Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism

["John M" <***>]

Tim,

you arrive by common (Rosenean) sense from a 2-bit model to a 3-body system
and as you continued, to an unlistable amount body maze - the unlimited/able
wholeness.
It is a logical and beautiful way to show the futility of reductionist
cut-off model science (however successful in technology).

Also you touch the good/bad relations. I refer to Dan's parable of the
Taoist questions.  Our terms relate to our own interest NOW, in which asense
we pass judgement - ignorantly.

We call symbiotic when we see no harm, maybe we see benefit
in the cohabitation of species in our momentary thinking (interest).
We call it parasitic, when we derive some harm on a participant.
But what is harm? (Tao). A mutation, a thinning of a niche, a new
format (like the eukaryotes) is hard to judge impartially.

Our words represent symbolic of ancient times and now we apply them to the
newly learned environment. Good for arguing.

Your logical post is commendable. Thank you

John Mikes




----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 1:16 AM
Subject: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism


> I have been somewhat incapacitated this last week, but am finally feeling
> better. During my forced rest, I tried to further some earlier thoughts on
> symbiosis & parasitism. Mainly I was wondering about the question of
> "improving" our (human) interaction with the biosphere; loosely, "how do
we
> become more symbiotic and less parasitic?", along the lines of an earlier
> remark by Judith. Of course, that leads to asking what "more
> symbiotic"/"less parasitic" means.
>
> This has proved more difficult than I expected. Ultimately, notions like
> 'symbiosis' and 'parasitism' characterize certain functional relations
> between organisms(i.e., no creature is a symbiote or parasite in
isolation).
> Further, if we move from discussing individuals to discussing generations
of
> individuals, then the notions of fitness, adaptive behavior, and so on,
> changes. There seems to be little in the way of first principles or
> absolutes to rely upon; instead, all these notions are relative to some
> context.
>
> If we look at two individuals of two species of organisms as systems, S1
and
> S2, then we can ask: what happens when S1 interacts with S2? Or, in the
case
> of  two organisms sharing one environment or ecosystem (E), then we can
ask:
> what happens when S1 and S2 both interact simultaneously with E?
>
> In a Newtonian universe, we could say that systems S1 & S2 & E are
> individually described by some fixed mathematical description f & g & h,
> respectively. Further, in this mechanistic universe, we can in principle
> describe the systems along with the interactions between these three
systems
> (S1 + S2 + E) by some larger mathematical description j. In doing so, we
> have assembled everything together into one large mechanical system. The
> individual systems (organisms), now swallowed into the mathematical
> description j, have lost their identity and accordingly, there is no
longer
> any need to think in terms of any notions of "function" occuring between
> those individuals. Instead, we can talk in terms of state descriptions of
> the larger system. Or, we can retain the individual systems as distinct,
and
> just assume that it is entirely valid to describe the interactions between
> S1, S2 and E via mathematical descriptions. (In this case, j is tacit, and
> any failures in the mathematical descriptions are always considered
fixable
> by some "better" model, yet to be discovered).
>
> However, if S1, S2, E are complex in the Rosennean sense, then the complex
> systems cannot be described by some fixed mathematical description.
> Therefore, the interactions between the complex systems will be
complex.This
> further means that there can be no overarching mathematical description j
> which describes (S1 + S2 + E). In this case, we have to take those systems
> and the interactions or relations between the systems as irreducible.
>
> But what makes those relations "functions"? As Rosen describes in Life
> Itself, "function" is a way of describing a part of a system: remove the
> part from the system, and the discrepancy in behaviors of the system
between
> when the part is removed and when it is present characterizes that part's
> (or "component's") "function".[LI 115-116]
>
> In other words, 'function' is not merely about the mechanics of the
> interaction, but instead it is about the interaction in the context of
some
> larger system - in this case (S1 + S2 + E). So, to say that "species P & Q
> are in a predator-prey functional relation" is to really say: "in the
system
> (P + Q + E), species P & Q are in a predator-prey functional relation".
(For
> example, think of an alternate ecosystem E' where the "prey" Q occupy
areas
> also occupied by another species R (as part of this ecosystem E') which
> would be fierce predators of P, and therefore "predator" P does not hunt
> "prey" Q in E'.)
>
> So, if we ask about two species X and Y as symbiotes, we are asking about
a
> functional relation between X and Y via environmental interaction. So that
> means we are asking about functional components X and Y as symbiotes in a
> given ecosystem E. That is, is X performing a symbiotic function with
> respect to Y, and is Y performing a symbiotic function with respect to X,
in
> the context of a certain E?
>
> Of course, there has to be a way to characterize the term "symbiotic", and
> Rosen does this in general mathematical terms in 'Cooperation and Chimera'
> in EL. Similarly, parasitic relations can be described in general terms as
> he does in AS. (Both of these roughly follow the commonsense meanings of
> these terms.)
>
> There are so many questions at this point, so many possible directions to
> go. For example, suppose X & Y form some strong symbiotic relation.
Suppose
> also that Y is in a parasitic relation with Z, that may ultimately lead to
> the demise of Y. In this case, X's survival may also be in jeopardy if it
> depends too strongly on Y. In such a situation, there is nothing inherent
> about components E, X, Y or Z that is "bad", it is simply a result of
their
> contextual relationships. (In the spirit of Hamlet: "there is nothing
either
> good or bad in a functional component, but the contextual relationships
make
> it so.")
>
> Importantly, there is nothing inherently good or bad about the specific
> behavioral *mechanisms* that a species might have. What is important is
how
> the species performs in a functional role. There may be many possible
> mechanisms that will lead to a similar functional role.(Rosen discusses
> this, if I recall correctly, in relation to evolution in AS.)
>
> When we expand into thousands and thousands of species, it seems
> mind-boggling: they are all interacting indirectly via the environment (to
> one degree or another), and in so doing they are *cultivating* that
> environment, making changes in some cases to it, and in other cases
> providing some kinds of stabilizing effects. Some species may also be
> interacting directly. How do we begin to describe this? (Recall that
systems
> in isolation do not provide the information needed - they need to be
> observed in their functional context.)
>
> And if we shift from individuals in species to an evolutionary
perspective,
> considering the generational trail of a species as the "individual" under
> study, then relationships that appeared symbiotic may now appear
parasitic,
> particularly if the species have widely different generational timeframes.
> And in this evolutionary perspective, it would be unusual if E had no
> notable changes, which in turn will affect the species in that ecosystem,
> etc.
>
> When are we humans guilty of wiping out a species? When it is a passenger
> pigeon, Tasmanian tiger, etc.
> When are we humans "successful" at wiping out a species? When it is polio
or
> SARS.(At least, that is our goal.)
>
> How do we characterize this value judgement? And, how do we then make
policy
> generally about the biosphere, and our place in it, given these kinds of
> considerations?
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Tim
> > Gwinn
> > Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 2:49 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Anticipatory behavior
> >
> >
> > Yes, but in the that word "health" resides the real difficulty.
> > Healthy for
> > who? Healthy in what way? And so on. In particular, he discussed
> > the ways in
> > which fitness of adaptations on an individual level and adaptations on a
> > evolutionary scale, even within the context of a single species,
diverges:
> > "Conceptual difficulties with evolution have always grown from
> > the fact that
> > the two need not coincide." (EL p. 322)
> >
> > I imagine that if we were to promote one kind of relationship in
> > a way that
> > we could measure as being more symbiotic than parasitic, then it is
likely
> > that the resulting increase in symbiosis will have some deleterious
effect
> > on some other organism. Even worse is that the biosphere at large
> > is, by its
> > nature (no pun intended), home to constantly evolving (on differing
> > timescales) organisms such that the overall system - the one which we
want
> > to become more symbiotic with (using predictive models and anticipatory
> > behavior) - is ever-shifting.
> >
> > I don't think this makes any attempt to live more symbiotically
> > impossible,
> > but it does make the criteria for 'success' in that regard much more
> > difficult to gauge, in my view. Specifically, I have always been
reluctant
> > to consider such symbiotic success to be measured as the degree
> > to which an
> > ecosystem remains unchanged, primarily because an unchanged
> > ecosystem is, in
> > my view, a kind of short-term parasitic timescale view, rather than a
> > longer-term global (evolutionary) timescale.
> >
> > In the global evolutionary timescale view, an altering of an
> > ecosystem seems
> > to me unavoidable unless we deny all evolutionary capacity of the
> > organisms
> > therein (and nearby). But I do not think most ecologists would favor
this
> > view, although it seems inevitable to me.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> >