Re: Operational Closure

[John M <***>]

Tim and Judith:

"A" cause is chosen from and for a limited model. It is the natural system's
total change that results in an 'event' and I wouldn't even call the
triggering  (good word!) as a 'beginning', rather as the observed immediate
'affectings'.
It is also a consequence of the process in the totality. And I would cut out
the limited view for a M-V 'system' ("subset").

Organizations consist of organizations consist of organizations - our view.\
I am seeking those general distinctions that are applicable at any level.
I don't care if Org.#1 consists of people, of cells, of atoms, of stars?
all these are well defined (limited) models and subject to general
principles.

John Mikes
(Happy to see the list alive again).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Gwinn" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: Operational Closure


> Steve,
>
> > 1. How are the words "trigger" and "cause" different
> > in this context? Do Rosen and Maturano/Varela mean
> > different things by the word "cause" or is there a
> > deeper disagreement?
>
> As I understand it, an environmental input (trigger) does not 'cause' the
> resultant behavior of  an autopoietic system in the sense that the system
> itself (by virtue of its internal organization) determines how (and if) it
> will respond to that trigger, as opposed to the system's behavior being
> merely reducible to a chain of causes beginning with the initial trigger.
I
> think it is just a different sense of the term 'cause' and not anything
> contrary to Rosen. I do not think that M&V were denying causality as a
> physical property or were proposing acausality. Instead, I think they were
> denying a mechanistic determinism.
>
>
> > 2. Is "Closure Under Efficient Cause" equivalent to
> > "Operational Closure" and if not then what are the
> > differences?
>
> They are very similar. I defer to a very useful paper (see end of post)
from
> Letelier, Marin and Mpodozis entitled "Autopoietic and (M,R)-Systems",
which
> concludes that autopoietic systems constitute a subset of (M,R)-systems.
> This is because in addition to the requriement of organizational closure -
> which is satisfied by any (M,R)-system - the autopoietic systems
definition
> additionally has a topological requirement that the system possess a
> physical boundary within which the organizational closure occurs. Since
> (M,R)-systems have no such specific requirement, then autopoietic systems
> are a further constrained subset of the set of (M,R)-systems.
>
>
> > 3. Rosen never extended his concept of closure to
> > societies or "third order structural couplings" as M/V
> > refer to them. (first and second order couplings being
> > unicellular and metacellular organism)
>
> My thought is that because the (M,R)-system is intended to be a model
> specifically of _individual_ living organisms, then it would seem to be
> inappropriate to employ it as a model for a society (i.e., a population of
> organisms).
>
>
> Some of the papers I consider informative for comparing (M,R)-systems and
> autopoietic systems:
>
============================================================================
> ==
> Letelier, Marin, Mpodozis. "Autopoietic and (M,R)-systems". J. Theo. Bio.
> 222(2):261-272
> Zaretzky, Letelier. "Metabolic Networks from (M,R)-systems and Autopoietic
> Perspective". J. Bio. Sys. 10(3):265-280
> Nomura, Shimohara."A Description of Quasi-Autopoietic Systems based on the
> Framework of (M,R) Systems". AROB III 1998:658-661
> Nomura. "Quasi-Autopoietic Systems Using Metabolism Repair Systems". ECAL
> 1997:48-56
>
> You can find the links to these (and others) on my website at:
> http://www.panmere.com/rosen/webresources.htm#mrsys
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Steve
> > Johnson
> > Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 6:16 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Operational Closure
> >
> >
> > I was reading Maturano and Varela's "Tree of
> > Knowledge" as well as "Autopoesis and Cognition" and I
> > want to hear your opinions on a point that I found
> > confusing.
> >
> > One of the key concepts in the book is "Operational
> > Closure". As far as I can tell this is defined as
> > follows: "changes in the system are determined only by
> > the internal structure and dynamics of the system not
> > by external inputs".
> >
> > They labour the point that external stimuli only
> > "trigger" the changes in an organism but they do not
> > "determine" them. The changes are determined by the
> > internal structure/dynamics of the system. The
> > external stiumulus merely "selects" one of the
> > possible paths for the ontogenetic drift from the
> > space  defined by the internal structure/dynamics.
> >
> > A single cell, a multicellular organism, as well as a
> > society are all said to have operational closure.
> >
> > At first I thought this was analogous to Rosen's
> > definition that organisms are closed under efficient
> > cause, that they are self-causing. But as I read
> > Maturano/Varela further I was puzzled to come across
> > repeated protestations that there is no causality,
> > that external stimuli only "trigger" but do not
> > "cause" behaviours (or rather internal changes whose
> > motor expressions we perceive as behaviour).
> >
> > So my questions:
> >
> > 1. How are the words "trigger" and "cause" different
> > in this context? Do Rosen and Maturano/Varela mean
> > different things by the word "cause" or is there a
> > deeper disagreement?
> >
> > 2. Is "Closure Under Efficient Cause" equivalent to
> > "Operational Closure" and if not then what are the
> > differences?
> >
> > 3. Rosen never extended his concept of closure to
> > societies or "third order structural couplings" as M/V
> > refer to them. (first and second order couplings being
> > unicellular and metacellular organism)
> >
> >
> > I know causality is a sore topic on this list so I'm
> > sorry if I'm adding oil to the fire.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > - Steve