The article excerpted at 1120 explains in everyday language why this is not so.
But for the most stubborn among us, Rosen eviscerates that presupposition on pure logical grounds. The first nine chapters of his book, Life Itself, are focused on that very point.
The remainder of his book reveals his solution, a circular model that is oriented to organization as a “thing."
He punctuates his arguments with the observation that a clockwork requires a clockmaker (that is a metaphorical simplification of a profound logical argument concerning efficient and final causes) - and that modern science is loathe to admit such a clockmaker but a mechanistic view of the universe demands one. And that simply “throwing up of the hands” e.g. Vitalism, has long since been rejected by scientists.
All of this I have said to raise one point where Rosen’s book does not explicate his model as I would have liked.
He refers to execution of the circular organizational model as “chasing.” The model transfers what we would call information content, encodes and decodes, processes – much like a standard computer model: input, process, output > input, process, output etc.
He doesn’t get into the chasing in depth, but chasing is best understood by Shannon’s model which is the foundation of “Information Theory.” Information under Shannon is successful communication, it is not the message (data) itself. It is the chasing per se.
In a nutshell, because it is based on organization as a “thing” Rosen’s model is exceedingly illuminating for modeling material biological systems, i.e. the anticipation of need for and execution of maintenance, repair, replication and metabolism, etc. Thus it holds a great opportunity for scientists who work under the principle of “methodological naturalism.”
At the same time, just like Shannon’s model, it is mathematics. It is universal. Therefore it holds for the incorporeal as well, to whatever extent one would care to apply it.
For instance, we Christians know that God’s Name Logos or Word directly reveals that He created all that there is by communicating. Shannon’s model (communications) and Rosen’s (circular chasing or communication is the organization of life itself) are both compatible with that Spiritual knowledge.
"God said" is repeated ten times in Genesis 1.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – John 1:1-4
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3
The new Spiritual creature we become, like the physical and soulful creature we were, are created by God's communicating.
So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17
Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. – I Cor 2:14
And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signs, and those great miracles: Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. - Deuteronomy 29:2-5
(According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. - Romans 11:8
Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. - Matthew 13:9
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. – Matthew 13:10-13
To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. – John 10:3-5
Again I aver that the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics (Wigner) is God’s copyright notice on the cosmos.
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
It seems Rosen's concept of "chasing" does invoke communication processes. Rosen doesn't speak much of Shannon at all in Life Itself; but he briefly cites him three times in another work, Essays on Life Itself. There, Rosen identifies Shannon's theory as a syntactical model. But I don't necessarily infer from that that Rosen disparages Shannon or his theory. For one thing, its very syntactical character is what lends the Shannon model its universal "portability" to all communicating systems alike in any language.
Boiling it all down, my sense (at this point!) is Rosen is working more on the semantic side of the problem, "What is life?" [in the sense that complex systems inevitably feature self-referential "loops" that cannot be reduced to purely syntactic terms because any instance of self-reference implies "meaning" [e.g., metabolism, repair, respiration, reproduction, etc., etc.), which is semantics, not syntax; and anyway, syntax is just "grammar"; thus it can eliminate all connection to "external referents" altogether, by which strategy it gains its universality — i.e., by sacrificing any idea of a "tie" between any particular system to any particular meaning]; Shannon simply focuses on one generic function: the successful communication of information. I.e., on the "medium" (syntax), not the "message" (semantics).
In any case, Shannon's syntactic model seems well suited to provide the rules that apply to the successful communication of a semantically richer model, be it Shakespeare's Hamlet or Robert Rosen's theory of relational biology — or any other communication whatever, including communications transpiring "inside" an organism itself.
I am pretty sure that if Rosen had a "problem" with anything Shannon did, he would not have hesitated to mention it. But so far, I have found no criticism. [But jeepers! You should see what he does to Jacques Monod! LOLOL!]
But then you never know — if, as I go through Essays, I should find a critical discussion of Shannon, I'll let you know!
Thank you for your magnificent essay/post, dearest sister in Christ! You lift everything up into the context of the spiritual — which ultimately seems to be the "largest model" (so to speak). [Rosen doesn't "go there"; but he seems very careful not to rule it out.]
You nailed it right here!