Re: machine, organism, life

[John M <***>]

Dear John K,
interesting explanations about your 'ecology'. I want to raise an "ecognomy"
(ecography?) -
You wrote:
> I think this issue of ecosystem vs organism is very much a chicken-egg
problem like structure vs function.<
I think you refer to the unidentified relative sizes of organism and
ecosystem, anyone can be part of the other (?) - I would include in this
thought the 'quale' (pl.: qualia) as responsible for both the function and
structure duo.
Funny prefix this "eco..." - in analyses involving physical considerations,
the (energy?)balance ecoNOMY is relevant, in evolutionary considerations the
ecoNOMY makes its strides, in social organizations the ecoNOMY is of primal
importance, even in ecoSYSTEMS - ecoLOGY and ecoNOMY are partners. I wonder
about your take on this "eco"? is it generalizable into the total
environment? Furthermore: is life (as you/RR speak about it) a quality
(quale), a function, or a structure?

>Organisms are
> ecosystems with more recognizable causal boundaries in a Rosennean sense.
> Ecosystems are organisms interrelating with more open entailments than
> organisms, and yet they are composed of each other. Neither are "closed
> systems" in a material sense. Organisms are more closed with respect to
> efficient cause (design) and final cause (meaning, identity, purpose)....<
would point to models, called both, with causal considerations WITHIN the
boundaries of the limited models. Your 'neither are closed systems' opens
them up beyond those boundaries - to some extent, but the choice of the two
kinds of causes applied closes them (maybe a bit further).
 am still missing the qualitative differentiation of (strength? in some
sense) the diverse (kinds of) causes (if you like) but certainly the
interconnections and its effriciency of the unlimited totality.
(I touched this idea in the Conclusion(4) part of my speculations in
http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes/influence.html )

I love the way how you describe 'us' in the food chain to prepare by our
'lifeform' the food (ie. ourselves) for other 'lifeforms' (microbes, worms,
oxidative etc. chemistry). We are dined. I would add: not exclusively after
death, during our (human?) lifespan as well. I really should have quoted all
your text here <G>.

In your reference to Judith's question proper, you wrote:
>...The question devolves to asking if
> there can be a physical systems, i.e., a system devoid of organisms, which
> then would not be an ecosystem by definition. This is a trick question
> because the term "physical" in this sense is now referring to that
> epistemic cut where we only look at the material and efficient levels of
> cause. So the answer is no, because there is no such thing as a purely
> physical system in the traditional sense. <
The 'trick question' is the "physical system", with RR extending
substantially the limits of the so called (conventional - classical) physics
concept. I have no idea when and in what ectent this happened and in what
considerations is such an extended 'physics' included, but the idea is
there.
Both the discussion lists J.Consc.Stds. and Cplx.Sci. (maybe more which I
didn't follow) had many months long discussions about "what is physical" in
the diverse aspects of the lists.
None reached a conclusion acceptable for all facets of the participating
philosophers, linguists, engineers, neurologists, physicists, MDs,
historians, laymen, nat.sci.professors, etc. etc.

I erase your post to save archive space - with regrets.

John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: machine, organism, life


> Hi everyone,
> I've been away from the list for quite a while. As an entry point I
thought
> I'd comment on ecosystems since that's my main field.
---------Truncated----------