Hey, don't blame me. I wasn't trying to judge anyone, just noting a property of
scientific theories. If he is accepted in certain circles then I bet that is in
the field of Complexity. This field is itself only recently starting to gain
acceptance in the scientific community, basically because chaos ploughed the way
and because of various successes in neural networks, ecology, Alife and
management.
> Sercondly, life crawling out of a test tube is one thing, but
>"Artificial Life" and "AI" have been being promoted enthusiastically
>by many for some time.
By "test tube" I implied computer test tubes as well.
> Thirdly, any resemblance between a human centered definition
>of life and either the above mentioned or Rosen's (M,R) systems will
>clear up your misconception about the definition being obvious.
>Remeber that this round got started because PCP ONCE AGAIN began
>a discussion (and a new node, I think) around the idea "let's do
>a meaning of life".
My sociological definition of life isn't very useful, from a technological point
of view. But it seems to be in complete harmony with Rosen's definition of life.
All of the greek causes (material, efficient, formal, and final) are all very
clever classifications of the *human* conceptual world. Humans _make_ things,
the things we make have _functions_, humans are power beings and _enforce_
things (formal cause) and, finally, humans have goals and _intentions_.
> I once more recommend Casti's book "Alternate Realities"
>if you have doubts about Rosen being understood and recognized
>in the community.
I need to understand Rosen before I can make up my mind about him. Maybe indeed
I will read the book.
Onar.