Re: Function, unfractionable as first principle

["Dan Fiscus" <***>]

Tim Gwinn wrote:
> Hey Dan! Good to see you on the list! :)

Thanks. And thanks for running it. Also thanks for your website.
It's very clear, informative, helpful for me, the parts I've read so far.

> Can you elaborate on the how the CCP (coupled complementary processes)
> can model very complex things like organisms?

Two replies come to mind. But as prelude, remember that I don't
see organisms as being as complex as ecosystems, and I see the
basic unit of life as the ecosystemic combo of at least the two
mutually causal functions of composer-decomposer. So given this
starting point I'd say first that the main aspect of organisms that
CCP's can help model is their integration in ecosystems in which
they can play an essential contributory funtional role in life. That
is CCP's help model that inseparability you described in the prior
post - an organism is really not much on its own, it must have
other living players as well as certain environmental conditions,
both aspects of its context, in order to live; it's role like predator
or prey, composer or decomposer is context dependent.

The second reply is that I think there are several sub-systems
within organisms that
may be well-modeled with a CCP approach. I mentioned earlier
that I think metabolism and genetic processes are two major
examples of key organismal sub-systems, sub-functions that
seem to consist of molecular string composition coupled to
decomposition. Think of replication - there is both the breaking
of bonds to get a single strand, then the forming of bonds to
build the missing complementary strand. Another example I play
around with is what seem to me the two aspects of consciousness
involved with internal dialog, thoughts, thinking in language. It
seems important to me that when I think and am able to both
generate or speak "thoughts as words" and also hear the same,
that I have a dual aspect in my own mind. One aspect is the
speaker, another is the listener. How else could thoughtwords
both arise and be "heard"?

Other possible angles would be to model an organism in an
autocatalytic, interdependent relationship with its environment.
At the simplest level, an organism must exist in a kind of
mutualistic or positive feedback relation with its environment.
Getting such a set of fully circular and reciprocal relations or
functions, though, usually requires including at least one other
life form (the complementary autotroph or heterotroph,
whichever is missing). But the third element can be the
environment itself, like perhaps an aspect of micro-climate, or
soil organic matter, or etc. The addition of the environment
as a functional element is important in that it makes the model
span two levels and to have these two levels be intertwined.

> My understanding is that there are
> varying degrees of complexity in the sense that one complex system may be
> unable to adequately model another different complex system. In LI, Rosen
> uses the example of Number Theory, and how although it is complex, there are
> certainly other complex systems which NT cannot adequately model. Hence, the
> other complex system is *more complex* than NT. And of course, Judith's
> levels of complexity demonstrates this also.
 >
> So, although a 3-body system may be complex, and therefore "infinitely
> open", as Rosen would say, I would not consider an 3-body (or any N-body)
> system adequately complex for modeling an organism. So I am having trouble
> conceptualizing how you would put together the composition-decomposition or
> heterotroph-autotroph processes in such a way as to model successively more
> complex systems.

Good questions and I am not sure I know anything to reply. One
thing I wonder is how to determine when it matters if something
is "more" complex, or merely "differently" complex? If one says
that number theory is complex, but it can't be used to model
an organism, does that mean an organism is more complex or
just complex in a different way? I tend to think that showing
differently complex is enough - evidence for no largest model,
need for Rosen, Rosen likely more general than Newton and
mechanisms, etc.

Another way to deal with all this is to use unfractionability as a
first principle or litmus test of sorts. If we say that one aspect
of an organism that we can agree on is unfractionability, or
plan to make the focal issue, then
we can use that principle or property as a guide to modeling and
as a test of whether the model commutes, accords with nature.
If the model is unfractionable - if it falls apart, ceases to
function as a whole, loses fundamental capacity when it is cut,
divided, or components are isolated, then we have at least
achieved success in modeling that aspect of reality or an
organism. This would still hit snags perhaps in terms of
specifying boundaries or context in time, space, etc. Hmmm...

An organism ceases to function if you cut out core organs or
functional components, or cut it off from required links to
environmental inputs. For a mammal, if you cut off the head
or cut out the heart (sorry for bad images) or cut off the
supply of oxygen (maybe 10 minutes), water (10 days?), or
food (10 weeks?), it will die and thus it ceases to function,
loses its primary capacity of life. The functions provided by
components heart and head are entangled with the whole
such that they are irreducible. Same is true for continued
input streams of O2, H2O and organic C and N (some of
which come primarily or most reliably and most quickly from
plants versus abiotic processes).

Likewise, in the models of life = open-ended evolution based
on either/or/all of:

composer, decomposer, coupling of these
entropic, syntropic, coupling of these
renewable energy, recycling matter, coupling of these

I think if you cut out any one of the three functions, the system
ceases to function, loses its primary capacity of open-ended
evolution, is no longer self-sustaining, must wind down and
revert to an abiotic system.

Some more ideas...I'll still do the other post on values and
good vs bad...in a bit...

Dan