> From: Hans-Cees Speel <hanss@zondisk.sepa.tudelft.nl>
> Organization: TU Delft
> To: Bruce Edmonds pcp <b.edmonds@mmu.ac.uk>
> Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 11:28:24 +0000
> Subject: Re: "Re: "rosen and life itself.""
> Reply-to: hanss@sepa.tudelft.nl
> Return-receipt-to: hanss@sepa.tudelft.nl
> Priority: normal
> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.42a)
> Message-ID: <3D3992E5687@zondisk.sepa.tudelft.nl>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> I
> > > understand that if there is no 1:1 relation between parts and
> > > functions, this is thus not analytic [am I right?]. But what does
> > > this have to do with synthetic? You can't just multiply
> > > structures, can you? How should I interpreted this?
> >
> > Note: in my answer to this I let the following shorthand exist... a,
> > b refer to the protein subunits, and 1, 2, 3, refer to the substrate
> > and the two cofactors respectively.
> >
>
> > > > The practical result is in the relation of functional
> > > > components to materia
> > l
> > > > parts. A functional component (such as metabolism, repair,
> > > > replication in M-R systems) HAS NO 1:1 mapping to the material
> > > > parts (biochemistry, anatomy). It depends on them but can not
> > > > be preserved if certain ORGANIZATION is destroyed.
>
> > > If this were possible, analytic models
> > > > would be equivalent to synthetic models and we'd be talking
> > > > about a machine
>
> > > > Further, all synthetic models are analytic models.
>
> > > > There are analytic models which are not systhetic models.
>
> > > this is what I do not understand, apparently this is the case
> > > with non-machine models.
>
>
> Let me see if I understand now. An analytic model is when I can see a
> function and describe it. Some analytic models are also synthetic,
> meaning that i can find a structure for every function 1:1. If this
> is so, I am dealing with a machine.
> If this is not the case, i am dealing with something beyond the
> machine metaphor, and that could be an organism.
>
> Am I right?
>
> Hans-Cees
>
That sounds right to me....
Don Mikulecky