Dear Stan,
It seems to me that senescence applies to system components which are continuously replaced (generationally) by the autopoietic or dissipative system, while the system at this next-order level can be expected continue to develop (or stagnate). For example, the clouds come and go, but the weather pattern is continued. Of course, a systems level can itself be embedded in a next-order system and thus be replaced, but at a much lower frequency level. Thus, we have to distinguish in terms of the vertical levels of the hierarchy. J Best wishes, Loet _____ Loet Leydesdorff Professor, University of Amsterdam Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 4:34 PM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] Fwd: Doctrine of Limitation 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
