Re: Models and ecosystem balance/change...

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

JohnK,

Your email is in response to mine, so I'm wondering if my remarks were
unclear. Where I said "organization(s)", I was referring to both structural
and functional organizations. I just lumped them together in the remark for
expediency (i.e., laziness).

I think one of the upshots of the (M,R)-system, which is a model of
functional organization, is that the closed entailment structure allows the
functions in the model to be determined (entailed) wholly by the
organization of the system, rather than having to be entailed externally.
This does *not* mean that an organism is therefore context-independent. It
only means that an organism's internal functional organization is entailed
internally. As you note, if we consider a larger system, then the function
of the organism *as a whole* will have a different role or function *with
reference to that larger system*. But of course, we are now talking about a
larger, different system, so of course the organization (both functional and
structural) will be different. Likewise, considering an evolutionary scale
involves a system of a population extended through time, so its
organization(s) are also different.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John
> Kineman
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 11:28 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Models and ecosystem balance/change...
>
>
> Everyone,
> I'm wondering if "organizationi" isn't too vague a concept to allow a
> discussion of its entailments. What do we mean by organization? The way
> something is put together, or the purpose for which it is put together?
> Also, there are many ways to describe how and why something is
> organized. It seems to me that any concept of organization is dependent
> on some other system for which or in which it serves a function or
> purpose. Then the function or purpose in that larger system defines the
> "organization" for that relationship, and there may be multiple
> super-systems in which there are various functions and thus various ways
> of understanding the organization. So, I'm thinking that organization
> should not be thought of in terms of our mechanical notions of, say "how
> something is put together" but in purely relational terms, in which case
> the relationship must be specified before imagining the organization.
>
> For example, the organization of a rabbit is certainly related to its
> property of  life. But that organization is actually a relationship to
> many larger systems. The system of rabbit evolution and phylogeny
> through time. Its present-day ecology. Perhaps to a much broader "rabbit
> consciousness" if there is such a thing, and all of life on Earth. The
> rabbit is "organized" within all these contexts and I think they are
> necessary to any description of the organization of the rabbit, given
> that we are not just talking about the placement of parts. So I'm
> thinking that organization really has a lot to do with the notion of
> function. Does this make sense?
>
> John
>
> Tim Gwinn wrote:
>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Steve
> >>Johnson
> >>Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 10:35 PM
> >>To: ***
> >>Subject: Re: Models and ecosystem balance/change...
> >>
> >>
> >>Tim Gwinn:
> >>
> >>The genome does not generally possess an entailment
> >>structure that would be congruent with the
> >>entailment structure of the organization(s) produced
> >>as a result of that genome.
> >>
> >>
> >>Steve Johnson:
> >>
> >>So what entails the organization? The genome + the
> >>environment?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I think at the least, the genome, the environment, the current
> organization
> >of the system, the properties of the matter in the system, would all
> >contribute to the eventual organization produced.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tim
> >
> >