|
Judith,
call it a war: "OUR" position vs the rest of the
world.
I believe it is a mistake to include things the
'enemy' would use as its arsenal. They will say it anyway and we don't have to
deny all, off hand. Your father had to 'break in' into a wide world of the
reductionist science(tists) and had to approach them from points they would
understand. He wrote books, I don't. So he did compromise a lot. By a well
devised strategy of his.
(I don't stress here another point: his
idea-development was a process over some decades - his 'final' system, that
still was not finished by the sorry end of his life - did not pop out from his head as Athenae from
Zeuss' - it grew gradually, as represented gradually in his time-framed
writings. I want to take it from the endpoint, don't include the earlier phases
- later improved.)
*
Of course particularities are important,
especially in practical considerations/results, yet a pattern IS a limited
model. I don't want to promote limited model thinking. I want to expose the
differences by eliminating those conclusions reductionism draws from totalizing
the limited models. "They" will supply the rest. I condone always where it is of
value. Any.
I cannot point to the generalities by
advertising (exposing) the reductionist particulars. I cannot always recite all
science to make a different point. People know their (shortcoming?) positions.
If somebody does not like what I say and expect
me to include the opposite: so be it. I don't 'sacrifice' the obsolete ideas, I
do point to the new. Independently thinking people on other lists respond pretty
satisfactorily, or ask questions.
I am not a 'record' of Robert Rosen, I do my own
stuff, in many aspects accepting (and referring to) RR's ideas.
What I expect from you here is to point out
where my ideas are not in congruence with RR's - and where he had a better form
to express it (for my education).
It was the Newtonian paradigm, where machines
were called as 'maximum models' without any further connotation. Like
the:
ONE CAUSE intitiation. Mixed up
use instead of 'triggering'.
*
"...the only approach allowed to be called "science" ?
I promote an 'extension' of the term science
into a more wholistic way of thinking. I alwas praised the 'old' reductionist
science as the only way our mind ever could gather information about the world;
I am not lenient with the enemy, I try to
keep my ways, not - by any devised strategy (what I don't need) to cave in to
their ways. And don't you misinterpret this sentence into my implying that - "RR
DID cave-in": I think I explained sufficiently
the reasonable strategy he wanted to use in
his work to get the pioneering started in the prejudiced 'scientific'
minds.
Please, consider me an ally with my own
strategy. I am talking issues here and on this list NOT to the
enemy.
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 9:24
PM
Subject: Re: Operational Closure
John M.
Looking for generalities is a useful thing to do, and my father
did a lot of it. That's what his work focused on for a substantial part of the
time. Another portion of his time, he was looking for
particularities. Yet another portion, he was looking for patterns among the
generalities, patterns among the particularities, patterns among the
patterns...
My concern is that you often seem to be willing to sacrifice all
particularities in order to keep the generalities. Just as a reductionist
perspective is not good if it's all you do, it's equally not good to go to the
opposite extreme. I once pointed out on the list that Robert Rosen did
not think reductionist approaches in science were inherently "bad" or
always un-useful. On the contrary. They are only un-useful when applied in
situations where they presuppose a condition that doesn't exist. When that
happens, those approaches destroy information we need. He was not advocating
that science sacrifice the entire notion of learning about structure by taking
things apart. Science can get important information that way, even with
complex systems. His point was that it must not be the only approach allowed
to be called "science" because structure is a limited sub-system of the total
organization. He was also recommending that a broader theoretical perspective
be kept in mind, even when using reductionist approaches-- that helps to
limit the inappropriate application of them.
What his notion of complexity is trying to get across is that the
relational effects resulting from organization are far too important in a
complex system for science to ignore such aspects. There needs to be some
balance to it all.
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 3:26
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Operational
Closure
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
|