Re: [Fis] MEPP
Terry, about the below, it is quite correct; you don't need to respond all messages, even more if they leave the main theme. Usually the two messages per week rule terminates automatically those chained responses and counter-responses. In any case, it is upon you, our invitee. best --Pedro De: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] en nombre de Terrence W. DEACON [dea...@berkeley.edu] Enviado el: sábado, 10 de enero de 2015 20:14 Para: Stanley N Salthe Cc: fis Asunto: Re: [Fis] MEPP [...] Since MEPP is not the point of the paper and the information proposal is not dependent on which interpretation of MEPP we accept, we should probably continue this aspect of the discussion off list (perhaps with Guy and my colleague Koutroufinis) so that it doesn't clog up the discussion space [any feedback on this use from our moderator?]... ___ 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
Re: [Fis] MEPP
PS: Oops, slight misstatement re B convection. Of course the gradient can be reduced by the convection process. On 1/10/15, Terrence W. DEACON wrote: > Hi Stan, > > T: Thanks for the references. I am embarrassed to say that I don't > think that I have read the two by Kampis. I will post references for > the MEPP critiques and counter-examples later next week. I am in Oslo > at the moment and don't have many resources at my disposal. Since MEPP > is not the point of the paper and the information proposal is not > dependent on which interpretation of MEPP we accept, we should > probably continue this aspect of the discussion off list (perhaps with > Guy and my colleague Koutroufinis) so that it doesn't clog up the > discussion space [any feedback on this use from our moderator?]. > > For now I offer these further responses. > > S: "... does not go below the fastest non-damaging rates, therefore is > ‘maximizing given constraints' " > > T: Not sure that I am interpreting you correctly here. Would altering > its dissipation constraints qualify as "damaging" since it alters the > dissipation pathways and the rate of dissipation? Does "maximizing > given constraints" include changing these constraints in the process > of dissipation? If the answer is 'yes' to these questions then we are > on the same page, and it suggests that life is very different than > self-organized dissipative processes that do not alter their own > dissipation paths. > > T: Do you equate "maximize access to the energy gradient it is using" > with maximizing the rate these gradients are dissipated? I think these > are different, > > T: Benárd convection evolves increasing dynamical constraint as heat > increases above the critical threshold. These internally generated > constraints dissipate in the form of exported entropy as the system > destroys the gradient and subsequently cools down. The external > constraints such as the gradient between the heat source and > atmospheric sink, and the properties of the fluid are of course not > typically altered by the dynamics. > > T: I tend to substitute the term 'constraint' for 'organization' > because of its greater generality. > > T: By 'formal' I mean not physico-chemical. The synergy constraint is > relational and substrate neutral. t can be instantiated in many > different material substrates with many different configurations so > long as the complementary relationship is maintained. > > — Terry > > > > On 1/10/15, Stanley N Salthe wrote: >> 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 physica
Re: [Fis] MEPP
Hi Stan, T: Thanks for the references. I am embarrassed to say that I don't think that I have read the two by Kampis. I will post references for the MEPP critiques and counter-examples later next week. I am in Oslo at the moment and don't have many resources at my disposal. Since MEPP is not the point of the paper and the information proposal is not dependent on which interpretation of MEPP we accept, we should probably continue this aspect of the discussion off list (perhaps with Guy and my colleague Koutroufinis) so that it doesn't clog up the discussion space [any feedback on this use from our moderator?]. For now I offer these further responses. S: "... does not go below the fastest non-damaging rates, therefore is ‘maximizing given constraints' " T: Not sure that I am interpreting you correctly here. Would altering its dissipation constraints qualify as "damaging" since it alters the dissipation pathways and the rate of dissipation? Does "maximizing given constraints" include changing these constraints in the process of dissipation? If the answer is 'yes' to these questions then we are on the same page, and it suggests that life is very different than self-organized dissipative processes that do not alter their own dissipation paths. T: Do you equate "maximize access to the energy gradient it is using" with maximizing the rate these gradients are dissipated? I think these are different, T: Benárd convection evolves increasing dynamical constraint as heat increases above the critical threshold. These internally generated constraints dissipate in the form of exported entropy as the system destroys the gradient and subsequently cools down. The external constraints such as the gradient between the heat source and atmospheric sink, and the properties of the fluid are of course not typically altered by the dynamics. T: I tend to substitute the term 'constraint' for 'organization' because of its greater generality. T: By 'formal' I mean not physico-chemical. The synergy constraint is relational and substrate neutral. t can be instantiated in many different material substrates with many different configurations so long as the complementary relationship is maintained. — Terry On 1/10/15, Stanley N Salthe wrote: > 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 substra
Re: [Fis] MEPP
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 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
Re: [Fis] MEPP
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] 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
