All,
Steve and I have been talking off and on about the definition of aliveness and I just realized that I had written something on the subject (DUH!). It also contains a description of the natural design perspective that I was banging on about in the discussions around Darwin @ home. Anyway, the url is http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/nthompson/1-websitestuff/texts/Intentionality_is_the_Mark_of_the_Vital.pdf I just tested it so it should work. The file is pretty big, i.e., somewhat larger than the url, but the manuscript is not that long. Sorry for the size. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Professor of Psychology and Ethology Clark University [hidden email] http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/ [hidden email] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20050112/c3921cd4/attachment.htm |
But anyway .. what _is_ life?
In 1944 Schrodinger wrote The arrangements of the atoms in the most vital parts of an organism and the interplay of these arrangements differ in a fundamental way from all those arrangements of atoms which physicists and chemists have hitherto made the object of their experimental and theoretical research. Yet the difference which I have just termed fundamental is of such a kind that it might easily appear slight to anyone except a physicist who is thoroughly imbued with the knowledge that the laws of physics and chemistry are statistical throughout. For it is in relation to the statistical point of view that the structure of the vital parts of living organisms differs so entirely from that of any piece of matter that we physicists and chemists have ever handled physically in our laboratories or mentally at our writing desks. Four years later Shannon used a statistical point of view in defining what it means for systems to share information and communicate. Since then humans have become better at making systems communicate. Furthermore, the information-sharing capacity of human-engineered systems (their channel capacity, in the language of information theory) increases exponentially over time. The expanded information-sharing capacity of engineered systems has allowed such systems to demonstrate many of the behaviors and capacities that once differentiated what Schrodinger termed the ``vital parts of living organisms'' from other pieces of matter. In short, the line between the "animate" and the "inanimate" has blurred. It grows increasingly difficult to formulate the sense in which living organisms differ from pieces of matter that are human-engineered. Maybe what Nick has suggested is true: that what we mean by aliveness and should actually capture in defining life is that alive things feel and have intentions, etc. But of course there's no empirical criteria to distinguish feeling (conscious) things from inanimate things. That seems to be a can of worms without a cover. -- Kate Mullen | [hidden email] Physics Applied Computer Science Group | Tel. + 31-(0)20-59 87870 Dept. of Physics and Astronomy | Fax + 31-(0)20-44 47992 Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam | http://www.nat.vu.nl/~kate/ |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |