Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Steps to a theory of reference significance] Terry Deacon
Hi Terry, I have a question about your ‘PS’. I think of MEP as being constrained by potentials and a limited set of material opportunities (the adjacent possibilities). I think of it as a thermodynamic version of natural selection in which some alternative states are thermodynamically favored over others, but this does not guarantee that dissipation will proceed to completion or that the particular alternative that absolutely generates the most efficient or effective dissipation will always be the manifested outcome (if there are a number of similarly optimal paths available). Contingency on idiosyncratic configurations within and in the neighborhood of a system might lead the system to follow a variety of alternative paths. Would you argue that autogenesis is not an MEP process from this somewhat fuzzy perspective? Cheers, Guy Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor Department of Biology University of Nevada Reno Phone: 775-784-4860 Fax: 775-784-1302 hoel...@unr.edu On Jan 9, 2015, at 3:35 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: Message from Terry Deacon Original Message Subject: Re: [Fis] Steps to a theory of reference significance Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 03:32:22 +0100 From: Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edu To: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es References: 54ad3798.7060...@aragon.es 54ae7ca4.9080...@aragon.es This very brief reply should be routed to the FIS list please... One response: My choice of autogenesis is motivated by ... 1. It is the simplest dynamical system I have been able to imagine that exhibits the requisite properties required for an interpretive system (i.e. one that can assign reference and significance to a signal due to intrinsic properties alone - that is these features are independent of any extrinsic perspective). A simple organism is far too complex. As a result it is possible to make misleading assumptions about what we don't account for (allowing us to inadvertently sneak in assumptions about what information is and is not - for example just assuming that DNA molecule are intrinsically informational). As I note when introducing this model, developing a simplest but not too simple model system is the key to devising clear physical principles. 2. Autogenesis is not the same as autopoiesis (which is only a description of presumed requirements for life) rather autogenesis is a well-described empirically testable molecular dynamic, that is easily model able in all aspects. Autopoiesis fit with the class of models assuming that simple autocatalysis is sufficient and then simply adds (by assertion) the (non-realized) assumption that autopoiesis can somehow be causally closed and unitary, whereas in fact autocatalytic systems are intrinsically dissipative* and subject to error catastrophe. More importantly, the assumption about coherent finite unity and internal synergy is the critical one, and so it needs to be the one feature that is explicitly modeled in order to understand these aspects of information. 3. The self-regulating self-repairing end-directed dynamic of autogenesis provides a disposition to preserve a reference target state (even when its current state is far from it). This serves as the necessary baseline for comparative assessment, without which reference and significance cannot be defined because these are intrinsically relativistic informational properties (there is a loose analogy here to the 3rd law of thermodynamics and the relativistic nature of thermodynamic entropy). * PS: Autogenesis is also not a Maximim Entropy Production process because it halts dissipation before its essential self-preserving constraints are degraded and therefore does not exhaust the gradient(s) on which its persistence depends. — Terry On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: Dear Terry and colleagues, Thanks a lot for the opening text! It is a well crafted Essay full of very detailed contents. My impression is that the microphysics of information has been solved elegantly --at least at the level of today's relevant knowledge-- with your work and the works of related authors, one of them Karl Friston, who could be linked as a complementary approach to yours (in particular his recent Life as we know it, Royal Society Interface Journal, 10: 20130475). His Bayesian approach to life's organization, coupled with (variational) free energy minimization principle, conduces to the emergence of homeostasis and a simple form of autopoiesis, as well as the organization of perception/action later on. Thus, quite close to your approach on autogenic systems. About the different sections of the Essay, the very detailed points you deal with in section 4 (steps to a formalization of reference) are,
[Fis] Response to Pedro's first comments:
Response to Pedro's first comments: My choice of autogenesis is motivated by ... 1. It is the simplest dynamical system I have been able to imagine that exhibits the requisite properties required for an interpretive system (i.e. one that can assign reference and significance to a signal due to intrinsic properties alone - that is these features are independent of any extrinsic perspective). A simple organism is far too complex. As a result it is possible to make misleading assumptions about what we don't account for (allowing us to inadvertently sneak in assumptions about what information is and is not - for example just assuming that DNA molecule are intrinsically informational). As I note when introducing this model, developing a simplest but not too simple model system is the key to devising clear physical principles. 2. Autogenesis is not the same as autopoiesis (which is only a description of presumed requirements for life) rather autogenesis is a well-described empirically testable molecular dynamic, that is easily model able in all aspects. Autopoiesis fit with the class of models assuming that simple autocatalysis is sufficient and then simply adds (by assertion) the (non-realized) assumption that autopoiesis can somehow be causally closed and unitary, whereas in fact autocatalytic systems are intrinsically dissipative* and subject to error catastrophe. More importantly, the assumption about coherent finite unity and internal synergy is the critical one, and so it needs to be the one feature that is explicitly modeled in order to understand these aspects of information. 3. The self-regulating self-repairing end-directed dynamic of autogenesis provides a disposition to preserve a reference target state (even when its current state is far from it). This serves as the necessary baseline for comparative assessment, without which reference and significance cannot be defined because these are intrinsically relativistic informational properties (there is a loose analogy here to the 3rd law of thermodynamics and the relativistic nature of thermodynamic entropy). * PS: Autogenesis is also not a Maximim Entropy Production process because it halts dissipation before its essential self-preserving constraints are degraded and therefore does not exhaust the gradient(s) on which its persistence depends. — Terry -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] RV: Response to Pedro's first comments. --Bob Ulanowicz
Message from Bob Ulanowicz De: Robert E. Ulanowicz [u...@umces.edu] Enviado el: viernes, 09 de enero de 2015 19:30 Para: fis@listas.unizar.es Asunto: Re: [Fis] Response to Pedro's first comments: Terry Deacon wrote: 3. The self-regulating self-repairing end-directed dynamic of autogenesis provides a disposition to preserve a reference target state (even when its current state is far from it). This serves as the necessary baseline for comparative assessment, without which reference and significance cannot be defined because these are intrinsically relativistic informational properties (there is a loose analogy here to the 3rd law of thermodynamics and the relativistic nature of thermodynamic entropy). I think Terry does us a service by invoking the Third Law. We often forget that information and entropy (complementarities) are both necessarily relative to a reference distribution. What Terry's Autogen does is establish an *extrinsic* reference point, which is helpful in maintaining homeostasis. I'll just remark that internal reference is possible as well. For example, when Rutledge et al. (J. Theor. Biol. 57:355-371) applied IT to weighted digraphs, they accomplished a stroke of genius by comparing the distribution of outputs from each node to the corresponding distribution of inputs into the *same* set of nodes. Thereby the self-referential mutual information that results quantifies the organization intrinsic to the network. None of the formalities of communication theory need be invoked. Unlike with Autogen, there is no halting to this process. When applied to an autocatalytic set of processes, internal self-selection of nodes and properties ensues that tends to increase the mutual information of the system. Bertrand Russell saw in this tendency towards self-organization (and the concomitant centripetality it induces) the primary drive for evolution. Even though self-reference is not extrinsic, it nonetheless can function as an asymmetric form of homeostasis. If any disturbance occurs which decreases mutual information (organization), the natural tendency is to push the system back in the direction from which it was disturbed. If it returns near to its undisturbed state, one can call this healing. If it goes towards to different but survivable (or even more propitious) state, then evolution has occurred. Best to all, Bob - Robert E. Ulanowicz| Tel: +1-352-378-7355 Arthur R. Marshall Laboratory | FAX: +1-352-392-3704 Department of Biology | Emeritus, Chesapeake Biological Lab Bartram Hall 110 | University of Maryland University of Florida | Email u...@umces.edu Gainesville, FL 32611-8525 USA | Web http://www.cbl.umces.edu/~ulan -- ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] [Fwd: Re: Steps to a theory of reference significance] Terry Deacon
Hi Guy, Yes. Clearly self-organized dissipative processes can be blocked from completely dissipating or else autogenesis could not be possible. The key point is this: self-organized dissipative systems like tornados, growing snow crystals, or Benárd convection cells do not involve any dynamical features that intrinsically block rate increase to the point of maximizing entropy production *within the given boundary constratints.* But this starred phrase is the critical caveat. This is because Maximum Entropy Production (MEP) must always be defined as a function of boundary conditions, or as you might say available dissipation paths. This is true for both of the component self-organized dynamics constituting simple autogenesis (i.e. reciprocal catalysis and self-assembly) considered in isolation. But when these are coupled, as in autogenesis, each becomes a boundary condition for the other, both facilitating and limiting MEP of the other. For each process considered alone there is no intrinsic MEP limiting-regulating principle at work, but for the complex there is. And this is a dynamical constraint that IS intrinsic to the system dynamics, not an extrinsic boundary condition. This is why I would argue that living organisms and life in general cannot be fully described in MEP terms alone. Living processes build constraints utilizing self-organized processes but which are reciprocally prevented from fully dissipating. They therefore reciprocally *regulate* entropy production rate rather than let the process run to maximum. I would argue, for example, that life on earth has been continually (until the last couple of centuries) sequestering energy-rich molecules (e.g. fossil fuels, etc.) rather than helping that captured solar radiation to more rapidly escape into space. This offers a challenge to a theory (MEPP) that has recently been heralded as a key to explaining life. But it does not violate the basic logic of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics. It is rather a further development, that now includes a non-linear factor: dissipative processes that collectively produce and modify their own boundary conditions. But as with the introduction of an such nonlinearity this can produce some quite unexpected emergent consequences. This is what makes the dynamic that we call life so radically different in what it can do compared to non-living dissipative dynamics. To demonstrate that this sort of nonlinearity is not weirdly divergent from standard theory I often use the following somewhat oversimplified and not uncommon thermodynamic example to show how a process of increasing entropy dissipation can be its own self-limiter. Consider convection through a tall building with an open door on the ground floor and an open window on an upper floor and heat convection causing airflow in from the door and out from the window. Now additionally, imagine that the window opens inward but only part way. So long as the convection flow is below a certain threshold it will increase in rate thus progressively increasing dissipation. But when it reaches a flow rate that is strong enough to blow the window closed it stops all dissipation. Though this is not intrinsic dynamical regulation as in autogenesis, in combination with the mechanics of the window and the capacity of the convection gradient to do mechanical work to alter this boundary condition we can see that for the very reason that dissipative processes have the capacity to do work to alter coupled systems there can be interesting nonlinearities to even simple dissipative systems. This should not be mysterious. but it does suggest that we may need to modify claims that life is merely an entropy maximizing process. — Terry On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Guy A Hoelzer hoel...@unr.edu wrote: Hi Terry, I have a question about your ‘PS’. I think of MEP as being constrained by potentials and a limited set of material opportunities (the adjacent possibilities). I think of it as a thermodynamic version of natural selection in which some alternative states are thermodynamically favored over others, but this does not guarantee that dissipation will proceed to completion or that the particular alternative that absolutely generates the most efficient or effective dissipation will always be the manifested outcome (if there are a number of similarly optimal paths available). Contingency on idiosyncratic configurations within and in the neighborhood of a system might lead the system to follow a variety of alternative paths. Would you argue that autogenesis is not an MEP process from this somewhat fuzzy perspective? Cheers, Guy Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor Department of Biology University of Nevada Reno Phone: 775-784-4860 Fax: 775-784-1302 hoel...@unr.edu On Jan 9, 2015, at 3:35 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: Message from Terry Deacon Original Message Subject: Re: [Fis] Steps to a theory
[Fis] MEPP
TD: Autogenesis is also not a Maximum Entropy Production process because it
halts dissipation before its essential self-preserving constraints are
degraded and therefore does not exhaust the gradient(s) on which its
persistence depends.
S: 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.
GH: I think of [MEPP] as a thermodynamic version of natural selection in
which some alternative states are thermodynamically favored over others,
but this does not guarantee that dissipation will proceed to completion or
that the particular alternative that absolutely generates the most
efficient or effective dissipation will always be the manifested outcome
(if there are a number of similarly optimal paths available). Contingency
on idiosyncratic configurations within and in the neighborhood of a system
might lead the system to follow a variety of alternative paths.
S: I think that the keyword here is ‘striving’ Living things are mostly
always striving, so they reach for the maximum until it ‘hurts’.
GH: Would you argue that autogenesis is not an MEP process from this
somewhat fuzzy perspective?
TD: This offers a challenge to a theory (MEPP) that has recently been
heralded as a key to explaining life. But it does not violate the basic
logic of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics. It is rather a further
development, that now includes a non-linear factor: dissipative processes
that collectively produce and modify their own boundary conditions. But as
with the introduction of an such nonlinearity this can produce some quite
unexpected emergent consequences. This is what makes the dynamic that we
call life so radically different in what it can do compared to non-living
dissipative dynamics.
This -snip- does suggest that we may need to modify claims that life is
merely an entropy maximizing process.
S: I think no one has argued that living systems are ‘merely’ entropy
production maximizers. That might be the view of the Universe, if it could
have a view. But finalities can be parsed as {entropy production {free
energy dissipation {work}}} on the template {physical process {chemical
actions {living activity}}}. At each level we have finalities {Second Law
{Maupertuis’ least energy {goal seeking}}}. The outermost class is locally
the weakest impulse, but it acts continuously and ‘fills in’ immediately
there is any hesitation, while the innermost subclass is the most
immediately effective, but its enthusiasms come and go, and do not last.
STAN
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] [Fwd: Re: Steps to a theory of reference significance] Terry Deacon
Message from Terry Deacon Original Message Subject:Re: [Fis] Steps to a theory of reference significance Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 03:32:22 +0100 From: Terrence W. DEACON dea...@berkeley.edu To: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es References: 54ad3798.7060...@aragon.es 54ae7ca4.9080...@aragon.es This very brief reply should be routed to the FIS list please... One response: My choice of autogenesis is motivated by ... 1. It is the simplest dynamical system I have been able to imagine that exhibits the requisite properties required for an interpretive system (i.e. one that can assign reference and significance to a signal due to intrinsic properties alone - that is these features are independent of any extrinsic perspective). A simple organism is far too complex. As a result it is possible to make misleading assumptions about what we don't account for (allowing us to inadvertently sneak in assumptions about what information is and is not - for example just assuming that DNA molecule are intrinsically informational). As I note when introducing this model, developing a simplest but not too simple model system is the key to devising clear physical principles. 2. Autogenesis is not the same as autopoiesis (which is only a description of presumed requirements for life) rather autogenesis is a well-described empirically testable molecular dynamic, that is easily model able in all aspects. Autopoiesis fit with the class of models assuming that simple autocatalysis is sufficient and then simply adds (by assertion) the (non-realized) assumption that autopoiesis can somehow be causally closed and unitary, whereas in fact autocatalytic systems are intrinsically dissipative* and subject to error catastrophe. More importantly, the assumption about coherent finite unity and internal synergy is the critical one, and so it needs to be the one feature that is explicitly modeled in order to understand these aspects of information. 3. The self-regulating self-repairing end-directed dynamic of autogenesis provides a disposition to preserve a reference target state (even when its current state is far from it). This serves as the necessary baseline for comparative assessment, without which reference and significance cannot be defined because these are intrinsically relativistic informational properties (there is a loose analogy here to the 3rd law of thermodynamics and the relativistic nature of thermodynamic entropy). * PS: Autogenesis is also not a Maximim Entropy Production process because it halts dissipation before its essential self-preserving constraints are degraded and therefore does not exhaust the gradient(s) on which its persistence depends. — Terry On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:48 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es mailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es wrote: Dear Terry and colleagues, Thanks a lot for the opening text! It is a well crafted Essay full of very detailed contents. My impression is that the microphysics of information has been solved elegantly --at least at the level of today's relevant knowledge-- with your work and the works of related authors, one of them Karl Friston, who could be linked as a complementary approach to yours (in particular his recent Life as we know it, Royal Society Interface Journal, 10: 20130475). His Bayesian approach to life's organization, coupled with (variational) free energy minimization principle, conduces to the emergence of homeostasis and a simple form of autopoiesis, as well as the organization of perception/action later on. Thus, quite close to your approach on autogenic systems. About the different sections of the Essay, the very detailed points you deal with in section 4 (steps to a formalization of reference) are, in my opinion, the conceptual core and deserve a careful inspection, far more than these rushed comments. In any case, the relationship Boltzmann-Shannon entropies has been cleared quite elegantly. However, for my taste the following sections have not sufficiently opened the panorama. And with this I start some critical appreciations. Perhaps the microphysics of information is not the critical stumbling block to me removed for the advancement of the informational perspective. We could remain McLuhan's stance on Shannon's information theory and von Neumann's game theory... yes, undoubtedly important advancements, but not the essential stuff of information. But in this list there are people far more versed in McLuhan's contents and whether the caveats he raised would continue to apply (obviously in a different way). I am also critical with the autogenesis model systems--wouldn't it be far clearer approaching a (relatively) simple prokaryotic cell and discuss upon its intertwining of the communication and self-production arrangements? The way a bacterium sees the world,
