Re: Maximally constrained

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Tim wrote:
The result would be that an organism is not maximally constrained structurally, but is 
maximally constrained functionally.

HP: I think I follow your thinking, and it sounds right, but I will have to think about 
it myself. The structure function relation is clearly many-to-many and vice versa.

Howard


> From: Tim Gwinn <***>
> Date: 2004/11/03 Wed PM 01:22:18 EST
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Maximally constrained
>
> It must be that organisms - as physical systems - have constraints...and
> some of them are holonomic and some are non-holonomic. It is required so
> that organisms are "held together" by forces rather than merely being blobs
> of statistically congregated particles in some area of space, like a gas
> cloud. Whether the non-holonomic constraints that are present are such in
> number that all velocity variables of all the structural 'particles' of an
> organism are determined by configuration alone is in question.
>
> When I wrote my post this morning, it seemed compelling to me that an
> organism could be a maximally constrained system. Howard in his reply
> disagrees, and I thought about it some more and maybe it is not so
> compelling.  And the reason I am reconsidering has to do with what Rosen
> called "structure-function complementarity" in the paper.
>
> If I adopt the view that an organism is not a maximally constrained system,
> then what comes to mind for me is: if an organism's pattern (for lack of a
> better word) of behavior is not dependent upon forcing all velocity
> variables to be determined by configuration, then what allows its pattern of
> behavior to remain invariant despite the removal of some information (i.e.,
> the removal of momenta due to freezing) from the system? [Here I am using
> 'information' in a general sense, not specifically referring to Howard's
> 'informational constraint'.]
>
> My conjecture would be: those momenta (of the unconstrained 'particles')
> must not therefore constitute information relevant for the system's pattern
> of behavior. In that case, it would appear to follow that the dynamics of
> structure are not the relevant criteria. What I am now wondering is if the
> invariance of behavior to the removal of all dynamics indicates that (at
> least some) of the non-holonomic constraints that are present constitute a
> nexus of such constraints which serves to keep the functional organization
> invariant. This would be very difficult to describe in strictly structural
> terms, i.e. in the usual formal representation for constraints in analytical
> mechanics, because we don't have a good way to first represent biological
> "functions" in structural terms onto which these constraints could then be
> imposed.
>
> The result would be that an organism is not maximally constrained
> structurally, but is maximally constrained functionally.
>
> That's my thoughts for the moment anyway,
> Tim
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> Rosen
>   Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 10:54 AM
>   To: ***
>   Subject: Re: Maximally constrained
>
>
>   Hallelujah! Thank you, Tim!
>
>   I think, however, it might be worth discussing whether organisms are also
> "maximally non-holonomically constrained" systems or not. The more I
> consider the nature of organization and how it creates context, the more I
> see that non-holonomic constraints are actually a possibility engine.
>
>   When this thread first came up, it was presented as if my father was
> actually saying that, and I knew the only way he could have said it, which
> would be consistent with his belief structure, was if there was some aspect
> to it that created more possibilities than it limited. Hence, it seemed
> quite reasonable to interpret the language such that "maximal" is to
> "maximized" what "optimal" is to "optimized", and that may still be the
> case-- he used the word that way in conversation. It became apparent, as
> more of the paper was included, that the argument was a moot point; he was
> talking about how a machine could mimic an organism.
>
>   The more I have researched the range of what can be defined as a
> "non-holonomic constraint", though, the more I realize that the whole phrase
> represents a situation in a system where the potentials are the most highly
> developed (maximized). I regard anything that interacts with a system in any
> way that causes change as "a constraint". Certainly, from that vantage
> point, non-holonomic constraints in system organization generate more
> potential than no constraints at all.
>
>   That fascinates me because it is, as my father would say;
> "counterintuitive".
>
>   Judith
>
>