Re: do cells need to "train"?
DON MIKULECKY (MIKULECKY%VCUVAX.BITNET@letterbox.rl.ac.uk)
Sat, 2 Sep 1995 08:58:57 -0400
Don Mikulecky, MCV/VCU, Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
Don wrote:
>>How about this: Cell NETWORKS do "train" in the sense of artificial
>>neural networks training on exemplars.
>
Onar answered:
>
> Yes, but this brings us into the multicellular realm. I was thinking about
> single-celled organisms (i.e. the prototypical cell) in particular. The reason
I
> wonder is because the cell is exactly the prototype of autopoiesis. If the cel
l
> is the only organism which does not have to "train" to stay fit, then all othe
r
> kinds of organisms are not directly autopoietic. "Training" sounds a little
> un-autopoietic. An autopoietic system is by definition a perpetual motion
> machine and should therefore not have to train to self-maintain, or at least I
> will have to modify my view of autopoiesis if this is the case.
> But I agree that training is a fundamental aspect of multi-cellular
> organisms.
>
>
>
> Onar.
A number of things:
1) Single cell organisms never exist in isolation....the level and extent
of signalling between them and between them and their environment may differ
somewhat from the multi-cell but then so do a lot of other attributes.
In the sense i was speaking there is no distinction.
2) You clearly are speaking figuratively about "perpetual motion machines".
These are not p. m. m. of the first kind, since they utilize energy.
Nor are they p. p. m. of the second kind since they are, in fact, a result
of the second law of thermodynamics (Kay and Schneider, Math. Comp. Modeling,
19:25-48(1994) [the special issue I edited]).
Best wishes,
Don Mikulecky