Dear members, In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing out:
1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED: The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as "... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems' operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however, that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human communicators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it. 2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT: This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents inextricably as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role. In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt, Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent. Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration. DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the potential of the semiotic paradigm. The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an outline: http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6 3 By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more compelling position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is first cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its experiences into its being, its unity. WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR? There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA entanglement, and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing correlations between separated neural networks. It is my contention that there is only one mechanism that might explain these correlations - DNA entanglement. So what's the holdup? There can only be one thing. Woo. Professionals terrified of having their valuable work assigned the woo label won't dare utter the words "DNA entanglement" in polite company. It is unfortunate that in this era of rampaging political correctness, with people being unpersoned for holding unapproved opinions, we are policing ourselves into silence. As I am independent of Academia, though, I have nothing to lose, and so I'm so I'm going to say it loud and proud: DNA entanglement. It's a thing. Regards, Stephen Jarosek no woo REFERENCES - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR DNA ENTANGLEMENT: Apostolou, T.; Kintzios, S. Cell-to-Cell Communication: Evidence of Near-Instantaneous Distant, Non-Chemical Communication between Neuronal (Human SK-N-SH Neuroblastoma) Cells by Using a Novel Bioelectric Biosensor (JCS Volume 25, Numbers 9-10, 2018, pp. 62-74(13)) https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2018/00000025/f0020009/art 00002 Crew, B. (2018). This is the first detailed footage of DNA replication, and it wasn't what we expected. Sciencealert.com: https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-first-footage-unexpected Greentechnique. (2011, January 15). Cleve Backster - Primary Perception (beginning at 344 seconds): https://youtu.be/V7V6D33HGt8?t=5m44s Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Vescovi, A. (2004). Non-local correlations between separated neural networks (E. Donkor, A. Pirick, & H. Brandt, Eds.). Quantum Information and Computation (Proceedings of SPIE), 5436(II), 107-117. http://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.540785
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
