Author: Michael Levin Source
The article argues against the binary framework that divides living things and machines into separate categories. Levin proposes that both organicist and mechanistic perspectives are limited in their understanding of complex systems. He advocates for a pluralistic approach where different perspectives—mechanical, computational, cognitive—should be employed based on context and purpose rather than claiming one view is universally correct.
Levin suggests that our formal models (whether of machines or living things) never fully capture the reality of what they represent. He places all systems on a “spectrum of persuadability” rather than in distinct categories, arguing that even simple machines can exhibit surprising properties beyond their designed function, while living systems can benefit from mechanistic analysis in certain contexts.
The author concludes that progress in fields like bioengineering, synthetic biology, and cognitive science is hindered by rigid categorical thinking. Instead, he recommends embracing multiple metaphors and acknowledging that our understanding of both life and machines is limited by our perspective rather than by fundamental differences between the categories.
Quotes
- “Our formal models of life, computers and materials fail to tell the entire story of their capabilities and limitations.”
- “The continuing battle over whether living beings are or are not machines is based on two mistaken but pervasive beliefs. First, the belief that we can objectively and uniquely nail down what something is. And second, that our formal models of life, computers or materials tell the entire story of their capabilities and limitations.”
- “Let’s reject the one thing organicists and mechanists agree on — the assumption that there is a single accurate and realistic picture of systems if we could only discover which one is right.”
- “All terms — cognitive, computationalist and mechanistic — are not making claims about what the system is; rather, they are each a statement of a proposed protocol for effectively interacting with the system.”
- “We must give up the comforting notion that we understand matter well enough to say that the limits of our models are equivalent to the limits of the ‘non-living’ world.”
- “What hampers progress now is a lack of humility. We tend to believe that because we’ve made something and know its parts, we understand its capabilities and limitations.”
- “Binary categories are excellent gatekeepers, preventing the tools of one discipline from being used to benefit another.”
- “Minds and the respect they are due are not a zero-sum game. It’s OK to see ‘machines’ as somewhere on the same spectrum as us.”
- “It is ironic that in denying precious magic (agency, cognition, etc.) to ‘machines,’ organicists have bought into the reductionists’ most central claim: that knowing the properties of a machine’s parts, enables you to know its complete nature.”
- “We are better off being explicit about which metaphor we plan to use in any given scenario, the tools that that metaphor enables us to apply, and what we will necessarily miss by choosing that one frame over others.”