The Fine Line Between Engineering and Biology
Bhakti Niskama Shanta
I propose to launch a series of challenges to Michael Levin's covert support to conventional biology, wherein he misconstrues old reductionism through verbal manipulation. For example, he utilizes the term Xenobots, but fails to detect any programmed region within the organism that could be deemed the source of cellular activities typical of living cells. Evidently, Dr. Levin is disinclined to differentiate between living and non-living entities, and it is uncertain whether his Xenobots concept could be replicated using a cluster of dead cells. If he remains confounded by the definitional distinctions between living and dead cells, he may consider employing a sterile needle to puncture a cell, extract its essential contents, and observe whether such cells meet his requirements as Xenobots. The term Xenobots is somewhat misleading, as scientists have not engineered cells with robotic control; cell functions are self-directed and lack external robotic governance. Their movement and clustering are unpredictable and attribute to the cells' innate characteristics, not cutting-edge engineering.
Dr. Levin seeks to remove the boundary between engineering and biology.
"It is now essential to re-draw (or perhaps erase) artificial boundaries between biology and engineering; the tight separation of disciplines is a hold-over from a past age, and is not the right way to carve nature by its joints. We live in a universe containing a rich, continuous option space of agents with which we can interact by re-wiring, training, motivating, signaling, communicating, and persuading. A better synergy between life sciences and engineering helps us to understand graded agency and nano-cognition across levels in biology, and create new instances (Pattee, 1979, 1982, 1989, 2001; Baluška and Levin, 2016)."
(Bongard, J.; Levin, M. Living Things Are Not (20th Century) Machines: Updating Mechanism Metaphors in Light of the Modern Science of Machine Behavior. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 9, 147.)
It is vital to note that engineering, in its most stringent sense, concerns mechanical systems or machines. Additionally, the application of engineering principles in their purest form to biological systems is not practicable. To stress this, an engineer can assemble machine components to create a functional machine; however, as Dr. Levin may concur, it is impossible to create a cell by assembling its constituent parts. The constituent parts of an organism are contingent upon the overall organization, whereas machine parts are not. This fundamental difference underlies the fact that machines can be disassembled and reassembled without compromising their functionality, whereas a similar attempt with a living organism would be unsuccessful. A key distinction between machine and organism components lies in their existence prior to assembly. Machine parts exist independently and outside of the whole, whereas organism components are inextricably linked and do not precede the existence of the whole. Furthermore, the functions of organism components are contingent upon the remainder of the system, and their development is intimately tied to the development of the organism.
The revival of dead cells through chemical introduction or part insertion has never been achieved. Engineering is limited to living cells, and only to a certain extent. Similarly, reviving a deceased person through heart or other body part transplants is not feasible. Every cell originates from a pre-existing cell through cell division, not assembly, which highlights the principle of biogenesis - life comes from life. This contrast emphasizes the profound differences between strictly engineered objects and biological systems.
In contrast to machines, which serve an extrinsic purpose, organisms possess an intrinsic purpose: the function of a petri dish is established by the biologist employing it. Dr. Levin would acknowledge that his decisions pertaining to food, apartment, and profession, among other things, are not dictated by someone else on his behalf.
The organisational structure of living organisms is inherently dynamic and open-ended, requiring continuous changes to maintain viability. While the exact nature of these changes may not be predetermined, the organism's capacity for self-maintenance must be preserved. In contrast, machines are characterised by their static, predefined structure.
Dr. Levin attempts to bridge the gap between Biology and Engineering through verbal articulation. Conversely, a sincere approach would involve acknowledging the ontological distinction between Mechanical and Biological systems.
Sincerely,
Bhakti Niskama Shanta, Ph.D.
http://youtube.com/post/UgkxU-y0NcSjRKx68Uwdh6HHvSLX1flC1jKW?si=K8Wykl5l33GWJfqQ
Krishna Keshava Dasa
Dear Sadhu-Sanga Google Group participants,
Namaste. Srila B Niskam Shanta Maharaja, PhD, please accept my humble dandavat pranam. Dr. Michael Levin has requested that I send his reply to the group.
> Dr. Levin attempts to bridge the gap between Biology and Engineering through verbal articulation. Conversely, a sincere approach would involve acknowledging the ontological distinction between Mechanical and Biological systems.
Not verbal articulation - experiments and new discoveries, in particular in the areas of relieving suffering through new biomedical capabilities (in areas of cancer, birth defects, and traumatic injury), a few of which I showed in my talk. We have shown many times how our framework leads to new discoveries and biomedical advances. So, a sincere approach would involve not upholding philosophical distinctions for their own sake, but showing how your framework (distinctions, concepts, etc.) produce useful value for those who are suffering, for engineering, etc. I am not looking for debates, time is too short and discoveries await. I honor your privilege to hold whatever philosophical views you prefer. But I am committed to practical advances and benefits to people - that is the only judge of the value of a particular conceptual approach. I cannot afford sterile philosophical views - too many people need help. If you wish to convince others of the benefits of your ontological distinctions, use those distinctions to derive something new and helpful. I will happily change my mind and join you, if you show how these ontological distinctions help discover something new in a more effective way than my method of erasing of distinctions by porting tools across living and non-living substrates (which leads to many discoveries).
Note that we agree on more than we disagree! I think you are correct in your rejection of reductionism and materialism but like many others, you do not pursue these ideas to their ultimate conclusion: there is nothing fully mechanical at all; even lowly engineered constructs benefit (to a degree) from the same remarkable ingressions that make life so amazing. This property, whatever you call it, is everywhere (an idea familiar to many in related traditions) - there is no truly inert matter at all, just degrees of persuadability which we can exploit for practical purpose. This aspect is ubiquitous in the universe, but it's not easy to see; I work to reveal it and urge you to consider the full implications of your ideas more broadly than its traditional application to obvious "life".
Let us all get on with whatever useful work we can do and whatever we can learn; I wish you the very best in your pursuit of wisdom.
Sincerely,
Mike Levin
This dialogue between Dr. Shanta and Dr. Levin is occurring within the context of our recent online conference SCIENCE & SCIENTIST 2024 | Systems Biology: The Scientific Understanding of Life Beyond Reductionism.
Sincere and respectful regards
Krishna Keshava Das
Serving Assistant to
Sripad Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, PhD
Bhakti Vedanta Institute of Spiritual Culture and Science
Princeton, New Jersey, USA
www.bviscs.org // linktr.ee/bviscs
Blog: spiritualscience.substack.com
