The central interest of this paper is Robert Rosen's replicating (M,R)-Systems, presented in his book Life Itself, where M and R signify Metabolism and Repair, respectively. We look anew at Rosen's model of an organism in the light of extensive research into natural hierarchical systems, and this paper presents conclusions drawn from a comparison between Rosen's relational model of an organism and that of a birational complementary natural hierarchy. Rosen's model is 'replicated' in a number of different ways which lend credence to the argument that birationality sheds new light on the nature of life and the usefulness of his accomplishments. Careful assessment also prompts a number of questions as to the validity and comprehensiveness of the book's arguments. We accept that Rosen's relational model has provided a useful stepping stone to understanding the nature of life, but also suggest that it induces potentially digressive conclusions. We conclude that a binary segregation of relational assemblies into mechanisms and organisms is insufficient, and we indicate how a three-fold segregation throws new light on Rosen's model. An organism is not 'the complement of a mechanism': the complement of a mechanism is its ecosystem: an organism is the 'complex interface' between mechanism and ecosystem.
Cottam, R, Ranson, W, Vounckx, R, Wilby, J (ed.), Allen, JK (ed.) & Loureiro-koechlin, C (ed.) 2006, 'Replicating Robert Rosen's (M,R) Systems', ISSS, no. 2006, pp. 378.
Cottam, R., Ranson, W., Vounckx, R., Wilby, J. (Ed.), Allen, J. K. (Ed.), & Loureiro-koechlin, C. (Ed.) (2006). Replicating Robert Rosen's (M,R) Systems. ISSS, (2006), 378.
@article{0b0567e716c24d02bd72e03df4b9f638,
title = "Replicating Robert Rosen's (M,R) Systems",
abstract = "The central interest of this paper is Robert Rosen's replicating (M,R)-Systems, presented in his book Life Itself, where M and R signify Metabolism and Repair, respectively. We look anew at Rosen's model of an organism in the light of extensive research into natural hierarchical systems, and this paper presents conclusions drawn from a comparison between Rosen's relational model of an organism and that of a birational complementary natural hierarchy. Rosen's model is 'replicated' in a number of different ways which lend credence to the argument that birationality sheds new light on the nature of life and the usefulness of his accomplishments. Careful assessment also prompts a number of questions as to the validity and comprehensiveness of the book's arguments. We accept that Rosen's relational model has provided a useful stepping stone to understanding the nature of life, but also suggest that it induces potentially digressive conclusions. We conclude that a binary segregation of relational assemblies into mechanisms and organisms is insufficient, and we indicate how a three-fold segregation throws new light on Rosen's model. An organism is not 'the complement of a mechanism': the complement of a mechanism is its ecosystem: an organism is the 'complex interface' between mechanism and ecosystem.",
keywords = "Rosen, life, organisms, birationality, hyperscale",
author = "Ronald Cottam and Willy Ranson and Roger Vounckx and Jennifer Wilby and Allen, {Janet K.} and Cecilia Loureiro-koechlin",
note = "Jennifer Wilby, Janet K. Allen, Cecilia Loureiro-Koechlin",
year = "2006",
language = "English",
pages = "378",
journal = "ISSS",
number = "2006",
}