Terry -- Replying
T: Stan: Abiotic dissipative structures will degrade their gradients as fast as possible given the bearing constraints. They are unconditional maximizers. Life that has survived has been able to apply conditions upon its entropy production, but that does not mean that it has enacted energy conservation or energy efficiency policies. Its mode is still maximizing, but within limits. Your phrases "given the bearing constraints" and "within limits" are the critical issues to be focused on in my opinion [as I noted in my response to Guy]. S: Yes. T: But I do indeed argue that living processes can and do enact entropy rate regulating mechanisms. This is of course an empirical question, and S: Do you know the multiple papers by Adrian Bejan? He has shown that in all systems (he has tackled LARGE numbers of them, including the living), the system organizes so as to maximize access to the energy gradient it is using. I think that this is exactly what MEPP would predict. T: I have seen studies suggesting both results. My point is only that autogenesis (which I use as a proxy for the simplest life-like dynamic) S: Do you know these papers on autogenesis? They were dissatisfied with autopoiesis because it did not admit evolutionary change. Csányi, V. and G. Kampis (1989). Autogenesis: the evolution of replicative systems. Journal of Theoretical Biology 114: 303-321. Kampis, G., 1991. Self-modifying Systems in Biology and Cognitive Science: A New Framework for Dynamics, Information and Evolution. London: Pergamon Press. T: is a dissipative system that regulates the boundary constraints on its rate of dissipation, and that this non-linearity is a critical game-changer. S: Regulates downward from physical maxima, but does not go below the fastest non-damaging rates, therefore is ‘maximizing given constraints’, T: In particular, for this discussion, I argue that this constraint-ratcheting effect—where a distinctive dynamical configuration can change the boundary constraints on its own constraint dissipation tendency— S: This is not clear. Constraints are usually not thought of as dissipatable. Perhaps an example? T: is what makes reference and significance possible. The resulting higher order synergy constraint is neither a physical nor chemical constraint, but a formal constraint. S: By “formal” I Take it you mean organizational or structural. T: Because of this it is thereby S: ‘Could thereby be’ ? substrate transferrable so that reference and significance are maintainable despite complete replacement of physical substrates, i.e. via reproduction. S: Would an example be the use of yolk in embryos? Without this property biological evolution is not possible. S: Is the property in question the “formal” organization? STAN On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 3:42 AM, Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > Hi Stan, > > Stan: Abiotic dissipative structures will degrade their gradients as fast > as possible given the bearing constraints. They are unconditional > maximizers. Life that has survived has been able to apply conditions upon > its entropy production, but that does not mean that it has enacted energy > conservation or energy efficiency policies. Its mode is still maximizing, > but within limits. > > Terry: Your phrases "given the bearing constraints" and "within limits" > are the critical issues to be focused on in my opinion [as I noted in my > response to Guy]. But I do indeed argue that living processes can and do > enact entropy rate regulating mechanisms. This is of course an empirical > question, and I have seen studies suggesting both results. My point is only > that autogenesis (which I use as a proxy for the simplest life-like > dynamic) is a dissipative system that regulates the boundary constraints on > its rate of dissipation, and that this non-linearity is a critical > game-changer. > > In particular, for this discussion, I argue that this > constraint-ratcheting effect—where a distinctive dynamical configuration > can change the boundary constraints on its own constraint dissipation > tendency—is what makes reference and significance possible. The resulting > higher order synergy constraint is neither a physical nor chemical > constraint, but a formal constraint. Because of this it is thereby > substrate transferrable so that reference and significance are maintainable > despite complete replacement of physical substrates, i.e. via reproduction. > Without this property biological evolution is not possible. > > — Terry > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
