BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Laboratory >

Life-like systems

  
 
locusSolus
06:46 / 01.02.07
Stewart Kauffman and numerous researchers in the field of complex system sciences have long suggested the possibility of viewing life as a phase of complex systems. According to them, life can be viewed as an emergent property inherent within complex systems/networks that should be viewed as a phase the general complex system goes through just as water goes through different phases of matter as the energy level changes.

Life as a life-like system phase of certain classes of complex systems is an interesting approach with significant consequences. There might be an abstract physical pattern/system that allows its constituents to 'evolve' into life-like systems provided that they are of appropriate complexity and energy (similar analysis in form of autopoietic theory does exist. Should prove to be an interesting concept for anyone interested). When we take into account that much of the theories and applications of systems sciences and complex sciences are formed in such a manner that individual characteristics of the constituents are of minor importance, we might even be able to ask, are carbon-bases fundamental to 'all' life-like systems? Or perhaps, if the idea is pushed even further, are 'molecular scales' necessary for formation and maintenance of a life-like system? For example, certain complex dissipative systems like a storm of 'dirty' fusion plasma, of which all primary constituents are directly atomic.

What are your thoughts on this viewpoint? Any new information regarding the issue you might wish to share?
 
 
Closed for Business Time
08:54 / 01.02.07
lS: I don't know enough about Kaufmann's work to comment on that, but it seems like you'd be interested in the Principia Cybernetica gang. Very much a systems theoretical look at life, the universe and everything.

I'm interested in what piques you about viewing life as a phase? What questions does it provide traction for? What new avenues of research could it open up?

I'll come back to this... Promise.
 
 
locusSolus
09:54 / 02.02.07
I'm interested in two things.

Determining whether it is possible to form some sort of systematical pattern of life as a form of generalized law that applies to complex systems.

Possibility of forming or supporting a link between information and physical concept of energy through abstractions of complex phenomena into systems.

Please, those who know anything about above mentioned subjects, please post your thoughts, interests and etc. What some of you believe to be trivial may be new to someone else. Thanks!
 
 
symbiosis
17:59 / 02.02.07
I suspect that my questions will betray the truth, which is that I am no doctor of systems theory. I am unclear on the background, base terms of the discussion, so I apologize in advance if I overlook important distinctions of scope, scale, terminology, etc. Regardless, I think a lot about systems and organization, and I hope I can say something intelligent about the problem.

If life is a 'phase' of complex systems, are you (or these people) implying that the next phase would be a higher, more complex state of organisation?

Or should we consider all phases equal, rejecting potentially(read: probably) subjective value judgements about these phases and their relations to each other?

If humans on earth succeed in creating a.i. or new species via genetic research sometime soon(or perhaps already) would different laws of complexity apply to them even if these new forms are only capable of achieving a sentience equivalent to that which humans already possess?

What does complexity have to do with the approaching singularity that Kurzweil is always talking about?

I think the real question though, besides all of these categorizational ones, is if sentient life has any chance of being able to stop entropy.

What will all of our advanced states of organization have to do with anything once all of the stars and planets have spread out infinitely far a trillion years from now?

What will our impressive systems do on a dot in a pure void?

Which is more complex, a cro magnon man in the jungle or a super computer on an asteroid stuck in between galaxies(without a decent internet connection, of course)
 
 
harmonic series
19:10 / 03.02.07
Here's a link on Kauffman: The Adjacent Possible

I must admit, I had no idea what this post was about when I first read it, or every time I reread it. The info. on Kauffman was helpful, and especially the discovery that he has direct connections to NuTech Solutions, a company who explains itself on its website with this statement:

"NuTech Solutions delivers innovative solutions, powered by Intelligent Business EnginesTM that yield insight and measurable results for the evolving business environment. Our engines analyze, predict, optimize and adapt to solve challenging business problems while realizing tangible business benefits for our industry leading clients."

So, is the question whether a single system can predict and then possibly change (through humans' manipulation of such system) the outcome of a "life-system", for example, the evolution of the human body?

Will you define, "complex system" in this context?
 
 
Red Concrete
17:30 / 04.02.07
When we take into account that much of the theories and applications of systems sciences and complex sciences are formed in such a manner that individual characteristics of the constituents are of minor importance, we might even be able to ask, are carbon-bases fundamental to 'all' life-like systems?

Can you exapand on this a little for me please? My (limited) understanding of complex systems is that there is often some sensitivity to "initial conditions". If the aim is to reduce a definition of life to some set of invariant (simple?) characteristics, or rules, then a change that is small and simple might be very important.

Also, I need you to define what you mean by "life-like". Do you just mean "complicated"? Do you mean sentient (in how broad a sense)? Are you including properties such as reproduction (that I would consider essential)?


Or perhaps, if the idea is pushed even further, are 'molecular scales' necessary for formation and maintenance of a life-like system? For example, certain complex dissipative systems like a storm of 'dirty' fusion plasma, of which all primary constituents are directly atomic.

I would probably argue that yes, molecular scales are necessary (maybe the most necessary) scales for what I would call 'life-like'. It's the scale at which all the interesting stuff starts.

But I'm not familiar with your 'dirty' fusion plasmas. Can I have a link? What interesting properties do they show? Any compartmentalisation or organisation? Any adaptive/reactive properties to external forces (homeostatic properties)?
 
 
locusSolus
09:39 / 06.02.07
Symbiosis:

Well, the term phase is used as in 'phase transition' the most common example being transition of water into ice or steam. Physical phases are closely linked with the study of complex systems and their dynamics due to the fact that their collective properties do not derive from the characteristics of their individual components. So life-like system as phase of general complex systems should be understood in physical-dynamical sense, with no consequences of subjectivity. I did not intend to say that, and I doubt Kauffman or anyone else in the field I've read about so far has such an idea... (As a side note, I must tell you that Stuart Kauffman is probably the first person to compare transition of complex systems to/from dead/chaotic systems to physical phase transistion.)

Lolo:

The complex system in this context should be understood as philosophically close to cybernetic systems... Systems studied as is in regard to the dynamics of the whole system rather than characteristics of individual components. It's only that in this case the systems themselves are supposed to be complex overall, displaying behaviors that can't be explained properly by deductive reasoning of characteristics of individual components. Think of it as an elaborate mathematical abstraction to study systems as a whole instead of dividing them into parts. (Ugh, I should really learn how to write...)
Stuart Kauffman's involvement in NuTech solutions sounds a little odd, especially considering that his primary field of research consists of formation of self-catalyzing coascervates and systematic analysis of life. I'll keep an eye out for more information.

Red Concrete:

You are right. While complex systems are not as sensitive to initial conditions as say, a chaotic system with a strange attractor, they are certainly sensitive enough to initial conditions to be very unpredictable. The key idea would be to study the systematic characteristics of established organisms and apply that to other complex systems (high energy turbulences, complex networks etc). The idea that carbon/dna structure may not be fundamental to 'life' actually came from Richard Dawkins. While he doesn't really capitalize on the idea, I believe it is upon sound enough theoretical base to try. I have hard time believing that life systems can be reduced to a set of simple equations/graph theorems. (I want to believe it, but it just doesn't make sense to be that easy!) However, I do believe it would be possible to describe life as a phase transition from complex non-living system to complex life-like system.

I refuse to define life based upon their ability to reproduce. While reproduction is essential to the survival of species, it should not be as important in 'formation' of life. (However, I do believe that the proper definition of 'life' is certainly open to debate) Rather, being a hopefully-to-be physicist, I'd rather define life using various means of describing systems of energy. I think life-like systems should be complex dissipative systems that adapt to the environment through dispersed membrane... But frankly my thoughts on this part isn't really fleshed out yet... (I'm only a student...)

You may be right on the necessity of the molecular scale. I believe all complex systems/network systems scientists I've read/heard so far thinks molecular scale is necessary for life. It is only that within current structure of the complex system sciences in general, characteristics of individual components, while important, do not directly effect the overall system once the system goes past certain level of complexity/organisation/energy level... So while atomic systems might lack in diversity of interactions and components, we may be able to fill the gap by directly controlling the level of complexity. Of course, any life-like system formed of such simple and small components (if it is even possible) would need to be HUGE and complex, not to mention the level of energy required to hold such components together in coherent network...

Dirty plasma is basically plasma with different types of atoms and some outside components(like dirt)that does not conform to the predicted 'pure' plasma dynamics. Dirty plasmas display interesting self organisation qualities in extremely limited cases (in terms of magnetic field distortion etc). Yet the dynamics of dirty plasma is really a grad-level subject and I have no clear mathematical understanding of it... I was rather hoping someone would tell me about this ^^

http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0011224
Bose-Einstein condensation in complex networks

Some of you might find above link to be extremely interesting... I'll get back to it later...
 
 
locusSolus
01:23 / 01.03.07
Here's a question. Is evolution necessary for classification of a system as a life form? Or is it a characteristic exhibited by most complex systems, regardless of whether they are 'living' or not?
 
 
Evil Scientist
06:55 / 01.03.07
It's an interesting question. In my view though response to evolutionary pressures is not necessarily something that can only be seen in living organsims. Although, arguably, viruses exist on the cusp of being living organisms they don't fulfil all of the characteristics of life, yet they do respond to evolutionary pressure (a good example of this is the Common Cold virus which out evolves every vaccine/medicine we can bring to bear).
 
 
jentacular dreams
13:02 / 01.03.07
I'd agree with ES. All life is (theoretically) subject to evolutionary pressure, but everything which evolves (for want of a better term when applied to non-living systems) need not be alive (though I personally favour the idea of viruses as life).
 
 
sn00p
09:54 / 02.03.07
Is anyone familiar with the idea of a transposon? Thesse are jumping genes, basically they are bits of genetic code which can cut and paste themselves from one part of the genome to another, within a single cell. Around 45-47% of the human genome is made up of transposons (most of which no longer work).

I just wondering, do you consider a transposon to be life if you consider a virus to be life? Is it complex enough for life?

I don't think anyone would consider a piece of self repilcating code to be alive, but then if it had a protein coat, alot of people would.

I don't really have an opinion, just food for thought, i don't consider anything ""life"". A toaster and a chicken have the same rights as far as i'm concerend. Before you judge me, i have a very well kept toaster.
 
 
jentacular dreams
09:46 / 05.03.07
Mobile elements - vintage Dawkins. I would probably class them in the same area as mitochondria, as while they replicate with the cell, they won't (under normal circumstances) migrate outside the cell. But I can see the comparison with viruses, it's certainly a grey area.
 
 
jentacular dreams
09:48 / 05.03.07
Oh, and they don't usually replicate within the cell. Multiple copies may occur, but through copying error, not 'true' replication.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:53 / 05.03.07
A toaster and a chicken have the same rights as far as i'm concerend.

Hmm, I'd be interested to discuss that position. Probably on another thread though. Up for it?
 
 
Evil Scientist
14:01 / 05.03.07
I don't think anyone would consider a piece of self repilcating code to be alive, but then if it had a protein coat, alot of people would.

Not necessarily. As I said earlier it's still arguable that viruses constitute life. Some would argue that they're little more than organic structures optimised for replication if they're within a cell. The presence of protein does not automatically equal living organism.

Prions are even less complicated than a virus, by orders of magnitude. Simple protein molecules capable of replicating, in a sense, by causing normalform versions of the same protein to become replicatorform.
 
 
sn00p
16:56 / 05.03.07
"Hmm, I'd be interested to discuss that position. Probably on another thread though. Up for it? "

Not really, i probably don't have anything intresting to say on it. I just don't rate chickens much in terms of complexity, i saw this thing were they cut off a chickens head and then kept it alive for days by feeding it throught the neck. I suppose you could start a "Do androids dream of electric sheep?" thread.

I agree that it's arguable wether a virus is alive or not, i just think it's a matter of persepctive, i mean nobody can even agree on a definition of 'life'.

MFTBL: My understanding was that they could replicate (within the same cell) (and not just when the Genome is beingcopied) during transcription while a cell is in a non-dividing state, as the transposon will have inserted itself in the middle or next to a functional gene.
 
 
Evil Scientist
06:48 / 06.03.07
i saw this thing were they cut off a chickens head and then kept it alive for days by feeding it throught the neck.

But that's nothing to do with complexity. Even looking at it from a purely mechanical view though a chicken is more complex than a toaster by orders of magnitude.

i mean nobody can even agree on a definition of 'life'.

I disagree. There is certainly some difference of opinion over whether or not certain replicators are actually alive, however there are certain standards which can be universally applied to determine whether or not most things are alive or not alive (as we know it, we're not talking about theoretical organisms/objects here). Applying these standards to a toaster gives us "not alive", and to a chicken it gives us "alive".
 
 
sn00p
12:33 / 06.03.07
Yeah it was a truly awful analogy.

All i was musing on was that 'alive' and 'dead' are states we created as humans, and yes toasters don't fit in and chickens do (and are obviously more complex). I just think chickens are a bit crap.
 
 
HeartShadow
20:49 / 08.03.07
I find the idea of life as a continuum both bizarre and compelling (both personally and religiously). But it does raise a number of questions.

I remember at one point in biology (or chemistry maybe) class being told that on the life/not life scale, both viruses and crystals (like salt crystals) are iffy on whether or not they're alive. So even back as far as ten/twenty years ago, the definition of life was getting blurry.

What does it mean to be only semi-alive? Is it possible to be farther along on the life scale than we are?

And I thought at least silica-based life had been hypothesized for a long time?
 
 
jentacular dreams
16:15 / 09.03.07
MFTBL: My understanding was that they could replicate (within the same cell) (and not just when the Genome is being copied) during transcription while a cell is in a non-dividing state, as the transposon will have inserted itself in the middle or next to a functional gene.

I presume you're referring to the mobile genetic elements? Well you are totally right. For some reason my education thus far has only included class II transposons (DNA transposons). I wasn't even aware that class I (retrotransposons or RNA transposons) even existed. Thanks for pointing out the error.
 
 
locusSolus
04:09 / 16.03.07
Most of these questions might boil down to 'is life defined by specific physical components or characteristic arising from a collection regardless of the individual components?' I'm leaning towards the later. What do you think?

Also, at present stage, defining life might not as important as replicating the life-like physical system/network, at least in scientific perspective...

Although I'm ranting on here, the issue of language and communication seem to be much more profound on the issues of life. Is a 'life' form with sentience and no way to communicate with or recognize outside environment truly alive? (ofcourse, this is only hypothetical, like the philosophical zombie)
 
  
Add Your Reply