Dear Dai: To say that molecules only interact directly is to ignore the metabolic matrix that constitutes the actual agency in living systems. For example, we read everywhere how DNA/RNA "directs" development, when the molecule itself is a passive material cause. It is the network of proteomic and enzymatic reactions that actually reads, interprets and edits the primitive genome. Furthermore, the structure of that reaction complex possesses measurable information (and complementary flexibility).
Life is not just molecules banging into one another. That's a physicist's (Lucreatian) view of the world born of models that are rarefied, homogeneous and (at most) weakly interacting. (Popper calls them vacuum systems.) The irony is that that's not how the cosmos came at us! Vacuum systems never appeared until way late in the evolution of the cosmos. So the Lucreatian perspective is one of the worst ways to try to make sense of life. We need to develop a perspective that parallels cosmic evolution, not points in the opposite direction. To do so requires that we shift from "objects moving according to universal laws" to "processes giving rise to other processes" (and structures along the way). The contrast is most vividly illustrated in reference to the origin of life. Conventional metaphysics requires us to focus on molecules, whereby the *belief* is that at some point the molecules will miraculously jump up and start to live (like the vision of the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel). A process-oriented scenario would consist of a spatially large cycle of complementary processes (e.g., oxidation and reduction) that constitutes a thermodynamic work cycle. Those processes then can give rise to and support smaller cycles, which eventually develop into something resembling metabolic systems. A far more consistent progression! Of course, this view is considered catastrophically heterodox, so please don't repeat it if you don't already have tenure. ;-) Peace, Bob U. > I see two distinct cases: > > Case 1: For molecules 'communication' consists of interaction between > the molecules themselves, resulting in biology. > Similarly, for atoms 'communication' consists of interaction between the > atoms themselves. They bang into each other and exchange their components. > > Case 2: For words and sentences (in my view of the world) it is human > beings who communicate, not words and sentences. From a Maturana > perspective, language is a recursive coordination between autopoietic > entities, not interaction between linguistic items. > > In case 1, there is no mediating domain. Molecules and atoms interact > directly. > > But in case 2, there is a hierarchy. Communication is between human > beings, but interaction is through words and sentences in a linguistic > domain. When I respond to your email, I do not have an effect on that > email. Rather, I hope to have an effect on your thought processes. _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
