Would this mean that some philosophical questions cannot be answered from
the perspective of formal systems at all?
I have a couple of related questions: Conventional set theory, as I
understand it, can lead to "logical paradox" (as exposed in Godels theorem).
The hyper-set formalism, as I understand it, (and correct me if Im wrong)
starts with accepting this "paradox" as not being a problem (it claims that
that sets can be members of themselves), and then proceeds to establish
theorems. In the special case where the sets arent members of themselves,
hyperset theory degenerates into conventional set theory. Now, wouldn't
hyperset theory be "bigger" than conventional set theory and therefor
applicable to more philosophical questions (than conventional set theory)?
Onar writes:
> ...But it also true that an autopoietic (self-producing) system may be
> "kickstarted" by some external factory. For instance, all cells are
> initially produced by some other cell through mitosis (cell-division).
All mitosis demonstrates is that one autopoietic system can self-reproduce into
another autopoetic system. It doesnt answer the BIG question of how we could
get something that wasnt yet autopoietic to become autopoietic. (the original
kick-start). In molecular biology, with fiddling with the genomic makeup of a
cell, we can alter an existing autopoetic system...but we havent created one
denovo yet.
Personally, I hope that it would be possible to kick-start an autopoeitic system
(from scratch). If we could, then that could lead to a technology of
autopoeitic systems. Otherwise, we are limited to just tinkering with existing
autopoietic systems (participating in evolution).
Mike writes:
> ...Certainly, from the elemental/atomic level, the parts are not produced by
> the system itself. And humans cannot survive on pure elements, our diet
> requiring many complex molecules typically found in other organic life
> (proteins, carbohydrates, enzymes)
My point was that there is a material flow-through in the system. Of course the
material comes from the environment (and necessarily, due to evolutionary
reasons, in forms other than simple hydrocarbons). There seems to be three
different issues here that can be separated: 1). the functional organization
of the parts in the system, 2) whether or not the material that makes up the
parts changes (or is turned over) with time, and 3) the origin of the material
itself. I have been trying to convince people that (2) is also important in
considering autopoeitic systems that have a material nature.
Mike continues:
> ... Some parts are not normally recycled or replaced-
> bone, teeth, brain cells, DNA...
Actually bone material is continually being dissolved and reconstituted. Its an
amazingly dynamic process. (not many people realize this). And even though
neurons in the brain dont divide, the material that makes them up is being
turned over. Lysosomes are continually "chewing" up proteins and the ribosomes
are translating new proteins. Teeth, Im not sure about, but I think they, too,
are continueally growing (slowly). I know that rat teeth will get very long if
they arent ground down by chewing. DNA may be static for non-dividing
cells...(although I seem to remember vaguely some kind of mechanism for DNA
repair...which would suggest that it too may by turned over even when the cell
isn't dividing...)
Mike continues:
> So the point that machines are made up of externally-produced parts and
> living things made of internally-produced parts might be better modified to
> say that the difference is in the utilization of 'parts' (regardless of
> origin). We would then check whether the utilization of parts was
> internally or externally directed. This might avoid classifying the
> recipient of an artificial heart as a "machine".
Or maybe we could say that living systems have at least some parts that are
continually internally produced.
Mike writes:
> I understand Rosen in LIFE ITSELF to make the point that living systems are
> fully self-organized, vs. an artifact that has externally-imposed
> organization. However, there is an infinite(or at least 'vast') regress of
> causes for biologic organisms. How can any one be "closed to efficient
> causation"?
I like to think of efficient causation as referring to an enzyme that converts a
substrate molecule into a product molecule. Consider any particular product
molecule. The immediate efficient cause would be the particular enzyme of the
reaction. One could then ask for the efficient cause of that enzyme. If you
keep asking these questions (relating to the efficient cause of the answer to
the previous question) and the answer stays within the system, then it is closed
to efficient cause. For example, in an organism, all enzymes come from proteins
that were translated inside the organism.
Mike continues:
> Or similarly, how can an organism be fully self-producing when
> each half of its genetic code sprang fully formed from its parents during
> meiosis...
The fact that an organism can re-produce and that mechanisms exist for the
changing of the self-image are issues different (I think) from the
self-producing idea.
Mike continues:
> But not all metabolic/dissipative systems are in continuous use. Dormant
> bacteria and viruses don't appear to 'metabolize' or 'dissipate'. Do dry
> seeds? Should we consider them alive?
Dry seeds raise some interesting possibilities:
1) they are alive. Just their internal clock is slowed down to nearly a
stop...they await for an external signal (moisture) to speed the clock up.
2) they would be categorized as dead and make the miraculous jump
(transcending the threshold) to being alive when placed in the right conditions.
(I vote for 1 though)
Jeff Prideaux