[Fis] Mind, Life & Machines

[Pedro C. Marijuán]

Mind, Life & Machines

*From Mike Levin: Living Things Are Not Machines (Also, They
Totally Are)*

To start with, different contexts require us to adopt diverse 
perspectives as to
how much mind, or mechanism, is before us. The continuing battle over 
whether
living beings are or are not machines is based on two mistaken but pervasive
beliefs. First, the belief that we can objectively and uniquely nail 
down what
something is. And second, that our formal models of life, computers or 
materials
tell the entire story of their capabilities and limitations.

Despite the continued expansion and mainstream prominence of molecular
biology, and its reductionist machine metaphors, or likely because of 
it, there has
been an increasing upsurge of papers and science social media posts 
arguing that
“living things are not machines” (LTNM). There are thoughtful, informative,
nuanced pieces exploring this direction, such as this exploration of 
“new post-
genomic biology” and others, masterfully reviewed and analyzed by cognitive
scientist and historian Ann-Sophie Barwich and historian Matthew James
Rodriguez at Indiana University Bloomington. (A non-exhaustive list includes
engineer Perry Marshall’s look at how biology transcends the limits of
computation, computer scientist Alexander Ororbia’s discussion of “mortal
computation,” biologist Stuart Kauffman and computer scientist Andrea Roli’s
look at the evolution of the biosphere, and the works of philosophers 
like Daniel
Nicholson, George Kampis and Günther Witzani.)

Many others, however, use the siren song of biological exceptionalism and
outdated or poorly defined notions of “machines” to push a view that 
misleads lay
readers and stalls progress in fields such as evolution, cell biology, 
biomedicine,
cognitive science (and basal cognition), computer science, bioengineering,
philosophy and more. All of these fields are held back by hidden assumptions
within the LTNM-lens that are better shed in favor of a more fundamental 
framework.

In arguing against LTNM, I use cognitive science-based
approaches to understand and manipulate biological substrates.
I have claimed that cognition goes all the way down to the molecular 
level; after all,
we find memory and learning in small networks of mutually interacting
chemicals, and studies show that molecular circuits can act as agential 
materials.
I take the existence of goals, preferences, problem-solving skills, 
attention,
memories, etc., in biological substrates such as cells and tissues so 
seriously that
I’ve staked my entire laboratory career on this approach.

Some molecular biology colleagues consider my views — that bottom-up
molecular approaches simply won’t suffice, and must be augmented with 
the tools
and concepts of cognitive science — to be an extreme form of animism. 
Thus, my
quarrel with LTNM is not coming from a place of sympathy with molecular
reductionism; I consider myself squarely within the organicist tradition of
theoretical biologists like Denis Noble, Brian Goodwin, Robert Rosen, 
Francisco
Varela and Humberto Maturana, whose works all focus on the irreducible,
creative, agential quality of life; however, I want to push this view 
further than
many of its adherents might.

LTNM must go, but we should not replace this concept with its opposite,
the dreaded presumption that living things are machines;
that is equally wrong and also holds back progress.
Still, it is easy to see why the LTNM-lens persists. The LTNM framing 
gives the
feeling that one has said something powerful — cut nature at its joints with
respect to the most important thing there is, life and mind, by 
establishing a
fundamental category that separates life from the rest of the cold, 
inanimate
universe. It feels as if it forestalls the constant, pernicious efforts 
to reduce the
majesty of life to predictable mechanisms with no ability to drive 
consideration or
the first-person experiences that make life worth living.
“Many use the siren song of biological exceptionalism and outdated
or poorly defined notions of ‘machines’ to push a view that misleads
lay readers and stalls progress.”

But this is all smoke and mirrors, from an idea that took hold as a 
bulwark against
reductionism and mechanism; it refuses to go away even though we have
outgrown it. The approach I am advocating for is anchored by the 
principles of
pluralism and pragmatism: no system definitively is our formal model of 
it, but if
we move beyond expecting everything to be a nail for one particular favorite
hammer, we are freed up to do the important work of actually 
characterizing the
sets of tools that may open new frontiers.

As scientists and philosophers, we owe everyone realistic stories of 
scaling and
gradual metamorphosis along a continuum — not of magical and sharp
transitions — and a description of the tools we propose to use to 
interact with a
wide range of systems, along with a commitment to empirical evaluation 
of those
tools. We must battle our innate mind-blindness with new theories in the 
field of
Diverse Intelligence and the facilitating technology it enables, much as 
a theory
and apparatus for electromagnetism enabled access to an enormous, unifying
spectrum of phenomena of which we had previously had only narrow, disparate-
seeming glimpses. We must resist the urge to see the limits of reality 
in the limits
of our formal models. Everything, even things that look simple to us, 
are a lot
more than we think they are because we, too, are finite observers — wondrous
embodied minds with limited perspectives but massive potential and the moral
responsibility to get this (at least somewhat) right.
/
/
/See an enlarged version of this text at: /

/https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.noemamag.com/living-things-are-not-machines-also-they-totally-are/*__;Lw!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TuRf27kMqxXb6vn61GDuY5SQFOpW-2bJsv9g_xjpV95LAvd4KXEvjSvlYJyKOCwm5VRzNhHx_qeJdN1pix7IJUVaKbP7$ 

/-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/

* From William B. Miller, Jr. : **Information in a cellular framework*– 
abstract for discussion

See in the accompanying attached file (for technical reasons)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250513/35fb4112/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Information in a cellular framework - FIS.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 30720 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250513/35fb4112/attachment-0001.doc>