Pedro, If you will indulge me in one additional comment in this topic also. There is a critically important analysis I did a number of years ago on the issue of operational differences between computer/computation practices and natural biological/botanical systems.
Without belaboring the point is comes down to this: The thema of computation is the separation of hardware from software. In contrast, the thema of of natural systems is the conjoinment of 'hardware' with 'software'. Every computer system has a design matrix of information routings into-which or onto-which instruction codes are imposed. That does not happen in natural systems. Let me give an example. Stereo-chemically some molecules can be exactly the same atomic constituents, but be mirror images in 3D structure. The levo- and dextro- rotary forms. Because metabolic pathways rely heavily, if not absolutely, on key-lock compatability (because of electromagnetic 'fit' considerations), one twist form will 'enable' a pathway step, while the mirror form will 'block' the step. The 'hardware' of the metabolic step IS the 'software' .. in this example, the stereoform acts as the specific instruction 'yes/no' or '1/0'. This is THE KEY thematic/functional difference between their information processings. "Adaptation" capacity is naturally intrinsic with living cells. It will not happen unless 'imposed' - in classical computer systems. They approach, involve, and use 'information' relations in quite different ways. AI - as currently formulated/practiced - will never perfectly emulate Life. 'Simulation' will be only close approximations, instead of practical duplications. Jamie Rose Ceptual Institute (Please forward to list if it does not automatically post. Thank you) _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
