As my second posting for the week:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu>
Date: Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Doctrine of Limitation
To: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
Replying to Pedro, who asked:
>Optimality principles can be discussed now, but limitation may be
easier. Why the cell, any cell, does not grow indefinitely its genome
(stock of knowledge) so to indefinitely increase its repertoire of
intelligent mechanisms? Why the proteins encoded in bacterial genomes,
the intracellular "intelligent" components or molecular agents, are not
far bigger and powerful? And why do they become substantially "smaller"
than their eukaryotic counterparts? Limitations of genome size, of
energetics of protein synthesis, and those due to the folding process
("problem") have to be invoked, among others.
I like to point out a limitation that faces all dissipative structures --
senescence. Here again is the scheme:
---------------------------
IMMATURE STAGE
Relatively high energy density (per unit mass) flow rate
Relatively small size and/or gross mattergy throughput
Rate of acquisition of informational constraints relatively high, along
with high growth rate
Internal stability relatively low (it is changing fast), but dynamical
stability (persistence) is high
Homeorhetic stability to same-scale perturbations relatively high
MATURE STAGE (only in relatively very stable systems)
Declining energy density flow rate is still sufficient for recovery
from perturbations
Size and gross throughput is typical for the kind of system
Form is definitive for the kind of system
Internal stability adequate for system persistence
Homeostatic stability to same-scale perturbations adequate for recovery
SENESCENT STAGE
Energy density flow rate gradually dropping below functional
requirements
Gross mattergy throughput high but its increase is decelerating
Form increasingly accumulates deforming marks as a result of
encounters, as part of individuation
Internal stability of system becoming high to the point of
inflexibility
Homeostatic stability to same-scale perturbations declining
TABLE 1: Thermodynamic and informational criteria of the developmental
stages of dissipative structures. See Salthe (1989, 1993) for more details
and citations.
-----------------------
Combining this with the limitations on length of life and the Darwinian
postulate about the urgency to reproduce more rapidly than others in a
population, we can generate an argument that there would be no point to
elaboration beyond some basic minimum. This is advanced upon the notion
that the purpose of living forms is simply to reproduce.
Adding to this general point, I would also cite a paper in *Science* (330:
920-921) 2010: "Irremedial Complexity" by Gray et al, which posits that cell
machinery -- like a Rube Goldberg machine -- is much more complicated than
it needs to be to perform its functions.
The more complicated a system is, the more there is that can go wrong. This
principle adds to the senescence argument, urging that systems stay simple,
live fast, and die a multiple parent.
STAN
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:
> Dear FISers,
>
> Thanks to Christophe for his agents "narrative" and to Joseph for openly
> "buying" populational thinking and the doctrine of limitation. As for
> the narrative, I concur that the link between intelligence and info
> implies the introduction of some "agent" thinking --what kind of agent
> and scenario? Krassimir has attempted here some general-style option
> too. Murray Gell-Mann framed an interesting general description, about
> Information Gatherers and Information Utilizers or "Iguses" (in "the
> Quark and the Jaguar", 1995), which was accepted by quite many
> complexity scientists afterwards. The point is that knowledge gets
> introduced into a workable conceptual scheme together with information
> and intelligence.
>
> Let me try a different track. Starting with an ample conception of
> intelligence, for instance what Raquel and Jorge penned "the capability
> to process information for the purpose of adaptation or problem solving
> activities. In the case of cells, problems can be caused by the
> environment, extracellular aggressions, communications, etc." But an
> important aspect is missing here. If we see some biological entity
> regularly entering some metabolic inputs and processing some external
> signals, we do not get much attracted to ad the term intelligence
> (plants, for instance). Rather intelligence implies "the ability to
> manipulate the life stories (and evolution) of the living portions of
> the environment and to develop efficient mechanisms (for
> cooperation/defence/aggresion) conducing to survival and
> multiplication." The important difference is the introduction of the
> "life cycle" concept, either as life stories or as survival and
> multiplication.
>
> Optimality principles can be discussed now, but limitation may be
> easier. Why the cell, any cell, does not grow indefinitely its genome
> (stock of knowledge) so to indefinitely increase its repertoire of
> intelligent mechanisms? Why the proteins encoded in bacterial genomes,
> the intracellular "intelligent" components or molecular agents, are not
> far bigger and powerful? And why do they become substantially "smaller"
> than their eukaryotic counterparts? Limitations of genome size, of
> energetics of protein synthesis, and those due to the folding process
> ("problem") have to be invoked, among others.
>
> I mean, one cannot make an abstract, idealized scheme of the bacteria
> (A. Danchin, 2009) as a computer or a Turing Machine without taking into
> account of the biolimitations at work. Something similar should be
> discussed with respect animal and human intelligence, particularly in
> the social setting. ---e.g., structures of political or economic
> organizations; or our idealized science for instance. The evolution of
> science during last centuries and the fascinating process of
> disciplinary recombination cannot properly be explained without
> developing a "doctrine of limitation" that helps make real sense of
> those mythical terms of today: interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinary,
> pluridisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, etc. Why have we passed from
> estimates of 3,000 disciplines in the 70's to close to 7,000 in our
> decade? Why not just 100 bigger ones? What are the laws of scientific
> recombination and how do they relate to our fundamental human
> limitations? In Beijing I proposed a collective research project on this
> very matter, I keep thinking it was a good idea.
>
> all the best,
>
> --Pedro
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
> Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
> Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
