Life is defined by Maturana and Varela as a type of self-organization: autopoiesis in the physical space. This resembles the concept of metabolism, which itself is typically included in definitions of life. Three senses of metabolism are distinguished. If life depends on either autopoiesis or metabolism (in the third sense), then strong A-Life is impossible. The theory of autopoiesis challenges concepts familiar in biology and cognitive science. While its use of informational language is too restrictive, its use of cognitive language is too liberal: life does not imply cognition.
Excerpt: From 1949 onwards, Grey Walter built several intriguing cybernetic machines. These were intended to throw light on the behaviour of biological organisms – although he did point out that they could be adapted for use as ‘a better “self-directing missile”’… In particular, Grey Walter sought to model goal seeking and, later, learning. But he did so as economically as he could – in both the financial and the theoretical sense. Not only did he want to save money (the creatures were cobbled together from war-surplus items and bits of old alarm clocks), but he was determined to wield Occam’s razor. That is, he aimed to posit as simple a mechanism as possible to explain apparently complex behaviour.
Boden M. (2008) Autonomy: What is it? BioSystems 91(2): 305–308. Fulltext at https://cepa.info/3899
Excerpt: Very broadly speaking, autonomy is self-determination: the ability to do what one does independently, without being forced so to do by some outside power. The “doing” may be mental, behavioural, neurological, metabolic, or autopoietic: autonomy can be ascribed to a system on a number of different levels.
Boden M. A. (1999) Is metabolism necessary? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 50(2): 231–248.
Metabolism is a criterion of life. Three senses are distinguished. The weakest allows strong A-Life: virtual creatures having physical existence in computer electronics, but not bodies, are classes as ‘alive’. The second excludes strong A-Life but allows that some non-biochemical A-Life robots could be classed as alive. The third, which stresses the body’s self-production by energy budgeting and self-equilibrating energy exchanges of some (necessary) complexity, excludes both strong A-Life and living non-biochemical robots.
Boden M. A. (2009) Life and mind. Minds and Machines 19: 453–463. Fulltext at https://cepa.info/4548
It’s sometimes said, and even more often assumed, that life is necessary for mind. If so, and if A-Life promises to throw light on the nature of life as such, then A-Life is in principle highly relevant to the philosophy of mind and cognitive science. However, very few philosophers have attempted to argue for the relation between life and mind. It’s usually taken for granted. Even those (mostly in the Continental tradition, including some with a following in A-Life) who have insisted on the linkage have stated it rather than justified it. If an evolutionary account of intentionality is acceptable, then perhaps biological life ‘makes room’ for mind. But that claim is problematic, since it’s not clear that the type of self-organization involved in life-as-such must necessarily include evolution. Even if it does, it’s a further step to show that life is strictly necessary for mind.
Context: Radical Constructivism is an issue that deeply divides the cognitive science community: most researchers reject it, but an increasing number do not. Problem: Constructivists stress that our knowledge starts from experience. Some (“ontic” constructivists) deny the existence of a mind-independent world, while others (“radical” constructivists) claim merely that, if such a world exists, we can know nothing about it. Both positions conflict with scientific realism. It is not clear that the conflict can be resolved. Method: This paper uses philosophical argument to ask whether constructivism can be rationally preferred over realism in science. Results: Ontic constructivism cannot be disproved by any knock-down argument. Nevertheless, it is irrational to accept it, because it ignores the strategy of “inference to the best explanation”: realism is the best explanation of the successes of science. Radical constructivism, too, fails to explain these successes. Some radical constructivists have tried to offer theories more sympathetic to realism. For instance, Ernst von Glasersfeld sees science as a coherent ordering of experience, and appeals to Piagetian psychology as support. There are close similarities. But Piaget was also caught in a constructivist anti-realism, despite his attempt to evade it. Implications: The constructivist’s claim that scientific concepts and theories are generated by human minds is correct. But this important insight should not be used to deny realism, which is the best explanation of the many undeniable successes of science and engineering.