Helmut, Lists,
Some identifiable entities that have self-organizing properties like ecosystems
do not have clear boundaries in most cases. I developed the notion of cohesion
in order to deal with dynamical identity in general following the memory case.
There are too many papers I have written
I don't see an ecosystem as an individual but as a system, in its case, a CAS.
It doesn't have the distinctive boundaries of an individual - either temporally
or spatially. I see a human being as a system, in that its parts co-operate in
a systemic manner; and it is also an individual - with
We mean something different by “individual”, Edwina. I am using it in the sense
that species are individuals. It was David HulI who put the ecologists onto me
because of my work on individuality. I don’t think that further discussion
with you on this topic is likely to be fruitful for either
No, ecosystems, at least are individuals (but also systems, but so are we).
They satisfy identity conditions that are not reducible. I can’t say about
societies. I would have to work with suitable social scientists to find out. I
don’t have the knowledge in that area yet, though I do have one
I should have further remarked that socio-ecological systems (SESs) are a
fairly recent area of study, and I would suppose that society is part of the
ecology in general and separating cause involved will not be easy, if it is
possible at all, so more holistic methods are needed. This seems to
Dear seminar participants,
There's little substantive that I can add to what Gary Fuhrman has said so
well in this post announcing the conclusion of the seminar on *Natural
Propositions*. I too would like to thank all the participants, moderators
and managers of both lists, and, most especially,
John, Stan, lists,
In fact, if an ecosystem has got a self, based on self-organization, then my theory about the clear-boundaries-premise is wrong. So I am asking: Is the self of the ecosystem reducible or not reducible to: 1.: Natural laws, and 2.: The selves of the organisms taking part of the
Helmut, Lists,
I am reluctant to say outright that an ecosystem is a self, but people like
Robert Rosen (Life Itself), Timothy Allen (Towards a Unified Ecology), and Bob
Ulanowicz (Ecology, the Ascendent Perspective) all argue that ecosystems are
not reducible to natural laws, member
Dear discussion participants, lists -
Thanks to all participants and thread leaders in the long discussions about my
book – and especially thanks to Gary for organizing and keeping the the focus
over many months.
It has been highly instructive to encounter and speculate over the many
different
To all participants in the Natural Propositions seminar on the peirce-l and
biosemiotics lists,
It's about time to wrap up the seminar by thanking you all for taking part. I
think the cross-conversation between the two lists has helped to break some new
ground on both, and you have all
John, lists,
now I have only one proposal left, but it is a bit weird. It is about social systems. I dont know whether it is transferable to ecosystems: I assume, that the Luhmannean intention a system has, is the only intention that is pre-self: The intention to become a self, and by this order
Wouldn't an ecosystem (and a society) be a CAS, a complex adaptive system,
which is not an individual and therefore has no 'self' but is most certainly
not a collection of singular units and thus is not reducible.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: John Collier
To:
Thank you, Gary, for administering the seminar so reliably and well. I
would also like to thank Frederik for participating so richly in the
discussions, with such flair for clarifying differences and finding common
ground.
I'm going to go off the peirce-L list for a while now because I have some
13 matches
Mail list logo
