Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism

["John M" <***>]

Tim, (don't take this too seriously, please)

I chickened out when I read your post. I did partial diff. equ.s at an
earlier time when I did other things, too, what I don't do now anymore. I am
now 'impartial' to math, as I will show:

You wrote:
"We start with two separate individuals, with their own genomic
identities"...
Re-phrased: "we identify two cut-off reductionist incomplete models with
their qualities cut down to their genomic identities"...
Then you work with these models- within- their- boundaries using  the
strictly cut mathematical rules applicable (reduced to) the partial diff.
equations.
Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't apply it to wholistic complexity.

Now come the chicken:
"The chickens provide nothing for the humans" - have you ever eaten an egg?
so at the most I would deem the pre-killing phase a symbiosis. You eat my
grain, I eat your egg.

Then comes the involvement of timeframes:
"If we use a more inclusive timeframe ..."
Nothing unexpected, a model can be cut (boundaries fixed) for time
limitations as for any other one. No different from ancestry realtions,
microbes living inside, biological interactions with the environment, etc.
etc. what we all cut out for identifying the narrow genomic model in your
calculation. I see nothing non-reductionistic in considering
time-differences. (See my double negation?)
Further:
">the humans overall behavior is negative in that
>it ultimately leads to the demise of the chickens.-...
[and]
>...because commonsensically, after we kill the chicken we get >something
from it, so there is some feeling of some kind of >reciprocity. However, the
getting of meat occurs *after* the
>genomic relationship has ended, so there is no reciprocity >*within* the
context of a relationship between genomes.<"
I would say there is an anticipatory attraction involved (if someone likes a
chickenbreast). So here your process is again "cut" into its explanatory
boundaries.
> it seems as if the appropriate term for agriculture is
>simply "technology". <
Which defines the map of the map of the map.
I would like to recognize my question broader, not even as a territory, but
as a "natural system" extending over all kinds of reductionist model-frames.
It will still be topic-oriented (system).

Now what say you?

John

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism


> John wrote:
> > So is agriculture a parasitic, or a
> > symbiotic arrangement?
> > (I think a good question of the day).
>
> That's a great question!
>
> I'm going to try to approach it from Rosen's comments in chapter 21 of
> "Essays". This involves some partial differential equations, but they are
> not very hard. (Apologies in advance to those who are not partial to math
> (pun intended!)). In this plain text, I'll use "6" to indicate a partial
> differential, and "x#" to indicate "x-dot" ("a change in x").
>
> We start with two separate individuals, with their own genomic identities,
> a,b. (In this case, 'genome' is a general term for identity, and is not
> automatically identified with DNA.)
>
> They each have some behaviors, x#, y#, which are changes in state x,y of
the
> respective individuals.
> They each have their respective environments, F,G.
>
> So, bypassing the preliminary discussions (see ch. 21) survival is
> associated with:
>        6(6a/6F)/6x# < 0
> which in plain language means that changes in genome (6a) per changes in
> environment (6F) are inhibited by virtue of offsetting changes in behavior
> (6x#).
>
> A cooperative or symbiotic relationship is therefore when both of the
> following are true:
>        6(6a/6F)/6y# < 0        6(6b/6G)/6x# < 0
> In this case, both species behaviors are mutually inhibiting changes in
the
> other's genome.
>
> Similarly, Rosen descibes a competitive relationship as:
>        6(6a/6F)/6y# > 0        6(6b/6G)/6x# > 0
> where the behaviors of each species is working to promote changes in the
> other's genome (i.e., in broadest terms: destroy the other's identity).
>
> So, what is parasitism? I suspect it can be said to be the following case:
>        6(6a/6F)/6y# < 0        6(6b/6G)/6x# > 0
> where there is a one-sided relationship. One species promotes genome
> preservation of the other, but the other's behavior is working to destroy
> the genome of the first.
>
> Where does agriculture fit in? If it is, say, chickens raised for eggs,
then
> that would pretty well fit in with the symbiotic scenario: there are
> behaviors on both sides that provide mutually beneficial tradeoff of
> resources while preserving both sets of individuals.Even if we shift the
> discussion from individuals to 'generations of individuals' of the same
> genome, it is likely that the situation would remain in the symbiotic
realm.
> That is, the forcing of production of nonfertilized eggs (which would by
> itself appear to be a negative influence on generational success of the
> chicken's genome) will be offset by the humans long-term cultivation of
the
> species. But this notion also shifts the idea of 'genome' from an
individual
> to a species.So, shifting to a generational timeframe cannot be directly
> related to the genomic success on an individual level.
>
> In the case of, say, raising chickens as food, it seems to be a parasitic
> relationship if we only consider the timeframe up until the chickens are
> killed: the chickens are parasitic on the humans. (Granted, we humans have
> set up the initial conditions intentionally to make it so, but I thought
it
> was an interesting point.) The chickens provide nothing for the humans,
and
> instead are a potential source of harmful waste, disease, etc.
>
> If we switch to a timeframe to include just the killing or harvesting of
the
> chickens (and thereby changing the particular behaviors x# under
> consideration), we see that the situation is reversed: now it appears the
> humans are parasitic on the chickens (i.e., killing a chicken is
definitely
> bad for its genomic identity!). But wait: the chickens behaviors (which
> occur only while it is alive) are no different than before. I propose that
> the situation has become one of competition, where both species (as living
> entities trying to preserve their genomic identity) are negative
influences
> on the other. Its just that the "competition" is decidely one-sided, and
for
> the chickens, their "goose is cooked", so to speak.
>
> If we use a more inclusive timeframe that covers both situations (and both
> sets of behaviors), then what is the nature of the relationship? I propose
> that it is essentially the same as the situation just described above;
that
> is, one of competition. The chickens, while alive, are a negative genomic
> influence on the humans, and the humans overall behavior is negative in
that
> it ultimately leads to the demise of the chickens. I think it is a case
> where it is a "battle for survival", but the game is rigged.
>
> I had not expected to come to this conclusion, because commonsensically,
> after we kill the chicken we get something from it, so there is some
feeling
> of some kind of reciprocity. However, the getting of meat occurs *after*
the
> genomic relationship has ended, so there is no reciprocity *within* the
> context of a relationship between genomes.
>
> Since agriculture refers to a timeframe *more inclusive* than the genomic
> relationship itself, thereby also referring to the non-living material
> (carcasses) and their use to us, it seems as if the appropriate term for
> agriculture is simply "technology". That this technology includes other
> living organisms as part of its process is, in a sense, incidental to the
> overall situation. So, agriculture is a case where biological organisms
are
> *utilized* as part of an overall process to generate some end-product. The
> biological organisms are "metabolized" by the processes in the technology
to
> render a food-product.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John M
> > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:20 AM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Function, Symbiosis, Parasitism
> >
> -snip-
> >
> > As I 'taste' the two words again, I would deem "parasitic" as
> > using (feeding
> > on) the 'host' while "symbiotic" is living together, maybe feeding on
the
> > same stuff. The latter is IMO a 'mutation' in the form of living, like a
> > partnership, in which the partners get not only used to each
> > other, but also
> > adjust to the togetherness.
> >
> > This is the process, how I deem 'symbiotic' the development of
eukaryotes,
> > from associating prokaryotes (one immerging to form the nucleus) and the
> > other keeping the 'outside' structure. Other prokaryotes also joined the
> > corporation, forming e.g. mitochondria.
> > Then such monsters joined together in masses and formed us
> > (give or take a billion years).
> > Parasites, however, are smarter (or are they?) they eat what they
> > get, don't
> > save the chances, even if killing the host tat feeds them.
> > More complex systems are e.g. the symbiotic parasites, like ants, with
> > insects: they keep them alive, feed them, for food. Same as a farmer
does
> > with cattle or chicken, even crop. So is agriculture a parasitic, or a
> > symbiotic arrangement?
> > (I think a good question of the day).
> >
> > Regards
> > John Mikes