Page 12
force” it is not a subject to studies by usual, immediate observation and
experiments, i.e. it is regarded as incognizable.
The view of the incognoscibility of life is greatly expanded in the
philosophy of science and is known as “agnosticism” (Greek: a — not and
gnosius — knowledge). The term has been introduced by the English
physician and scientist Th. Huxley (1825—1895). This understanding of
life is not shared by the great German writer, poet and natural
philosopher J. W. Goethe (1749—1832). In a letter to one of his
numerous friends he has written:
“Behold: Nature is a living book not understood, but not ununderstandable”.
The followers of the materialistic concept place a state to the material
essence of life, development and alterations of matter and its capacity to be
changed in shape and to pass from one quality into another. According to
them life is a qualitatively new form of the existence of non-living matter,
having cropped up as a result of its evolution under certain circumstances.
The mechanistic understanding of life also undergoes a considerable
development. Its supporters, materialistic in principle, tend to ignore the
qualitatively new properties of the emerged living matter and downsize life
phenomena to purely mechanical, physical and chemical processes. In this
train of thought they strive to liken living organisms to complicated
mechanisms, and in the different epochs and depending on the
achievements of technical sciences their models for comparison have been
different: the exquisitely constructed clocks of the town municipalities, the
steam engines, and in the last few decades — electronic computers which
according to their views can completly replace the human being.
The concept set forward by a considerable number of people that man
can be substituted by cybernetic machines provokes a certain interest from
a biological point of view. At the beginning of the 1960s the “artificial
intellect” project was launched, and after the 1970s the “expert systems”
capable of giving intellectual advices and be the decision-makers
expressing themselves in different languages and dialects (see Alty,
Coombs, 1987; Pierce, Hohne, 1988) have come into fashion.
In its core this trend deserves complete support, since it is on the right
path and helps a lot for the scientific and technical advancement.
Nevertheless a question is raised: is it possible for cybernetic machines, no
matter how complex and perfect they are to make up for the human in an
intellectual respect, i.e. would they be capable of thinking process?
The answer to this question is predetermined by the now existing view
that conclusions and decisions can only be made by computers on the basis
of the information preliminarily encoded in them by their creator — the man.
If, by any chance the new computer generations begin “to think” without
human help, then we would be forced to make a reevaluation of the concept
of the qualitative difference between living and non-living nature.