Re: Autopoiesis, Rosen Complexity, boundedness

["John M" <***>]

Dear Tim,
I did not want to participate in the discussion about "live', "life" or
"living", because I generalize more and look at the individual organisms as
natural systems rather than models.
Life IMO is a sort of process usually found (in reductionist biology) more
'complex' than other forms of processes (for us!).  'Live' is something we
deem so (after Darwin), with functions fitting into the terrestrial
biosphere, IMO by a process - modeling. Living for biologists is restricted
to the biosphere-functions in (- mostly, now there are exceptions) the
Carbon-water (O,N etc.) type constructs
- we so consider. I may also consider a galaxy 'live'.
(Mutatis mutandis for the biologist, - in biology 'restricted' for me).

Now the real remark:

H2O is NOT wet.
It is a 'molecule' (whatever we so may call) - while 'wetness' is an
observation of liquid water and a host (surface?) and is bound to the
surface tension (ST) phenomenon.. It is the phenomenon of the liquid phase
H2O material, IF the surface in question (in contact with the a liquid) has
a low enough ST to develop intrinsic enough adhesive circumstances with the
'water'.  Make no mistake: a surface can be wet by a hydrocarbon, or even by
molten metal. A regular silicon-rubber does not get wet by water.
Vapor-phase H2O is not wet either, only when it (partially?) condenses out a
'fog', ie. parts of liquid water
dispersed in the gas, and THESE 'droplets' may make the surface wet.
Wetness is not sufficient for the 'life'processes, only necessary in
securing the pathways of material transport (and as building blocks in the
(functional) structure of the 'living' material, both as 'ordered' water
molecules and as disproportionated H and OH atomic groups - ionic or not).
An ecosystem is not water and air (like 'trees' don't constitute a forest).
As long as we use the word: please, don't forget complexity.

Best regards

John M


Circumstances we usually speak about are mostly negligently used, so they
give rise to hefty discussions by misunderstood facts.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: Autopoiesis, Rosen Complexity, boundedness


> Dan,
>
> H2O is wet only under certain ranges of its ecosystem - certain pressures,
> temperatures, etc. Very similar restrictions to those for life, actually.
> However, I would not then conclude that the property of "wetness" is more
> properly a term extending or applying to the whole ecosystem. Instead, I
> would say that "H2O is wet....in appropriate contexts". Similarly, I would
> say that "an organism is alive......in appropriate contexts". The
properties
> "wet" and "alive" apply to the respective nouns (water, organism), rather
> than to: noun + qualifier ("appropriate contexts") .
>
> Thats my line of thinking, anyway.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Dan
> > Fiscus
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:12 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Autopoiesis, Rosen Complexity, boundedness
> >
> >
> > Juan-Carlos Letelier wrote:
> >
> > >3Bis) the main difference between Autopoietic and (M,R) systems...is
the
> > >notion of discreteness (encapsulation). One of the most fundamental
> > >properties of Living Systems...is that they are discrete
entities....They
> > >are not "gases" or "fields"...they are "a mouse" or "a bacterium".  The
> > >formalism of (M,R) systems appears to treat living systems as
un-bounded
> > >entities.
> > >
> >
> > Juan-Carlos,
> >
> > I think the apparently clear boundedness or discreteness of
> > organisms is mostly an artifact of our points of view,
> > choices of scales of space, time, etc. If you think a mouse or
> > bacterium is really bounded as in self-contained or self-creating or
> > autopoetic or able to do M and R within the boundary that is
> > defined by its body, try isolating that mouse or bacterium in a
> > sealed compartment of that size or a bit bigger.
> >
> > The main property of the mouse that we are discussing - its life - is
> > not bounded in the same way as its body. Separate it from its
> > necessary context - which includes continuous supply of air, water
> > and food among other things - and life will leave the body, even if
> > the body stays. A better boundary for the life aspect is an
> > ecosystem capable of supplying these three inputs and more, or
> > perhaps the planetary biosphere itself. Even this boundary requires
> > input from outside, energy from the sun for life...
> >
> > Dan Fiscus
>