----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:02
AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Could you give me
your analysis of this?
Judith, when I said (many times also on this
list) that:
"it reacts and acts" (maybe not exactly with
these words) then
your: "behaves"-- meaning it acts and
reacts -" is not much of a difference.
I bet "ambience" (as my father
referred to the world outside any given system). " was used in
talking to the sci. crowd for understandability of a totally cut (limited
model) system which HAS an ambience. A "natural system" does not have
it.
RR probably used the term to explain how
futile it is to separate a cut (simple?) model from its "ambience".
"But some of the behaviors of the phytoplankton will be generated
purely from within. Are they triggered? Yes. But from within the organization
itself. ..."
So the phytoplankton still 'decides' by itself? why just at "that"
moment? No natural iniciation - maybe through several (unrecognized?) steps,
maybe as inside reaction to some imput? - to trigger it? God personally
instructed the phytoplankton?
"contained within the organization of the system" is a
reductionist model view. Unless we speak about a singularity (which does not
exist). The 'system' is in 2-way interaction with its 'ambience' and is part
of it. Even the phytoplankton. No special magic done for living(?)
cells.
Please read yhour own last par: why do I have
to argue for the same thing?
and to the last sentence:
"...metabolism is something that is
entailed from within the organism. It also is clear that the organism doesn't
"decide" to metabolize"
Do you mean: 'eat your heart out? otherwise
you need something from 'the outside' to metabolize. At least things gotten
in by an earlier step - from the 'ambience'.
Unless you mean 'metabolism' the functional
concept. That really came from the 'outside' (by the originating cells and
processes) when the cell-structure was built and its functions established.
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:57
AM
Subject: Re: Could you give me your
analysis of this?
Oops, I meant to comment on this bit as
well:
> John M. wrote: Conform with your additional
defining: this is a necessary, but by far not
> sufficent description.
("one of") - IMO complex systems (any, as everything
> else)
have open connections with 'the world outside our model', do we
>
recognize them, or not. We cannot list all sufficient causes, unless
we
> restrict the topical view to be explained. I still doubt the
'working'
> closed loops without (un)closed triggering, maybe
indirectly. "A system does
> not DECIDE by
itself."
That depends on the system, I suppose! (Sorry, I
couldn't resist.) But, getting serious now, I agree that a single
celled phytoplankton does not "decide". Instead, it "behaves"-- meaning it
acts and reacts. Some of its behaviors are a direct result of
interaction between the system and its "ambience" (as my father referred to
the world outside any given system). But some of the behaviors of the
phytoplankton will be generated purely from within. Are they triggered? Yes.
But from within the organization itself. What the statement about "closed to
efficient cause" means is that the entailment structure having to do
with aspects of "efficient cause" is a closed loop, contained within the
organization of the system.
Remember that there are four categories of causality that my
father talked about, based on Aristotle's work. Each category addresses
different aspects entirely-- (different categories of answers to "why?"
questions). Therefore, each mode of analysis is going to generate different
kinds of information (categories of "because..." answers). Therefore, the
statement "closed to efficient cause" only refers to the one category,
without specifying anything about the others.
It's also worth pointing out that aspects of the ambience (be
they weather-related or the predation of other organisms, etc) can and
do interfere with the behaviors and organization of organisms-- it's not
that that this organization is impervious to interference or interaction.
Clearly, the quality of metabolism, for example, is going to be impacted in
a famine of that particular organism's food source/s. So even though the
quality of metabilism is "closed to efficient cause", the ambience exerts
influences that have consequences. This doesn't change the fact that
metabolism is something that is entailed from within the organism. It also
is clear that the organism doesn't "decide" to metabolize.
Judith