causation / evolution
Locked
 
|
If I remember correctly, the last time I attended "the mother church," a
discussion about causation was a thread in a larger discussion about evolution. Later reflection on that discussion led me to revisit the work of Maturana and Varela (autopoeisis and structural coupling). Later, in response to West's quasi-tantrum "Truth" discussion on this list, I found myself returning to the same source. I am going to present a two-day workshop on the design of complex systems (as opposed to the design of complicated systems, like software, which is mere engineering) and, once again, found myself consulting the Chilean biologists. So I am curious as to whether or not others on the list have found the work of Maturana and Varela of interest in understanding complex systems? Does anyone else see connections to past and present (causation, systems, evolution) FRIAM discussions? Am I wandering in the deep woods again without a competent guide? A brief excerpt of comments by students of M&V is included below, perhaps to trigger memories, perhaps to plant seeds. dave west Maturana-the-biologist was unhappy with enumerating features of living systems to define 'life', and wanted to capture the invariant feature of living systems around which natural selection operates. He wanted to do this in a way that retained the autonomy of living systems as a central feature, and hence without recourse to referential concepts like 'purpose' or 'function'. Systems are structure determined. That is, anything a system does at any moment in time is determined by its structure - its component bits and pieces, and the relationships between them. Maturana and Varela are at pains to take account of the perspective of the observer when talking of systems and how they behave in relation to their environment. The behaviour of a system is something ascribed to it by someone observing it in interaction with its environment. Hence behaviour is not something that is 'in' a system, and to refer to how a system relates to its environment whilst trying to understand it as an autonomous entity violates that very notion of autonomy. This is why all of the mechanics of the process of Autopoiesis as described by Maturana and Varela are kept strictly within the bounds of the Autopoietic system. This strict requirement is enforced via concepts like 'operational closure' and 'organizational closure.' The consequences of this perspective are not always obvious. A good example however, is the immune system's ability to distinguish between self and non-self. Varela has been pointing out for some time that this is an observed behaviour, produced by the operational dynamics of the immune system in its environment, and that it is wrong to look for some discriminatory recognition mechanism within the immune system. Attention should be focused on the internal dynamics of the immune system, and how this is affected by and affects its environment of operation in such a way as to give rise to the behaviour observed. A similar approach is taken to the nervous system. Autopoietic theory of course recognises that systems exist within environments, relate to them, and at low enough material level are entirely open to them. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
Most definitely. We've gone round and round about the fundamental concepts in autopoiesis on this list several times, albeit mostly in the context of Robert Rosen. The two conceptions of causal closure are related in that autopoiesis is more constrained than (M,R)-systems. But the core is the same.
FWIW, we'll be discussing Maturana's comments about how/whether autopoiesis can be applied to social systems this afternoon: http://calagator.org/events/1250472864 On 12/01/2017 07:48 AM, Prof David West wrote: > If I remember correctly, the last time I attended "the mother church," a > discussion about causation was a thread in a larger discussion about > evolution. Later reflection on that discussion led me to revisit the > work of Maturana and Varela (autopoeisis and structural coupling). > Later, in response to West's quasi-tantrum "Truth" discussion on this > list, I found myself returning to the same source. I am going to present > a two-day workshop on the design of complex systems (as opposed to the > design of complicated systems, like software, which is mere engineering) > and, once again, found myself consulting the Chilean biologists. > > So I am curious as to whether or not others on the list have found the > work of Maturana and Varela of interest in understanding complex > systems? Does anyone else see connections to past and present > (causation, systems, evolution) FRIAM discussions? Am I wandering in the > deep woods again without a competent guide? > > A brief excerpt of comments by students of M&V is included below, > perhaps to trigger memories, perhaps to plant seeds. > > dave west > > > Maturana-the-biologist was unhappy with enumerating features of living > systems to define 'life', and wanted to capture the invariant feature of > living systems around which natural selection operates. He wanted to do > this in a way that retained the autonomy of living systems as a central > feature, and hence without recourse to referential concepts like > 'purpose' or 'function'. > > Systems are structure determined. That is, anything a system does at any > moment in time is determined by its structure - its component bits and > pieces, and the relationships between them. Maturana and Varela are at > pains to take account of the perspective of the observer when talking of > systems and how they behave in relation to their environment. The > behaviour of a system is something ascribed to it by someone observing > it in interaction with its environment. Hence behaviour is not something > that is 'in' a system, and to refer to how a system relates to its > environment whilst trying to understand it as an autonomous entity > violates that very notion of autonomy. This is why all of the mechanics > of the process of Autopoiesis as described by Maturana and Varela are > kept strictly within the bounds of the Autopoietic system. This strict > requirement is enforced via concepts like 'operational closure' and > 'organizational closure.' > > The consequences of this perspective are not always obvious. A good > example however, is the immune system's ability to distinguish between > self and non-self. Varela has been pointing out for some time that this > is an observed behaviour, produced by the operational dynamics of the > immune system in its environment, and that it is wrong to look for some > discriminatory recognition mechanism within the immune system. Attention > should be focused on the internal dynamics of the immune system, and how > this is affected by and affects its environment of operation in such a > way as to give rise to the behaviour observed. A similar approach is > taken to the nervous system. > > Autopoietic theory of course recognises that systems exist within > environments, relate to them, and at low enough material level are > entirely open to them. > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > -- ∄ uǝʃƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
Hi, David, I have been kept home from FRIAM by a cold (hard not to share a cold at FRIAM) so I am going to answer your letter as a sort of friam-substitute. People have pressed Maturana on me before and I have tried him, but something in me has balked. I get pissed at authors who, like the complexity folks, seem stuck on their own words. Perhaps you could recommend ... or even link me to? ... a reader-friendly source? I appreciate teaser below. I am going to lard it to give you an idea of some of the problems I have. By the way, Dave. There was some indication, I thought, that you might return for a couple of weeks in December. I don't want to miss that, if it happens. If it is happening today, I will drive up there and give you all my cold. Please make sure I have ample warning. I might even spring for coffee or a beer. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- If I remember correctly, the last time I attended "the mother church," a discussion about causation was a thread in a larger discussion about evolution. Later reflection on that discussion led me to revisit the work of Maturana and Varela (autopoeisis and structural coupling). Later, in response to West's quasi-tantrum "Truth" discussion on this list, I found myself returning to the same source. I am going to present a two-day workshop on the design of complex systems (as opposed to the design of complicated systems, like software, which is mere engineering) and, once again, found myself consulting the Chilean biologists. So I am curious as to whether or not others on the list have found the work of Maturana and Varela of interest in understanding complex systems? Does anyone else see connections to past and present (causation, systems, evolution) FRIAM discussions? Am I wandering in the deep woods again without a competent guide? A brief excerpt of comments by students of M&V is included below, perhaps to trigger memories, perhaps to plant seeds. dave west Maturana-the-biologist was unhappy with enumerating features of living systems to define 'life', and wanted to capture the invariant feature of living systems around which natural selection operates. He wanted to do this in a way that retained the autonomy of living systems as a central feature, and hence without recourse to referential concepts like 'purpose' or 'function'. Systems are structure determined. That is, anything a system does at any moment in time is determined by its structure - its component bits and pieces, and the relationships between them. Maturana and Varela are at pains to take account of the perspective of the observer when talking of systems and how they behave in relation to their environment. The behaviour of a system is something ascribed to it by someone observing it in interaction with its environment. Hence behaviour is not something that is 'in' a system, and to refer to how a system relates to its environment whilst trying to understand it as an autonomous entity violates that very notion of autonomy. This is why all of the mechanics of the process of Autopoiesis [NST==>I think this word encapsulates my rage, here. I deplore people who take a word that is chosen because it is so misleading and then ram it up the ass of the literature. Yes, I know. “Poetry” does come for the greek word for “creation” and so the word does mean, in greek, self-creation. BUT WE DON’T SPEAK GREEK! So every English or French or ???? user of that term has to fight off the notion of a self creating poetry, which is groovy, but not very helpful. The author who invented that term was more interested in appearing groovy than in reaching his audience, and I depise him for it. <==nst] as described by Maturana and Varela are kept strictly within the bounds of the Autopoietic system. This strict requirement is enforced via concepts like 'operational closure' and 'organizational closure.' [NST==>Ach! I HATE the way people use the word system. Let's say two male cats are having a catfight over a female. We can choose to focus on the individuals, the "dance" of the fight, the relation to the female's movements, or the relation to the great horned owl sitting quietly in a tree paying close attention to the proceedings. What constitutes the system is entirely a matter of our interest. To define a system we need a figure, a ground, and a point of view. This is not to say that "systems" are in the mind of the beholder. An eclipse is real, but you have to stand in a particular place to see it. <==nst] The consequences of this perspective are not always obvious. A good example however, is the immune system's ability to distinguish between self and non-self. [NST==>Sorry, if I am being a picky-jerk, here, but …. this bit of rhetoric exemplifies the problem. The immune system may distinguish between “self” and “non-self”, but that is not its main function … to distinguish between the immune system and everything else. That is what distinguishing between self and non self MEANS in the plain meaning of the words. Yet we are asked to forgive that little slip-of-the-tongue, even though it mucks up the whole conversation. What exactly is the “self” that the immune system is distinguishing between. Not itself, for sure. But that’s the whole problem, isn’t it? How do we distinguish the boundaries of a system without engaging at least two other systems in the definition, hence making them part of the system. <==nst] Varela has been pointing out for some time that this is an observed behaviour, produced by the operational dynamics of the immune system in its environment, and that it is wrong to look for some discriminatory recognition mechanism within the immune system. Attention should be focused on the internal dynamics of the immune system, and how this is affected by and affects its environment of operation in such a way as to give rise to the behaviour observed. A similar approach is taken to the nervous system. Autopoietic theory of course recognises that systems exist within environments, relate to them, and at low enough material level are entirely open to them. [NST==>I gather that those who talk this language see themselves as anti-Cartesians. To me , it seems, sopped in cartesianism. The key notion of CArtesianism is foundationalism, the notion that before we have any kind of a discussion we must strip our understandings down to some bare bones, for Decartes, the cogito. That is what is so refreshing about Pragmatism. Pragmatists start in the middle. We keep looking at the world from various points of view. From this point of view, this looks like a system; from this other point of view, it seems a part of larger system; from yet another point of view, a collage of systems; from a 4th point of view, it disappears altogether. Perhaps after a few decades, or millennia, of that sort of work, we come to agree on some foundations. Foundations are not the beginning of our labors; they are its most sought after result. <==nst] Thanks Dave for starting this discussion. I hope the “usual suspects” will get engaged. And I hope you will appear at Friam soon to stimulate us. Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
On 12/01/2017 09:03 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > People have pressed Maturana on me before and I have tried him, but something in me has balked. I get pissed at authors who, like the complexity folks, seem stuck on their own words. Perhaps you could recommend ... or even link me to? ... a reader-friendly source? Maturana's text is mind-bogglingly difficult to read, at least for me. There are lots of directions you could go. But I like this document, which may also be interesting to Dave given it's focus: Thirty years of computational autopoiesis: A review http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/archive/fulltexts/2621.html > [NST==>I think this word encapsulates my rage, here. I deplore people who take a word that is chosen because it is so misleading and then ram it up the ass of the literature. Yes, I know. “Poetry” does come > for the greek word for “creation” and so the word does mean, in greek, self-creation. BUT WE DON’T SPEAK GREEK! So every English or French or ???? user of that term has to fight off the notion of a self creating poetry, which is groovy, but not very helpful. The author who invented that term was more interested in appearing groovy than in reaching his audience, and I depise him for it. <==nst] Autopoiesis isn't at all misleading. It captures the core of the theory quite nicely, I think. We use "auto" in the same way all the time in casual language. And we use words like hematopoiesis all the time in everyday medicine and biology. > [NST==>Ach! I HATE the way people use the word system. Let's say two male cats are having a catfight over a female. We can choose to focus on the individuals, the "dance" of the fight, the relation to the female's movements, or the relation to the great horned owl sitting quietly in a tree paying close attention to the proceedings. What constitutes the system is entirely a matter of our interest. To define a system we need a figure, a ground, and a point of view. This is not to say that "systems" are in the mind of the beholder. An eclipse is real, but you have to stand in a particular place to see it. <==nst] But you're missing the fundamental point that _closure_ is the way to define system without (or with less) reliance on points of view. We've discussed that a lot on this list, too. ... which is just more evidence that I always fail in my attempts to communicate. > [NST==>Sorry, if I am being a picky-jerk, here, but …. this bit of rhetoric exemplifies the problem. The immune system may distinguish between “self” and “non-self”, but that is not its main function … to distinguish between the immune system and everything else. That is what distinguishing between self and non self MEANS in the plain meaning of the words. Yet we are asked to forgive that little slip-of-the-tongue, even though it mucks up the whole conversation. What exactly is the “self” that the immune system is distinguishing between. Not itself, for sure. But that’s the whole problem, isn’t it? How do we distinguish the boundaries of a system without engaging at least two other systems in the definition, hence making them part of the system. <==nst] I don't believe anyone interprets the "self" in "self vs. non-self" as referring to the immune system. The immune system distinguishes between biologically active things that were generated by the person/animal/organism and things that were consumed or assimilated by the organism. So, the "self" is the organism ... which seems pretty standard in biology, right? > [NST==>I gather that those who talk this language see themselves as anti-Cartesians. To me , it seems, sopped in cartesianism. The key notion of CArtesianism is foundationalism, the notion that before we have any kind of a discussion we must strip our understandings down to some bare bones, for Decartes, _the cogito. _That is what is so refreshing about Pragmatism. Pragmatists start in the middle. We keep looking at the world from various points of view. From this point of view, this looks like a system; from this other point of view, it seems a part of larger system; from yet another point of view, a collage of systems; from a 4^th point of view, it disappears altogether. Perhaps after a few decades, or millennia, of that sort of work, we come to agree on some foundations. Foundations are not the beginning of our labors; they are its most sought after result. <==nst] Well, the paper we're discussing this evening, Maturana's "What is sociology?", does run the risk of dualism, because Maturana asserts that language is more open than biology (or biology exhibits the closure required for autopoiesis, whereas language does not). That, obviously, begs the question of where the decoupling/unbinding from the material grounding of the words/terms/signs/whatever. But Maturana is arguing *against* the applicability of autopoiesis to social systems (via language). So, my guess is Maturana is cleaving close to monism, whereas people like Luhmann are the one's at risk for dualism. Regardless, you would benefit from avoiding generalizing across all people who "talk this language". -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
Holy Moly guys (and gals)! Maybe it is just my POV (in time as well as myriad other
perspectives) but this three layer deep larding of subthreads
feels very deep and rich and on-point for me relative to many of
the discussions that erupt (autopoetically?) here in this venue.
I think Nick... your irritation with (ab)use of language here is well earned and I sympathize. I think what you are taking exception to here is the feeling of coded "insider" talk that makes each of us (in our own turn) feel like "outsiders". Sometimes that is very literally *intended* (not on this list so much, but in general) and sometimes merely callous (or pragmatic... deciding that one needs to have a certain level of "shared lexicon" before they can participate), and sometimes much less nefarious. I think the current conversation (with voices Dave, Glen (upside down AND backwards (ǝlƃ ☣)), and Nick) really does fit type III above I think Glen's attempts (in this last larding) to explain the motivation and relevance of (in particular) "autopoesis" and the specific point of "closures" are very helpful, even to me (as a lifelong student of the structure/function duality). I will go forth and read Glen's link on "computational
autopoesis" and recognize/acknowledge that Nick IS lacking a
computational background, which means that there are lots of
things that come from a (rich and deep) computational perspective
that will be hard for him to align with immediately... even of
those of us with (only modest) computational perspectives are
probably struggling. I am sensing that there is a bit of a triad between the general
*perspective* of "biology", "computation", and "natural language"
afoot here, and to whatever extent this conversation helps to
unify (or more likely and maybe more importantly relativize?)
these three perspectives around the question of structure/function
and self-creation (autopoesis). I think too often these
tugs-of-war happen on a line between *two* perspectives when
introducing a *third perspective* helps to tease out "yet more"
utility (I could diverge on a rant about our polarized two-party
system but will leave this parenthetical statement as a
placeholder only) in the tension between the multiple
perspectives. I could (also) push it "yet further" into higher
dimensions with my current work in 3D graph-layout where I"m
seeing "cohorts of psuedo-tetrahedral" structures which I think
are generalizations of the triangular tensions referenced here in
the bio/language/compute discussions. This might all relate
somehow to variously "monadology" as well as "dualism" but I can't
sort it cleanly at all right now... Before I go back to "looking for needles in a hairball" with my
graph/network analysis, I have one comment on the actual content
of these larded threads: I don't believe anyone interprets the "self" in "self vs. non-self" as referring to the immune system. The immune system distinguishes between biologically active things that were generated by the person/animal/organism and things that were consumed or assimilated by the organism. So, the "self" is the organism ... which seems pretty standard in biology, right?I think the "shortcut" often used in this kind of discussion where the Subject is not made fully explicit is what leads to the conflation... "insiders" know right away that the discussion is about the primary function of the immune (sub)system *within* the context of the larger system of the entire system-organism in the context of a system OF organisms (canonically humans in a social milieu of mixed contact with one another, their domesticated animals, and the wilder ones as well) convolved with parasitic opportunists (ticks, mosquitos) and the milieu of microorganisms that make all of the above their own "ecosystem". But "outsiders" can be tricked by the language in to various lower-dimensional apprehensions of the "systems of systems" implied. Glen's comment just above this one about "closure" points nicely to that point I think. Also as a meta-maundering, it occurs to me in this moment that there is an analogy to the Heisenberg Uncertainty afoot here... that somehow the more tightly one "chunks" (sub) systems into a "system of systems", the more one can know about certain qualities, but the less they can know about yet other (also important) qualities. I think this analogy is more about language and our way of understanding things than it is about "the nature of the world" but it did just strike me (once again, with the backdrop of trying to find structure within complex graphs) as a useful awareness of sorts. - Steve On 12/1/17 10:58 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
On 12/01/2017 09:03 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:People have pressed Maturana on me before and I have tried him, but something in me has balked. I get pissed at authors who, like the complexity folks, seem stuck on their own words. Perhaps you could recommend ... or even link me to? ... a reader-friendly source?Maturana's text is mind-bogglingly difficult to read, at least for me. There are lots of directions you could go. But I like this document, which may also be interesting to Dave given it's focus: Thirty years of computational autopoiesis: A review http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/archive/fulltexts/2621.html[NST==>I think this word encapsulates my rage, here. I deplore people who take a word that is chosen because it is so misleading and then ram it up the ass of the literature. Yes, I know. “Poetry” does come for the greek word for “creation” and so the word does mean, in greek, self-creation. BUT WE DON’T SPEAK GREEK! So every English or French or ???? user of that term has to fight off the notion of a self creating poetry, which is groovy, but not very helpful. The author who invented that term was more interested in appearing groovy than in reaching his audience, and I depise him for it. <==nst]Autopoiesis isn't at all misleading. It captures the core of the theory quite nicely, I think. We use "auto" in the same way all the time in casual language. And we use words like hematopoiesis all the time in everyday medicine and biology.[NST==>Ach! I HATE the way people use the word system. Let's say two male cats are having a catfight over a female. We can choose to focus on the individuals, the "dance" of the fight, the relation to the female's movements, or the relation to the great horned owl sitting quietly in a tree paying close attention to the proceedings. What constitutes the system is entirely a matter of our interest. To define a system we need a figure, a ground, and a point of view. This is not to say that "systems" are in the mind of the beholder. An eclipse is real, but you have to stand in a particular place to see it. <==nst]But you're missing the fundamental point that _closure_ is the way to define system without (or with less) reliance on points of view. We've discussed that a lot on this list, too. ... which is just more evidence that I always fail in my attempts to communicate.[NST==>Sorry, if I am being a picky-jerk, here, but …. this bit of rhetoric exemplifies the problem. The immune system may distinguish between “self” and “non-self”, but that is not its main function … to distinguish between the immune system and everything else. That is what distinguishing between self and non self MEANS in the plain meaning of the words. Yet we are asked to forgive that little slip-of-the-tongue, even though it mucks up the whole conversation. What exactly is the “self” that the immune system is distinguishing between. Not itself, for sure. But that’s the whole problem, isn’t it? How do we distinguish the boundaries of a system without engaging at least two other systems in the definition, hence making them part of the system. <==nst]I don't believe anyone interprets the "self" in "self vs. non-self" as referring to the immune system. The immune system distinguishes between biologically active things that were generated by the person/animal/organism and things that were consumed or assimilated by the organism. So, the "self" is the organism ... which seems pretty standard in biology, right?[NST==>I gather that those who talk this language see themselves as anti-Cartesians. To me , it seems, sopped in cartesianism. The key notion of CArtesianism is foundationalism, the notion that before we have any kind of a discussion we must strip our understandings down to some bare bones, for Decartes, _the cogito. _That is what is so refreshing about Pragmatism. Pragmatists start in the middle. We keep looking at the world from various points of view. From this point of view, this looks like a system; from this other point of view, it seems a part of larger system; from yet another point of view, a collage of systems; from a 4^th point of view, it disappears altogether. Perhaps after a few decades, or millennia, of that sort of work, we come to agree on some foundations. Foundations are not the beginning of our labors; they are its most sought after result. <==nst]Well, the paper we're discussing this evening, Maturana's "What is sociology?", does run the risk of dualism, because Maturana asserts that language is more open than biology (or biology exhibits the closure required for autopoiesis, whereas language does not). That, obviously, begs the question of where the decoupling/unbinding from the material grounding of the words/terms/signs/whatever. But Maturana is arguing *against* the applicability of autopoiesis to social systems (via language). So, my guess is Maturana is cleaving close to monism, whereas people like Luhmann are the one's at risk for dualism. Regardless, you would benefit from avoiding generalizing across all people who "talk this language". ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick, look forward to FRIAM on the 22nd and 29th.
Some quick points on your larding, without re-larding.
- autopoiesis is a metaphor, not a literal term. It is 'exclusionary insider language" in the sense that anyone who takes it as literal is making evident they are not part of the clique. Self "creation" is a horrible misunderstanding of the term which is supposed to provide a metaphor for self "organization." The usage of terms like design, invention, creation, etc. — at the time they were used — reflected Parmenides view that nothing could come from nothing. There was no such thing as creation - merely reorganization, and nothing was 'new' only 'remembered'.
People are careless when discussing 'systems' but I would venture that, implicitly if not overtly, no one uses system in the way you suggest. I suspect most people involved in the discussion would pretty much agree with von Bertalanfy's definition of a system as an "arbitrarily bounded collection of elements and the relationships among them." All systems are contained within other systems all the way up to The System which is coextensive with the Universe. No system lacks connections with the larger context even though, for convenience and focus we may pretend that they do not just to simplify our lives. Or, like the Galactic Constant, used to compute orbits among planets - we aggregate a host of connections into one, simply to make our calculations easier.
The search for "invariant feature of living systems around which natural selection operates ... without recourse to referential concepts like 'purpose' of 'function'" sounds, to me, a lot more Pragmatic than Cartesian. But this perhaps my own misunderstanding of all three thinkers. I will note, however, that AI, at the time I was a student of that discipline, was fixated on the notion of internal representation of an external reality — absolutely Cartesian — while Varela working with Winograd rejected that notion in favor of a minor variant of structural coupling which was, from my point of view, very Pragmatic.
davew
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |