Negatory, the rocks do not control these chemical potentials in any regard. It's still the temperature, not the rock, changing what is inside. A living cell doesn't stay the same REGARDLESS of temperature; any temperature at which the cell is alive, as well as during transitioning to a temperature at which it is not, the cell is changing its own chemical processes. Even immobile organisms which cannot control their internal temperature do not simply slow down or speed up with temperature changes; the types of proteins produced and their amounts change in response.
You are also ignoring my statement from before: in order to be considered alive, the rock MUST perform its own maintenance and control its own reproduction. The temperature is directly causing those internal changes in the rocks; hormones signal cells in a cascade to change protein output or divide, they do not in and of themselves change the proteins directly. Thus, this is still not an example of internally directed changes in response to a stimulus. Additionally, rocks do not and cannot maintain themselves independently under any circumstances. If I break a piece off of a rock, it is not going to take up material and grow it back in response. If left out in the open, it will just slowly erode away.
Furthermore, you'd never be able to identify a rock as being in a "mature stage" while also maintaining your ridiculously stretched definition of reproduction. As long as I can crack a rock into two or more pieces, you have expressed that you think this could qualify as reproduction. Since a single molecule or atom does not make a rock, by definition, there is no such thing as a rock that cannot "reproduce" and therefore no such thing as an immature rock.