseen variables of nature in a natural system in a laboratory? I think this goes to underscore the difference in approach (and subsequent worldviews and philosophies) right there. The mere fact of observation alone alters what is observed. Yet it appears you think you can sufficiently ignore factors that you assume don't have any effect!

 

The problem with this assumption is that it assumes that these models will not improve; when in fact, they already are. The computer models we have today are way beyond what we had only a decade ago, and one should expect that the models a decade from now will yield even greater accuracy. That said, even the models today are surprisingly accurate, given their inherent limitations.

Again, you assume I assume. By definition if it is a model than it is not the actual thing. I don't consider that an assumption, but a statement of what should seem obvious. I'm certain our models will improve. I'm not ignorant. That will not change that fact that they will ever fully replicate the actual thing without being the actual thing itself.

 

Again, I hear a mindset that reduces nature to what man can, even at some technological point in the future, ever be able to assume. It honestly sounds more anthrocentric than anything I would ever imagine! You have defined the box for the Universe to fit in, and it is in our future grasp!

 

There are computer models of evolution, bird flight, and even behavioral models. You can argue that "they're not perfect" or "they only approximate or superficially immitate natural systems", but they have been simulated.

Hardly. Only certain aspects of it, and as such understanding will be limited, incomplete.

 

Also continually improving, getting better, constantly demonstrating that it works and delivers real results and knowledge growth.

Have you ever once seen anything where I deny results or knowledge growth? I embrace it. I just don't hold it as the new God, replacing the old one. That a leap of faith, a religious belief, that I'm unwilling to embrace for good, rational reasons. Positivism has always been a questionable faith, to say the least.

 

Actually, I don't see that anyone is trying to make them "superior". I think a better way is to say only a natural system can produce what we see in nature. Is that "superior"? Hell, isn't that a matter of subjective opinion as to value matters? I would argue that without the fluid, unpredictable, dynamics, and all that is yet unseen, unrecognized, uncomprehending by that little, limited human brain that is doing this science, variables at play in a fully natural system, you cannot produce what nature produces.

 

We already can produce what nature produces. http://blogs.yourdiscovery.com/discovery-news/2010/05/artificial-life-created-in-lab.html

It's impressive to be sure. But again, I'm not willing to leap in faith that we can 'be God', so to speak (and please note when I add things like "so to speak" - it has significance, not just filler words. Plus try not to make assumption that any of that has anything to do with the anthropomorphic deities of our Christian heritage). I hear in you huge leaps from something like this to truly grasping the nature of reality in this Universe System, and all that that "entails" (hat off to LR).

 

A simulation, is and will always be "2 dimensional" by comparison, so to speak. I cannot see how any simulation can offer a fully understanding of something that occurs in a natural system. Insights, certainly. But not anything where you can conclude 'this does not matter', "I don't care," as you have stated.

 

Simulations can, in fact, exist in as many dimensions as can be imagined in a computer model. Your problem is that you see these models on a flat 2 dimensional screen, so you assume (incorrectly) that the simulation itself must be 2 dimensional.

Here's those specific word choices I made in anticipation of the sort of response you gave. I said "2-dimensional" in quotes, added "by comparison", and "so to speak". I was considering saying "metaphorically speaking" so you wouldn't take it literally, but I thought all those repeating qualifiers would have communicated that. Apparently not.

 

Of course it's more than 2 deminensions! But "by comparison" to nature, it will never be nature in all its facets and unseen, unknown, unpredicitable variables and effects. I don't know how I can be clearer than this.

 

Again, you assume I assume something ridiculous like transposing what I see on a computer screen to what the actually experiment is. Shyone is right, I must be apparently hard to understand what I mean, if you make assumptions of my reasoning being on that sort of level.

[Antlerman]

Natural systems have no limitations to being a natural system. You don't see how that to understand something in nature, you have to understand natural systems. Systems, not just the effects of the individual, isolated bits. It doesn't matter if nature is limited, it is nature.

 

Natural systems are limited by the laws that govern them; these laws are measurable and quantifiable. We are only limited by our capacity to understand and comprehend.

Which is a huge limitation! Hardly an "only", as you put it! Exactly my point. But I hear the belief you think will overcome these limitations, and furthermore, implied in that, it seems to me, using the current paradigms we use in science. I do not share your faith in this regard. Just as we have grown from one system of approach to another, I believe we will continue that trend, replacing one paradigm for another. You believe, it seems, like each new level of viewing the world, that we hold the keys to understanding. Each level believes this, and each level moved beyond to some new opening in the sky, "so to speak".

 

And no, I'm not advocating an new-agey sort of pseduoscience in using the word "paradigm", just to head you off before you assume something.

 

4.5 billion years to get to where we are today, and some people would like to compare these results to 60 years of computing evolution.

And some people believe they can reduce it down to simply examining the little bits the current science of the last 300 years approaches it with. 60 or 300 in comparison to 4,500,000,000 years is pretty much the same.

 

Except for the fact that our progress over even the past 60 years has greatly eclipsed the last 300 years (which itself eclipsed the past thousands before it), and we continue to cover a great amount of ground.

That was the point I was trying to make! Thank you!

[PaulQ]

Yes, but what are those characteristics?

 

Organisms eat, metabolize, reproduce, etc...

 

I think it is directly relevant to this thread in that I think the essence of life is not to be found in matter. This is not to say that organisms are are possesed of some animating spirit, or soul, or elan vital, or what have you. When we look across the Earth we see a staggering variety of organisms. And if someone suspects that the organization of life could be expressed with exotic chemistry then I think they are tacitly acknowledging the organization we call "life" is independent of matter.

 

While the variety of organisms may appear staggering, many of these differences are superficial. To us, it seems staggering, but that would have more to do with our own limitations in our mental ability than it does with the actual state of affairs. It's been demonstrated that many of these various species share common ancestors, and in fact the variety we once thought occupied the earth really isn't as great as we once believed.

 

We like to believe that we are special, complex, and can only be expressed by exotic chemistry; but that is only our perception. We make assumptions that are probably not even true. Your question about why organisms differ from rocks is similar to the question, why is the oxygen molecule different from the hydrogen molecule? You can provide a scientific explanation as to what differentiates these two, but at a philosophical level, they are different because they are not the same.

 

And think too. What would making an organism entail? I do believe it is possible for people to create organisms from scratch. I don't know. But whatever it requires, it will not be because we found some special kind of matter which bestows life upon a natural system which we would sprinkle on things like fairy dust.

 

My understanding is that life exists, like other matter exists, and will appear in the universe wherever conditions are favorable; just as hydrogen and oxygen molecules will bond to create water given the right conditions.

[Shyone]

My understanding is that life exists, like other matter exists, and will appear in the universe wherever conditions are favorable; just as hydrogen and oxygen molecules will bond to create water given the right conditions.

This may sound silly, but I think we'll understand life better if we could find life on another planet.

 

I sometimes try to envision life elsewhere - another planet, interstellar space, in the center of a star - and I wonder how I would recognize that it is alive. It's pretty easy on this planet because we are familiar with the nature we see around us. I can say, for example, that a cloud is not a being, not alive, but the reason I know this has to do with a lot of understanding of the nature of the atmosphere, water vapor, "behavior" of clouds, etc. OTOH, in one sense, I'm being a bit arbitrary, but since we can't see anything that clouds do that suggests behavior that is not strictly determined by exterior forces, I think it's the correct decision.

 

Some have suggested that fire is a form of life. It breathes, moves, consumes, reproduces, etc. The production of energy in our bodies has been likened to fire - consumption of organic molecules, production of CO2, heat and energy. The major difference, aside from the predictability of fire, seems to be that there has been no continuous lineage of fire but instead short-lived and limited fires that occur independently of one another. OTOH, one could argue that the universe has a "tendency" to produce fire, and perhaps the organic material is only the means by which fires exist.

 

What we could recognize would be something with a similar basis in chemistry to our own chemistry. But that might severely limit our ability to tell if something is alive or not.

[Legion]

I also know, in some respect, what Rosen et al is talking about when they say "closed loop causation." I think, however, that natural systems are just simply not "closed" in any understandable sense.

I am still trying to understand closure to efficient cause Shyone. So the rough intuition I am about to offer may be mistaken.

 

Rosen states the following on page 244 of Life Itself. "a material system is an organism if, and only if, it is closed to efficient causation. That is, if f is any component of such a system, the question "why f?" has an answer within the system, which corresponds to the category of efficient cause of f."

 

A component is a subsystem of a natural system. Efficient cause is the process by which something is made.

 

Thus according to Rosen we seem to able to say... If every subsystem of a natural system is made by a process within it then that natural system is an organism. In other words, organisms fabricate themselves. This intepretation seems to be confirmed by Rosen on page 252 when he states the following. "... whenever we pull a fabricator inside a system by putting it together with what it fabricates, the result is essentially an (M, R)-system." (M, R) is shorthand for metabolism and repair, and (M, R)-systems are Rosen's relational model of organisms.

[Legion]

... immediately after a subject is dead is there really a physical difference between life and death?

I've thought this kind of question points out some important things. Say that one moment an organism is alive and the next it is dead. What has changed? I think in many cases there has been little, if any, material change. But the organization associated with life has ceased to exist.