<!doctype html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>
<span style="font-size: 13pt;">Dear Lou and All,</span>
</div>
<div class="default-style">
</div>
<div class="default-style">
<span style="font-size: 13pt;">This is my idea of a good question. Another is what is the distinction, if not mind, between</span><span style="font-size: 13pt;"> 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".</span>
</div>
<div class="default-style">
</div>
<div class="default-style">
<span style="font-size: 13pt;">We have here, I think, a case for simplexity in the acceptation of A. Berthoz (<em>La Simplexité</em> (Jacob, Paris, 2009). M</span><span style="font-size: 13pt;">achines operate <em>with</em> information; human minds operate <em>on </em>information. </span>
</div>
<div class="default-style">
</div>
<div class="default-style">
<span style="font-size: 13pt;">With apologies to the American humorist Will Rogers (1879 - 1935): "I never met a machine I didn't like!"</span>
</div>
<div class="default-style">
</div>
<div class="default-style">
<span style="font-size: 13pt;">Thank you and best wishes,</span>
</div>
<div class="default-style">
<span style="font-size: 13pt;">Joseph</span>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
Le 13.05.2025 20:53 CEST, Louis Kauffman <loukau@gmail.com> a écrit :
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div class="">
Dear Folks,
</div> A key question for this discussion is: What is a machine?
<div class="">
One working definition of a machine is that it is an instantiation in physical processes of a specified system of rules and procedures.
<div class="">
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.
</div>
<div class="">
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.
</div>
<div class="">
</div>
<div class="">
One may want to extend this definition to at least machines that are <span style="font-size: 13pt;">self-modifyinDeg</span> 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.
</div>
<div class="">
Best,
</div>
<div class="">
Lou Kauffman
</div>
<div class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div>
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="">
On May 13, 2025, at 8:27 AM, Pedro C. Marijuán <<a class="" href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com">pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class=""><span class="" style="font-size: x-large;">Mind, Life & Machines</span></p>
<p class=""><strong class=""><span class="" style="font-size: large;">From Mike Levin: Living Things Are Not Machines (Also, They<br class="">
Totally Are)</span></strong></p>
<p class="">To start with, different contexts require us to adopt diverse perspectives as to<br class="">
how much mind, or mechanism, is before us. The continuing battle over whether<br class="">
living beings are or are not machines is based on two mistaken but pervasive<br class="">
beliefs. First, the belief that we can objectively and uniquely nail down what<br class="">
something is. And second, that our formal models of life, computers or materials<br class="">
tell the entire story of their capabilities and limitations.</p>
<p class="">Despite the continued expansion and mainstream prominence of molecular<br class="">
biology, and its reductionist machine metaphors, or likely because of it, there has<br class="">
been an increasing upsurge of papers and science social media posts arguing that<br class="">
“living things are not machines” (LTNM). There are thoughtful, informative,<br class="">
nuanced pieces exploring this direction, such as this exploration of “new post-<br class="">
genomic biology” and others, masterfully reviewed and analyzed by cognitive<br class="">
scientist and historian Ann-Sophie Barwich and historian Matthew James<br class="">
Rodriguez at Indiana University Bloomington. (A non-exhaustive list includes<br class="">
engineer Perry Marshall’s look at how biology transcends the limits of<br class="">
computation, computer scientist Alexander Ororbia’s discussion of “mortal<br class="">
computation,” biologist Stuart Kauffman and computer scientist Andrea Roli’s<br class="">
look at the evolution of the biosphere, and the works of philosophers like Daniel<br class="">
Nicholson, George Kampis and Günther Witzani.)</p>
<p class="">Many others, however, use the siren song of biological exceptionalism and<br class="">
outdated or poorly defined notions of “machines” to push a view that misleads lay<br class="">
readers and stalls progress in fields such as evolution, cell biology, biomedicine,<br class="">
cognitive science (and basal cognition), computer science, bioengineering,<br class="">
philosophy and more. All of these fields are held back by hidden assumptions<br class="">
within the LTNM-lens that are better shed in favor of a more fundamental framework.</p> In arguing against LTNM, I use cognitive science-based
<br class="">
approaches to understand and manipulate biological substrates.
<br class="">
I have claimed that cognition goes all the way down to the molecular level; after all,
<br class="">
we find memory and learning in small networks of mutually interacting
<br class="">
chemicals, and studies show that molecular circuits can act as agential materials.
<br class="">
I take the existence of goals, preferences, problem-solving skills, attention,
<br class="">
memories, etc., in biological substrates such as cells and tissues so seriously that
<br class="">
I’ve staked my entire laboratory career on this approach.
<br class="">
<br class="">
Some molecular biology colleagues consider my views — that bottom-up
<br class="">
molecular approaches simply won’t suffice, and must be augmented with the tools
<br class="">
and concepts of cognitive science — to be an extreme form of animism. Thus, my
<br class="">
quarrel with LTNM is not coming from a place of sympathy with molecular
<br class="">
reductionism; I consider myself squarely within the organicist tradition of
<br class="">
theoretical biologists like Denis Noble, Brian Goodwin, Robert Rosen, Francisco
<br class="">
Varela and Humberto Maturana, whose works all focus on the irreducible,
<br class="">
creative, agential quality of life; however, I want to push this view further than
<br class="">
many of its adherents might.
<br class="">
<br class="">
LTNM must go, but we should not replace this concept with its opposite,
<br class="">
the dreaded presumption that living things are machines;
<br class="">
that is equally wrong and also holds back progress.
<br class="">
Still, it is easy to see why the LTNM-lens persists. The LTNM framing gives the
<br class="">
feeling that one has said something powerful — cut nature at its joints with
<br class="">
respect to the most important thing there is, life and mind, by establishing a
<br class="">
fundamental category that separates life from the rest of the cold, inanimate
<br class="">
universe. It feels as if it forestalls the constant, pernicious efforts to reduce the
<br class="">
majesty of life to predictable mechanisms with no ability to drive consideration or
<br class="">
the first-person experiences that make life worth living.
<br class="">
“Many use the siren song of biological exceptionalism and outdated
<br class="">
or poorly defined notions of ‘machines’ to push a view that misleads
<br class="">
lay readers and stalls progress.”
<br class="">
<br class="">
But this is all smoke and mirrors, from an idea that took hold as a bulwark against
<br class="">
reductionism and mechanism; it refuses to go away even though we have
<br class="">
outgrown it. The approach I am advocating for is anchored by the principles of
<br class="">
pluralism and pragmatism: no system definitively is our formal model of it, but if
<br class="">
we move beyond expecting everything to be a nail for one particular favorite
<br class="">
hammer, we are freed up to do the important work of actually characterizing the
<br class="">
sets of tools that may open new frontiers.
<br class="">
<br class="">
As scientists and philosophers, we owe everyone realistic stories of scaling and
<br class="">
gradual metamorphosis along a continuum — not of magical and sharp
<br class="">
transitions — and a description of the tools we propose to use to interact with a
<br class="">
wide range of systems, along with a commitment to empirical evaluation of those
<br class="">
tools. We must battle our innate mind-blindness with new theories in the field of
<br class="">
Diverse Intelligence and the facilitating technology it enables, much as a theory
<br class="">
and apparatus for electromagnetism enabled access to an enormous, unifying
<br class="">
spectrum of phenomena of which we had previously had only narrow, disparate-
<br class="">
seeming glimpses. We must resist the urge to see the limits of reality in the limits
<br class="">
of our formal models. Everything, even things that look simple to us, are a lot
<br class="">
more than we think they are because we, too, are finite observers — wondrous
<br class="">
embodied minds with limited perspectives but massive potential and the moral
<br class="">
responsibility to get this (at least somewhat) right.
<br class=""><em class=""><br class=""></em>
<br class=""><em class="">See an enlarged version of this text at: </em>
<br class="">
<p class=""><em class=""><span class="" dir="ltr" style="left: 4.32%; top: 97.04%; font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*8.00px); font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(0.914424);" role="presentation"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.noemamag.com/living-things-are-not-machines-also-they-totally-are/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!TuRf27kMqxXb6vn61GDuY5SQFOpW-2bJsv9g_xjpV95LAvd4KXEvjSvlYJyKOCwm5VRzNhHx_qeJdN1pix7IJbKTwFLX$">https://www.noemamag.com/living-things-are-not-machines-also-they-totally-are/</a></span></em></p>
<p class=""><em class=""><span class="" dir="ltr" style="left: 4.32%; top: 97.04%; font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*8.00px); font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(0.914424);" role="presentation">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br class=""></span><span class="" dir="ltr" style="left: 47.29%; top: 97.04%; font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*8.00px); font-family: serif;" role="presentation"> </span></em></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; tab-stops: 21.3pt;"><span class=""><span class="" style="font-size: large;"><strong class=""> From William B. Miller, Jr. : </strong></span></span><span class="" style="font-size: large;"><strong class=""><span class="">Information in a cellular framework</span></strong><span class=""> – abstract for discussion</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; tab-stops: 21.3pt;"><span class="" style="font-size: large;"><span class="">See in the accompanying attached file (for technical reasons)<br class=""></span></span></p>
<div class="" align="left">
<blockquote>
<div class="" style="text-align: center;">
<span class="" style="font-size: x-large;"><span class=""> </span></span>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class=""> </span>
</div>
<div class="" style="text-align: justify;">
<span class=""> </span>
</div><span class="" dir="ltr" style="left: 47.29%; top: 97.04%; font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*8.00px); font-family: serif;" role="presentation"> </span>
</div><span id="cid:47CD06F7-FD49-44BD-88F5-6D7C30D846B1"><Information in a cellular framework - FIS.doc></span>_______________________________________________
<br class="">
Fis mailing list
<br class=""><a class="" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a>
<br class=""><a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
<br class="">
----------
<br class="">
INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
<br class="">
<br class="">
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
<br class="">
Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a>
<br class="">
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.
<br class=""><a href="http://listas.unizar.es">http://listas.unizar.es</a>
<br class="">
----------
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div> _______________________________________________
<br>
Fis mailing list
<br>
Fis@listas.unizar.es
<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
<br>
----------
<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a>
<br>
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.
<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es">http://listas.unizar.es</a>
<br>
----------
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>