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 <ssal...@binghamton.edu> 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 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 <dea...@berkeley.edu> > 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 >> >> > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
