Re: do cells need to "train"?
DON MIKULECKY (MIKULECKY%VCUVAX.BITNET@letterbox.rl.ac.uk)
Fri, 1 Sep 1995 16:48:59 -0400
Don Mikulecky,MCV/VCU,Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
reply to Onar:
How about this: Cell NETWORKS do "train" in the sense of artificial
neural networks training on exemplars. This fits Varela and our idea that
all communication between cells makes these networks "cognative". Since
this "training" involves "exercising receptors, endo- and exocytosis,
second messengers, etc. etc. you are probably right on the mark!
Best,
Don Mikulecky
P. S. Jeff Prideaux's tumor cell model exhibits these ideas to some extent.
I've been reading references you recom ended. Goertzel's "Chaotic Logic"
is neat. He cites Kampis a lot so I got his book too. Mingers say some
things about M & V that make me wonder if we were premature in seeing
convergence between Rosen and M and V. I quote from their six principles:
iii) "Determine if the unity is a mechanistic system, that is the component
properties are capable of satisfying certain relations that determine in
the unity the interactions and transformations of these components. If this is
the case, proceed to 4. If not, the unity is not an autopoietic system. His
(Mingers') interpretation is that the unity must operate mechanistically.
I just got M & V so I'll see if the problem in there or in Mingers'
interpretation. On the other hand, Kampis and Goertzel and Rosen seem totally
in agreement.
D. Mikulecky