Certainly not, djf. Still, cells "seem to know what to do" as parts in order to articulate a "whole" living organism. Material and efficient causation alone do not, and cannot, explain this.
Some thoughts on this question, sourced to Attila Grandpierre's article, "Fundamental Complexity Measures of Life," in Divine Action and Natural Selection: Science, Faith, and Evolution, J. Seckback & R. Gordon, eds, 2009:
The difference between the machine and the living organism is like the difference between numbers and mathematical rules. The complexity of the machine is phenomenological, static, and passive, while that of the living organism is organizational, dynamic, and active.Yes, we all agree that "man is dust." But he ain't "just dust." Dust has not got a clue about how to organize a living, self-conscious human being.
Let us approach the distinctions between machines and living organisms in light of the difference between physical "organization" (termed as "self-organization") and biological organization. As the root of the world "organization"("organ") tells, organization belongs to the realm of biology. Physical "organization" is present in the order of crystals, of magnets, of snowflake patterns, of convection patters, of reaction-diffusion patterns, etc. Physical "organization" represents actually not organizational, but ordering processes.
Actually, ordering and organization are two fundamentally different processes.... In physical ordering, patterns of elements can be generated, and in man-made machines they follow prescribed rules. In living organisms, biological organization generates new rules from time-step to time-step....
A living organism follows the continuously changing internal and external contexts, and reacts to them on the basis of its own principle [formal cause] driving its biological organization towards the optimization of life's conditions. Biological organization is like writing, while physical ordering is mechanical repetition of words following merely syntactical rules, if any. It is these syntactic rules that represent algorithmic complexity. In contrast, the semiotic principles correspond to a deeper, principal level of complexity. This is why machines cannot rebuild themselves from time-step to time-step. At the same time, this is the most fundamental property of organisms.
Denbigh (1975...) emphasizes that "one cannot speak of an entity as being organized without at once raising the question: What is it organized for [final cause]? ... A machine is not explainable by the laws of physics and chemistry (even though the material of which it is composed obeys these laws); machines have always to be understood in terms of their own specific operational principles laid down by those who design them."...The central thesis of physicalism proclaims the causal closure of the physical. Ashby's Law ... and Kahre's Law of Diminishing Information ... stated that physical systems cannot produce more information at their output than was present at their input. This means that for physical systems, complexity jumps are simply not possible....
I know you have a keen interest in artificial intelligence/artificial life, which theoretically can be manifested by means of mechanical simulation of "the real thing" — i.e., living, conscious human beings. But how can one "simulate" what one does not understand in the first place?.
Well, the questions are lively ones for sure. We have more fun than cats!
Thank you so very much for writing, dear djf!
I don’t see AI or simulations as being an attempt to create life, at least not yet.
We are all pretty much agreed that whatever life is, we don’t yet have a good solid definition.
Rather AI gives us results and shows us the boundaries of what might/might not be considered “life”.
Is it some kind of pattern? A pattern that has, above all else, a sense of self-preservation?
Something interesting to think about - we all have heard of computer “viruses” (sic, SB virii).
We wouldn’t call that life by any stretch of the imagination.
But imagine forty years from now, some guy finds an old PC in his basement, plugs it into the “interspace” (or whatever it is called by then), and an old virus, long deemed extinct and no threat to the web, resurfaces and re-infects millions of PCs or cell phones or whatever they have then.
Just seems to me the parallels are fascinating. Remember, it was only recently they drilled into Lake Vostok in Antarctica, and exposed the life there to our surface. Life that has not been on the surface for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years!