[Fis] Mind, Life & Machines

Wed May 14 09:43:49 CEST 2025

Dear Lou and All,

This is my idea of a good question. Another is what is the distinction, if not mind, between human life and machines. The systems we call human beings instantiate lots of machines: pumps, levers, on-off switches and so on. However, their recursive behavior, to use Lou's term is for me solely circular or "cyclic", not "spiral".

We have here, I think, a case for simplexity in the acceptation of A. Berthoz (La Simplexité (Jacob, Paris, 2009). Machines operate with information; human minds operate on information. 

With apologies to the American humorist Will Rogers (1879 - 1935): "I never met a machine I didn't like!"

Thank you and best wishes,
Joseph

> Le 13.05.2025 20:53 CEST, Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> a écrit :
>  
>  
> Dear Folks,
> A key question for this discussion is: What is a machine?
> One working definition of a machine is that it is an instantiation in physical processes of a specified system of rules and procedures.
> In other words a machine is a realization of a formal system in the sense of mathematical logic. Thus realized Turing machines are machines in this sense.
> Note that behaviors of such machines, happening recursively, are not mathematically predictable in general. Machine behaviours go beyond the possibilities of mathematical prediction to processes unfolding in time.
>  
> One may want to extend this definition to at least machines that are self-modifyinDeg in terms of their own rules and procedures, and one may want to discuss the extent to which a biological organism's behaviours can be “captured” by such a set of rules, and how our finding such rules is a reflection of our interaction/observation leading to knowledge of the organism.
> Best,
> Lou Kauffman
>  
> 
> 
> > On May 13, 2025, at 8:27 AM, Pedro C. Marijuán <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com mailto:pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 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/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!SIYuTA149ePHJyQBW6htu2hZL_ngzlbtqnRfUw4zm_XJgqLSJL45hUcZ_lniOFZkhQIqal8V2IBUfvQIZwKCZHJ81_Y$  https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.noemamag.com/living-things-are-not-machines-also-they-totally-are/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TuRf27kMqxXb6vn61GDuY5SQFOpW-2bJsv9g_xjpV95LAvd4KXEvjSvlYJyKOCwm5VRzNhHx_qeJdN1pix7IJbKTwFLX$
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> >  From William B. Miller, Jr. : Information in a cellular framework – abstract for discussion
> > 
> > See in the accompanying attached file (for technical reasons)
> > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > 
> >  
> >  
> > <Information in a cellular framework - FIS.doc>_______________________________________________
> > Fis mailing list
> > Fis at listas.unizar.es mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es
> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
> > ----------
> > INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
> > 
> > Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> > Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
> > Recuerde que si est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el momento en que lo desee.
> > http://listas.unizar.es 
> > ----------
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
> 
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es 
> ----------
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250514/353f28f0/attachment-0001.html>