Fig. 29

VI. The Systemic Conception in Biology

Attention is drawn upon a work of Prof. N. Botnariuc, The systemic conception and method in general biology (Editura Academiei Romane, 1976): the problems tackled in Chapter 1 (Systemic organization of living matter) and in Chapter 6 (Relationship between biologic systems of different levels) surpass the restricted interest of a specialist in biology. The problems that are discussed, in connection with the alive - lifeless relationship, as well as that between biologic and social, come from a larger scientific sphere, with philosophical openings for further studies.
The work covers a large number of aspects, starting with biological organisms, from mono-cells to the most complex, through species, biocenozes and extending to the whole living world. But I would like to refer especially to the "extremes" of this large spectrum, namely to what is happening at the lower extreme (i.e at the transition from lifeless matter to living matter), and then at the upper extreme (i.e. at the psychological level of the human brain, social conscience and society).
Thus referring to Professor N. Botnariuc's book we want to touch again, on a different basis, upon the question of whether life, i.e. living matter, is just organization; and if it is, then if its ingredients are just only those that are known from today's Physics.

We shallnot question the fact that living matter comes from lifeless matter on a certain level of complexity. Once this principle is accepted, then the only possible interpretation of the alive within the framework of contemporary science is that the living matter is that form of matter organization that gives the living organisms survival properties, metabolism and reproduction, feedback organization and self control, adaptability to the environment a.s.f. But this means to see in the cell, and hence in every living organism, an automaton. We note that the theory of automata and its contemporary concepts can include elements characteristic to the living matter, as just stated. We could accept this point of view by considering the living organism as a living automaton. This would mean to openly say that the living matter is organized like automata with very flexible properties. The cell is then an automaton, the bacteria is an automaton, the plant is an automaton, the insect is an automaton, the animal is an automaton.
But what about the man ? Strictly speaking, in the aforementioned framework, the man is also an automaton, there is no other possible interpretation. Were this a scientific conclusion, then we would have to accept it with all the resulting consequences. One could say that there are no unfortunate consequences from such a scientific principle, since man's richness of living remains the same even within his living automaton. However, this idea give us some worry: an automaton is made to adapt itself to the environment, to act upon the environment. But how could it develop (as man does) not only a social consciousness, but also a consciousness of its existence ? How could it have something that is not given somehow in the environmental structure, how could it invent new forms and new structures ? How could it imagine an universe completely new from ours ? This subjective rejection of the idea of an automaton, as manifested by ourselves, could be overcome if we have the scientific certainty of the automaton existence. But we do not have this certainty yet and, even more, we have strong reasons to believe that the science will soon find concepts much larger than those of system and automaton. The problem has no answer yet since science has not yet clarified the functioning of our central nervous system, of the brain in particular and of its principal structures. The transfer from discrete to continuous, that what is called the integrative activity of the brain, still remains unexplained, both for geometrical images and for the continuous succession of time and of our psychological states. However, there is here a limit, a boundary to our understanding, since we have to remain within the framework of modern and contemporary science. I believe that we cannot explain within this scientific framework the integrative activity of the brain; it is almost certain that we need new material ingredients. Some new material principle must appear to provide the integration, continuification of images, time, and psychological states, considering the discrete states of our biological machine, the essentially discrete world that surrounds us. This observation must be valid for man and animal alike. We can call this new principle mental field or informatter. Using this principle we could perform structuring of the unstructured and we would benefit from imagination, innovation and creation much beyond the stochastic possibilities of an automaton. The informational role played by this principle stems from its power to give man and animal the integrative power of their brains. The informational support of this principle is physical, but of a class different from all the other physical principles known so far.

Lets now turn towards the other frontier of the biologic world, towards the simplest known elements of the living matter, that is viruses. We know the virus as a molecular aggregate made up of nucleic acids that can be biologically found only in combination with proteins. The living molecule does not exist, or at least has not been revealed yet. The virus, as a molecular aggregate, lives only in a living cell, and never by itself. Imposing upon the cell its genetical law it then multiplies as any organism. But outside the living cell the virus can not have life. The molecules of a large assembly of viruses can be ordered even as a crystal. We should retain the fact that, on one hand the living virus constitutes a unit of living matter in the form of a molecular aggregate, and on the other hand it can only be alive inside the cell, i.e. in combination with other material ingredients. It is a subcellular living material unit, and we now ask ourselves: what is there that makes a complex of certain molecules become a living organism ? What phenomenon is responsible for the transition from un-alive to alive ? Is it only the amount of complexity ? The explanation is much too general, though in principle we consider it correct, and it is for the science to come up with details. The general question however remains: can the alive be explained using the known material ingredients ? It seems that if we were to use only the known material ingredients we could not obtain a detailed explanation of the aliveness. No doubt that the aliveness assumes an automaton-type organization, and that it is to a large extent an automaton-machine. But its unity, its integrality, encircling the molecular and atomic constituents, can not appear without a new type of process, ensuring the overcoming of the molecular and atomic discreteness. It follows that here too an integrative principle is required such that an unitary sensitivity of the living organism is assured.

Biology and Psychology in Relation with Awareness 69