Reflections on a Theory of Organisms Export

@book{citeulike:1529843, abstract = {{<P>Are living organisms--as Descartes argued--just machines? Or is the nature of life such that it can never be fully explained by mechanistic models? In this thought-provoking and controversial book, eminent geophysicist Walter M. Elsasser argues that the behavior of living organisms cannot be reduced to physico-chemical causality. Suggesting that molecular biology today is at the same point as Newtonian physics on the eve of the quantum revolution, Elsasser lays the foundation for a theoretical biology that points the way toward a natural philosophy of organic life.</P><P>Explicitly repudiating "vitalism" (the notion that the laws of nature need to be modified when applied to living organisms), Elsasser argues instead that the structural complexity of even a single living cell is "transcomputational"--that is, beyond the power of any imaginable system to compute. Beginning from this insight, Elsasser leads the reader through a step-by-step process that ultimately arrives at the conclusion that living and non-living matter are separated by "a no-man's land of irrationality."</P><P>Trained in Germany as a physicist, Elsasser first pondered the implications of quantum mechanics for biology as early as 1951. The more closely he studied the inherent complexity of life, the more skeptical he became of the reductionist view of organisms as tiny machines. "An organism," he concluded, "is a source of causal chains which cannot be traced beyond a terminal point because they are lost in the unfathomable complexity of the organism." Like the physicist who works within the bounds of an unfathomable universe, Elsasser argues, the biologist must seek answers within a system that is no less unfathomable.</P>}}, author = {Elsasser, Walter M.}, citeulike-article-id = {1529843}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike09-20&amp;path=ASIN/0801859700}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike01-21&amp;path=ASIN/0801859700}, citeulike-linkout-2 = {http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike06-21&amp;path=ASIN/0801859700}, citeulike-linkout-3 = {http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801859700/citeulike00-21}, citeulike-linkout-4 = {http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike07-20&path=ASIN/0801859700}, citeulike-linkout-5 = {http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/0801859700}, citeulike-linkout-6 = {http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0801859700}, citeulike-linkout-7 = {http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?keywords=0801859700&index=books&linkCode=qs}, citeulike-linkout-8 = {http://www.librarything.com/isbn/0801859700}, comment = {A fairly interesting book on holism. Misses the point of complexity in that it disparages study of the parts too much. Confuses rationalism and reductionism. Makes too much of a apparent problems in Shannon's entropy. On one thing he is completely wrong: Shannon entropy extends to continuous variables, how he could have missed this I have no idea, he obviously hasn't read anywhere near enough on a subject he professes to talk about. Another issue, that of information degradation is wrong: selection imparts information, there is no clear breakdown of the 2nd law (in information terms) because biological systems are not closed systems in an informational sense (when one considers them over generations). At any rate, the 2nd law doesn't apply to information, it applies to energy. He claims that mysterious properties of the system can make up for mutation, which is partly true and this is part of the robustness, but there are still plenty of lethal mutations. He claims that "Man imposes on himself the requirement of being moral, although Nature is completely beyond morality" which is too simplistic. 1. Man is part of Nature, thus morals are by definition part of Nature. 2. There are selectionary pressures why morals evolve. He also claims that a computer could not make statements that "this looks like..." which is completely wrong, there are plenty of examples in weak AI of this. For a better argument against strong AI, and a better discussion discussion of memory, the reader should turn to Bell's Levels and Loops paper. Of course memory doesn't exist in a strict read and write fashion in the brain (in the sense in which computers do) but it's still in some sense "mechanistic" even though it is still complex. Even a neural net, basic \& as simplified as it is, stores memories in a distributed sense, so of course it won't be found in any one particular place. LeDoux's "Synaptic Self" explores some of the wetware examples of memory storage in more details. "It indicates that no two brain states are ever alike, either for the brain of the same individual at different times, or for the brains of two different individuals" <- well of course there is at some level variation, but a lot of systematic patterns within and between individuals. I'm not sure what he's trying to say. "heterogeneous reproduction, based on the availability of an immense reservoir of alternate but similar states" <- amino acid substitutional robustness, code redundancy, neutral evolution, etc. come to mind. "To make palatable a purely mechanistic interpretation of heredity one would have to replace the cabinetmaker by a mechanical robot. While this is conceivable it is nevertheless astounding that the empirical evidence of any chemical processes that would represent the activities of the cabinetmaker in our simile..." <- Plenty of things are made by robots (cars mostly made by robots) and there are plenty of mechanisms \& chemicals involved with and understood in DNA. There is complexity but not anything "mechanistic" missing. I think Kauffman's work is better, more rigorous, and less "vitalist"-ique (as much as Elsasser wants to avoid that, he portrays emergent properties as being something too akin to vitalism. }, day = {17}, howpublished = {Paperback}, isbn = {0801859700}, keywords = {biology, chemistry, complexity, dynamics, emergence, self-organisation}, month = {September}, posted-at = {2007-08-02 07:59:09}, priority = {0}, publisher = {{The Johns Hopkins University Press}}, title = {Reflections on a Theory of Organisms}, url = {http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike07-20&path=ASIN/0801859700}, year = {1998} }

TY - BOOK ID - citeulike:1529843 L3 - citeulike-article-id:1529843 N2 - {<P>Are living organisms--as Descartes argued--just machines? Or is the nature of life such that it can never be fully explained by mechanistic models? In this thought-provoking and controversial book, eminent geophysicist Walter M. Elsasser argues that the behavior of living organisms cannot be reduced to physico-chemical causality. Suggesting that molecular biology today is at the same point as Newtonian physics on the eve of the quantum revolution, Elsasser lays the foundation for a theoretical biology that points the way toward a natural philosophy of organic life.</P><P>Explicitly repudiating "vitalism" (the notion that the laws of nature need to be modified when applied to living organisms), Elsasser argues instead that the structural complexity of even a single living cell is "transcomputational"--that is, beyond the power of any imaginable system to compute. Beginning from this insight, Elsasser leads the reader through a step-by-step process that ultimately arrives at the conclusion that living and non-living matter are separated by "a no-man's land of irrationality."</P><P>Trained in Germany as a physicist, Elsasser first pondered the implications of quantum mechanics for biology as early as 1951. The more closely he studied the inherent complexity of life, the more skeptical he became of the reductionist view of organisms as tiny machines. "An organism," he concluded, "is a source of causal chains which cannot be traced beyond a terminal point because they are lost in the unfathomable complexity of the organism." Like the physicist who works within the bounds of an unfathomable universe, Elsasser argues, the biologist must seek answers within a system that is no less unfathomable.</P>} SN - 0801859700 TI - Reflections on a Theory of Organisms PB - {The Johns Hopkins University Press} KW - biology KW - chemistry KW - complexity KW - dynamics KW - emergence KW - self-organisation N1 - A fairly interesting book on holism. Misses the point of complexity in that it disparages study of the parts too much. Confuses rationalism and reductionism. Makes too much of a apparent problems in Shannon's entropy. On one thing he is completely wrong: Shannon entropy extends to continuous variables, how he could have missed this I have no idea, he obviously hasn't read anywhere near enough on a subject he professes to talk about. Another issue, that of information degradation is wrong: selection imparts information, there is no clear breakdown of the 2nd law (in information terms) because biological systems are not closed systems in an informational sense (when one considers them over generations). At any rate, the 2nd law doesn't apply to information, it applies to energy. He claims that mysterious properties of the system can make up for mutation, which is partly true and this is part of the robustness, but there are still plenty of lethal mutations. He claims that "Man imposes on himself the requirement of being moral, although Nature is completely beyond morality" which is too simplistic. 1. Man is part of Nature, thus morals are by definition part of Nature. 2. There are selectionary pressures why morals evolve. He also claims that a computer could not make statements that "this looks like..." which is completely wrong, there are plenty of examples in weak AI of this. For a better argument against strong AI, and a better discussion discussion of memory, the reader should turn to Bell's Levels and Loops paper. Of course memory doesn't exist in a strict read and write fashion in the brain (in the sense in which computers do) but it's still in some sense "mechanistic" even though it is still complex. Even a neural net, basic & as simplified as it is, stores memories in a distributed sense, so of course it won't be found in any one particular place. LeDoux's "Synaptic Self" explores some of the wetware examples of memory storage in more details. "It indicates that no two brain states are ever alike, either for the brain of the same individual at different times, or for the brains of two different individuals" <- well of course there is at some level variation, but a lot of systematic patterns within and between individuals. I'm not sure what he's trying to say. "heterogeneous reproduction, based on the availability of an immense reservoir of alternate but similar states" <- amino acid substitutional robustness, code redundancy, neutral evolution, etc. come to mind. "To make palatable a purely mechanistic interpretation of heredity one would have to replace the cabinetmaker by a mechanical robot. While this is conceivable it is nevertheless astounding that the empirical evidence of any chemical processes that would represent the activities of the cabinetmaker in our simile..." <- Plenty of things are made by robots (cars mostly made by robots) and there are plenty of mechanisms & chemicals involved with and understood in DNA. There is complexity but not anything "mechanistic" missing. I think Kauffman's work is better, more rigorous, and less "vitalist"-ique (as much as Elsasser wants to avoid that, he portrays emergent properties as being something too akin to vitalism. AU - Elsasser, Walter PY - 1998/09/17/ UR - http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike09-20&amp;path=ASIN/0801859700 ER -