Dear Bob, I can make no sense of this usage of the term "constraint." And while I understand where you are going, mainly because I'm familiar with yours and Kauffman's work, this paper strikes me as flawed.
First, the paper claims to seek a "non-reductionist" answer but fails to provide an alternative scientific epistemology - "non-reductionism" is not an epistemology. In brief, the problem is in the methodology of the paper which is still atomistic - and this is why you have a problem with atomistic reduction. Reduction as a method is not necessarily atomistic - reduction to a point is obviously empty. Leaving aside any question concerning the existential nature of the suggestions made in the paper, that might be clarified if a theory of knowledge had been stated, the term abused most in this paper is "semiotic." That semeiotic theory is relevant I have no doubt, but as used here it is meaningless faddism. In its atomism the paper commits the crime it seeks to avoid in rejecting reduction, for rather than an integration assembling the atomic parts as suggested under environmental limits, you need to identify mechanisms that differentiate from the whole - like Darwin's natural selection - which is surely the true nature of organization propagation by constraint. And I know this is where you are trying to go here but I believe it is necessary to go beyond the naive constraints of known physics. As to information theory, the paper seems misguided. Best regards, Steven On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:11 AM, Bob Logan <lo...@physics.utoronto.ca> wrote: > Dear Colleagues - I received the following response below to my paper from > Christophe Menant on the FIS listserv so some of you might not have received > it. The easiest way for me to respond to the question that Christophe raises > is to share with you the original paper I wrote with Stuart Kauffman and > others in which we argue that in biotic systems that the constraints are the > information. > > <1POEFeb1.pdf> > > Christophe Menant <christophe.men...@hotmail.fr> wrote on Jan 31, 2013 > 8:34:51 AM EST. > > Dear Bob, > Your paper is interesting. And there is a point on which I would appreciate > knowing a bit more. It is about the way you use the word "constraint". > Here are the understandings I got from your paper (your last paragraph): > 1) Constraint as information: > - "biotic information is nothing more than the constraints that allows a > living organism to harness energy from its environment to propagate its > organization". > - "I do not know where the energy comes from to build the constraints but the > constraints are the information". > - "That constraint, that vital piece of information was the spark that > ignited the biosphere". > 2) Constraint as part of a system transforming energy into work: > - "a living organism must be able through constraints to do work with the > energy it imports from its environment" > - "where does the energy come from to build the constraints to turn > environment energy into the work needed by an organisms to achieve its > metabolism" > 3) Constraint as constructing information: > - "foundation which views information as the construction of constraints". > 4) Constraint as allowing a finalized work: > - "an aleatoric event took place in which a constraint emerged that allowed a > collection of organic molecules to do the work necessary to propagate their > organization". > These usages of the word look as gravitating around information and > energy/work. But perhaps you mean something else as the word can be used in > many different ways. (as you may remember, I use it as characterizing the > nature of a system: http://cogprints.org/6279/2/MGS.pdf) > It would interesting you tell us a bit more about the way you position the > word in your approach. > Thanks in advance > Christophe > > Here are Christophe's usage of constraint: A meaning is a meaningful > information that is created by a system submitted to a constraint when it > receives an external information that has a connection with the constraint. > The meaning is formed of the connection existing between the received > information and the constraint of the system. > The function of the meaning is to participate to the determination of an > action that will be implemented in order to satisfy the constraint of the > system. > > On 2013-01-30, at 11:02 PM, Bob Logan wrote: > >> Dear Colleagues - I was very moved by Robert Ulanowicz's book A Third Window >> - I saw parallels with the work of McLuhan and a project I co-authored with >> Stuart Kauffman and others. That resulted in the attached paper. Some of you >> on FIS will receive this email post twice as I do not know who all is on >> FIS - I am sending this post to all folks that were copied on emails to or >> from Robert Ulanowicz. >> I hope you will find time to read my paper and sent me your comments. If you >> like this paper I have another that I submitted to Zygon that deals with >> matters spiritual and theological also stimulated by Robert Ulanowicz's A >> 3rd Window. I would be happy to send it to you. >> >> with kind regards to all - Bob Logan >> >> <Ulanowicz-McLuhan-KauffLogan.doc> >> >> ______________________ >> >> Robert K. Logan >> Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD >> Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto >> www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan >> >> >> >> > > ______________________ > > Robert K. Logan > Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD > Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto > www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan > > > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
