PS: Oops, slight misstatement re B convection. Of course the gradient can be reduced by the convection process.
On 1/10/15, Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > 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 > -- Professor Terrence W. Deacon University of California, Berkeley _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
