[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] FW: Re: FW: Self Interest Ontology - Bacteria UseCas

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Richard Vines" <plessons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 21:16:53 +1000
Message-id: <002c01cc5b3c$d68f1b50$83ad51f0$@netspace.net.au>

Hi Rich,


RE this bit:  


It is not that I prefer the word "related". I am making the point that what emerges at the boundaries between a higher order and lower order system when a perturbation occurs is non-causal.


This is where I get confused.  The actions taken by Strepta et all were causal (and produced by their individual interpretations of their nuclear genes) and without those actions, the film would not have emerged in the first place, nor would it be preserved after the noxious toothpaste destroyed most of the film. 



RV response: Your use of language here is problematic to me, because it implies Strepta has some element of conciousness. But, continuing with this genre, I am not arguing anything about actions taken by Strepta – yes I agree that they are causal, in that the disruption causes Strepta to take action.


I am arguing that the higher order disruption of the lower order systems (that include the actions taken by Strepta) creates spontaneous and random impacts amongst these lower order systems – not just at the level of Strepta).


When emergence occurs, the emergent patterns are not characterised by the existing patterns of either the higher order or the lower order system ….


However, when emergence happens, I would concede that perhaps the emergent patterns are influenced by the properties of the entirety of systems. I would think this is what Avril might say the Bohm view would be, but I would suggest that the impact is still non-causal.




RE this bit:  

There is no relationship between the characteristics of the emergent system and the higher and lower order systems. When I refer to perturbation I am referring to the impact from the higher order system that involves the “application of toothpaste”.


I still don’t get it.  The toothpaste was wielded by the owner of the teeth, who in his own actions, destroyed most of the film for generations.  I could see that position when only the physics of mechanical systems is involved, but there is no knowledge in such a system, only structure.  Strepta et al could evolve to build new knowledge as a result of selection so that some future film might be resistant to the noxious toothpaste.  But hydrogen and oxygen always make water and other well known combinations, but never “learn” new compounds, so don’t evolve new knowledge. 


RV response: I concede perhaps that the term “no relationship” might be a bit strong. See above for the reason.


However, I do not think that only structure is involved. We are talking about “living systems” and there is knowledge in this system. For example, the chemical message sent by Strepta is knowledge, …. it is a product of an evolutionary system.






Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>