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
Received on Fri Nov 17 15:59:11 2006
