General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Robert Rosen's book, "Life Itself"

Started by Jim Menegay · · Last activity · 6 posts · 345 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
30 December 2003
Last activity
30 December 2003
Original author
Jim Menegay
Posts
6
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
345
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–6 of 6
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Has anyone out there read this 1991 book, or any of Rosen's other writing? If you look on Amazon,
    the book gets incredibly glowing reader reviews. I read "Life Itself" a few years ago.

    His views seem interesting to me in relation to the question of "What is Life?" or the recent thread
    "a definition of 'living being'"

    Rosen is pushing a viewpoint he calls Relational Biology and which is apparently based on the ideas
    of Rashevksy. This seems to be a kind of General Systems Theory, except that instead of the
    quantitative mathematics of differential equations, Rosen uses the qualitative mathematics of
    category theory. Also shared with General System Theory is a vague distrust of reductionism.

    The interesting thing, to me, is that he uses Aristotle's taxonomy of "causality" in a novel way.

    It is a cliche that biological systems are open with respect to material causation - they are
    thermodynamic open systems.

    It is also a foundation of our mechanistic view of nature that they are closed with respect to final
    causation - they serve no one's purpose but their own.

    But Rosen claims that they are also unusual when you look at formal and efficient causation. Formal
    cause, of course, means information. Living systems take no, or almost no, instruction from outside
    themselves, if you define "instruction" narrowly. But define it more broadly, and the ways in which
    living systems receive information from the outside world and convert this formal causation into a
    response (utilizing the other modes of causation) is quite interesting indeed to biologists. So is
    the flow of formal causation from past environments into current genetics via natural selection.

    The key idea, though, relating to attempts to define "Life", has to do with efficient cause. Rosen
    claims that living systems are almost completely closed to efficient causation. Enzymes, for
    example, can be viewed as the efficient cause of the product molecule that they produce. But the
    efficient cause of the enzyme is itself a molecule within the cell, as is the efficient cause of
    that, and so on, ad infinitum. Life is closed with respect to efficient cause. And no other system
    in the universe is closed in this way to both efficient and final cause.

    That is, Rosen thinks that a minimal definition of life has to include metabolism. In fact, though
    he doesn't say this, it apparently has to be "autopoeic" in the sense of Varella and Maturana.

    Therefore, a naked gene would not be alive, by Rosen's definition, because it relies on the
    environment for its "replicase" function rather than creating that functionality itself. It is open
    to efficient cause.

    It is not clear how you would APPLY any of these ideas in every day biology. But, I do think they
    are interesting at a philosophical level.

  2. "Jim Menegay" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    So is the flow of formal causation from past environments into current genetics via natural
    selection.

    It makes me sniff *good* blood when I saw you wrote this (and also some of the things that
    I snipped).

    Because it seems to accord with an important part of my approach - the only one that works for me -
    which is to "analyse and categorize into focus" some of the most often missed (not recognized/not
    paid evolution-theoretical attention to) environmental challenges or situations (to individuals) in
    and throughout phylogeny (and very much also of key current social and commonly personal relevance).

    As I largely by instinct and trial and error tried to develope this approach, I was almost
    constantly up against an obstacle: my own myopic and reductionistic cognitive and intellectual
    inclination.

    So, I had to both develope a crutch in shape of the "Tolerance Principle", and train myself
    to use it.

    (I pinched this principle from where I found it derived from the Uncertainty Principle and coinage
    by Jakob Bronowski - inside his book The Ascent Of Man; but at least I have put it to more concrete
    concEPTual work than Bronowski ever did.

    NB. I did not steal that book!)

    Quoted message said:

    Therefore, a naked gene would not be alive, by Rosen's definition, because it relies on the
    environment for its "replicase" function rather than creating that functionality itself. It is
    open to efficient cause.

    It is not clear how you would APPLY any of these ideas in every day biology. But, I do think they
    are interesting at a philosophical level.


    Tom Hendricks (who often writes to s.b.e.) pushes the idea that a living creature has to be an
    "energy moderator". I like that idea so much that it has become part of my EPT perspective. (Seems I
    have to admit being a klEPTomaniac.)

    Regards,

    P

  3. "Peter F." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    "Jim Menegay" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]... [snip] As I largely by instinct and trial and error tried
    to develope this approach, I was almost constantly up against an obstacle: my own myopic and
    reductionistic cognitive and intellectual inclination.

    So, I had to both develope a crutch in shape of the "Tolerance Principle", and train myself
    to use it.

    (I pinched this principle from where I found it derived from the Uncertainty Principle and coinage
    by Jakob Bronowski - inside his book The Ascent Of Man; but at least I have put it to more
    concrete concEPTual work than Bronowski ever did.

    NB. I did not steal that book!)

    [snip] Tom Hendricks (who often writes to s.b.e.) pushes the idea that a living creature has to be
    an "energy moderator". I like that idea so much that it has become part of my EPT perspective.
    (Seems I have to admit being a klEPTomaniac.)

    Peter,

    I am not the student of human psychology that you are. But, it has always struck me as curious that
    people (myself included) so enthusiasticly seek to assume the transmitter role in horizontal meme
    transfers. This is advantageous to the meme, but not obviously advantageous to self. Yet, they are
    strangely reluctant to assume the receptor role, which can be very advantageous to self.

    We are not constructed to improve ourselves - after all, we will not be around very long in any
    case. Instead, we are constructed to make ourselves look good, since our genes may persist. That is
    one explanation of the phenomenon, anyways.

    Jim

  4. "Jim Menegay" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    it has always struck me as curious that people (myself included) so enthusiasticly seek to assume
    the transmitter role in horizontal meme transfers. This is advantageous to the meme, but not
    obviously advantageous to self. Yet, they are strangely reluctant to assume the receptor role,
    which can be very advantageous to self.

    Quoted message said:

    We are not constructed to improve ourselves - after all, we will not be around very long in any
    case. Instead, we are constructed to make ourselves look good, since our genes may persist. That
    is one explanation of the phenomenon, anyways.

    That is sure to be part of the equation. Personally I cannot help but also including the insidiously
    motivational effect of the type of conditioned-in neurological states that I prefer to name with the
    acronym "CURSES" (alt. ~ CCKHHURSES).

    I see many of our instincts (~ontogenetically hardwired neurophysioanatomical patterns) as
    springboards for behaviours that at the same time keep CURSES selectively unconscious AND that
    (after rerouting of the output from neurons that store these conditioned in subconscious states of
    potential fear and anxiety, i.e. store CURSES) as if uses CURSES as an endogenous fuel for the
    taking of whatever mental/behavioural "opportunity".

    It is obvious that not all "opportunities", that are in some way or for any reason mentally
    and behaviourally "taken", also turn-out to be profitable in the sense of resulting in
    reproductive success.

    E.g., some famous composers and musicians died childless; As far as I know Shubert and Beethoven are
    two such. (J.S. Bach on the other hand was very succedssful in this way, too.)

    [Apropos which, I have found it useful - and rather satisfying - to think about, analyse and
    explain, ourselves and our AEVASIVE characteristics as products of "opportunity" and "adversity"
    type motivational/selective/evolutionary pressures; and then especially to fundamentally explain
    "AEVASIVE" by help of recognizing that throughout our phylogeny there have been frequent occurrences
    of overlap between evolutionary opportunity type pressures and *specifically* a subtype of life-
    situational adversity type pressure that I have defined in depth and I refer to as "selective
    Hibernation imploring type situations".]

    Best regards,

    Peter (pusher of my EPT memes)

  5. << Tom Hendricks (who often writes to s.b.e.) pushes the idea that a living creature has to be an
    "energy moderator". I like that idea so much that it has become part of my EPT perspective. (Seems I
    have to admit being a klEPTomaniac.)

    Or a 'klep-TOM-aniac. And I couldn't be more delighted.

    Tom, as in...

    Regards, << P

  6. You got me good! :-)

    You did it, TO_Me! :-)

    The author of EPT has been outpointed! %-<

    Cheers Tom,

    Peter

    "TomHendricks474" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    << Tom Hendricks (who often writes to s.b.e.) pushes the idea that a


    living

    Quoted message said:

    creature has to be an "energy moderator". I like that idea so much that it has become part of my
    EPT perspective. (Seems I have to admit being a klEPTomaniac.)

    Or a 'klep-TOM-aniac. And I couldn't be more delighted.

    Tom, as in...

    Regards, << P >>

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.