There are three principle characteristics that sum up an autopoietic system. First, they exhibit self-organization in the spontaneous emergence of new structure and behavior. Next, they demonstrate adaptation via internal feedback loops. And finally, their affairs can only be described mathematically by non-linear equations.
A magnificent example of an autopoietic system is the biological cell. Given that, I highly recommend the illustrated guide The Way Life Works by Mahlon Hoagland and Bert Dodson. You will not walk away feeling insignificant as some science elicits.
A subtle but important point in the definition of autopoiesis is that an autopoietic network is not a set of fixed relations among static components, like the development of a crystal. Rather it is a set of relations among processes of production. This production continually regenerates its very self in maintaining a stable organization. If the processes stop, so does the organization.
Mathematically, autopoietic systems operate on the "edge of chaos" as envisioned in non-linear dynamics of Chaos Theory. This is far from the entropic equilibrium of linear thermodynamics. In fact, the autopoietic network is constantly drawing from the external environment to maintain its organizational stability. This distinction is fascinating in its own right, considering equilibrium and stability are commonly equated with one another.
The non-linear connections are checked by internal feedback loops across processes. Without this balancing effect, exponential runaways would ensue, threatening the whole.
I've been frustrated in the past with finding "purpose". I kinda chuckle now. Purpose to me appears to be its own adaptive feedback loop, defying a cast answer. “Being” is a more practical focus, while purpose divines its way.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
Autopoiesis...
This was said of autopoiesis. I can only smile, he said upon return...
"When the flow of energy and matter though them increases, they may go through new instabilities and transform themselves into new structures of increased complexity."
Fritof Capra, The Web of Life (New York: Anchor Books, 1996), p. 89
Autopoiesis ("self-making") refers to the characteristic of "living" systems to continuously renew themselves and to self-regulate this process in such a way that the integrity of their constitution is stable. All components of an autopoietic network are produced by other components in the network. In this, the entire system is organizationally closed, yet open with regard to the flow of energy and supplies. Whereas a mechanical device is geared to the output of a separate product, the product of a autopoietic system is simply itself.
The concept of autopoiesis views organisms as active agents within the framework of evolutionary change and not just passive effects of natural selection. Case in point...the metabolism of a living cell combines order and activity in a way that defies description by mechanistic science. It involves thousands of chemical reactions, all taking place simultaneously to transform the cell's nutrients, synthesize it basic structures, and eliminate its waste products. Metabolism is a continual, complex, and highly organized activity.
Of this, the clockwork world of the eighteenth century, and the linear world for the nineteenth and early 20th century is refreshingly opening to the non-linear and adaptive dynamics of natural systems.
"When the flow of energy and matter though them increases, they may go through new instabilities and transform themselves into new structures of increased complexity."
Fritof Capra, The Web of Life (New York: Anchor Books, 1996), p. 89
Autopoiesis ("self-making") refers to the characteristic of "living" systems to continuously renew themselves and to self-regulate this process in such a way that the integrity of their constitution is stable. All components of an autopoietic network are produced by other components in the network. In this, the entire system is organizationally closed, yet open with regard to the flow of energy and supplies. Whereas a mechanical device is geared to the output of a separate product, the product of a autopoietic system is simply itself.
The concept of autopoiesis views organisms as active agents within the framework of evolutionary change and not just passive effects of natural selection. Case in point...the metabolism of a living cell combines order and activity in a way that defies description by mechanistic science. It involves thousands of chemical reactions, all taking place simultaneously to transform the cell's nutrients, synthesize it basic structures, and eliminate its waste products. Metabolism is a continual, complex, and highly organized activity.
Of this, the clockwork world of the eighteenth century, and the linear world for the nineteenth and early 20th century is refreshingly opening to the non-linear and adaptive dynamics of natural systems.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Systems Theory...
Within the many domains of science lies a theory that I am particularly drawn to. You see, I have a strong background in systems thinking; building upon connectedness, relationships, and context, albeit with technology. To that end, I work off a generalist's knowledge of building blocks, but focus more on integration and principles of organization.
In fact, the root of the word 'system' is derived from the Greek synhistanai, meaning "to place together".
Systems theory itself is a multi-disciplinary scientific study whose goal is to derive and formulate principles that may have different ancestry, but have some degree of commonality to many fields of scientific inquiry.
The basis of this rides heavily on the view that all phenomena manifest as a web of interrelated elements, forming systems. Also, that these systems, whether electrical, chemical, biological, technical, or social, demonstrate patterns, behaviors, or properties that offer insight into complex phenomena. Ultimately advancing on a unified perspective.
Whereas science's assertive nature is expansive, competitive, quantitative, and dominating, the systems side of the house is more integrative and tends towards conservation, cooperation, quality, and networking.
Systems theory is the genesis of Autopoiesis, which I had not heard of until recently, but found intriguing enough that I wanted to give it a bit of exposure here.
But then...reality set in.
Yes, what an interesting dynamic our lives would be if they physically do interpenetrate one another. Yes, fantasizing about this dynamic lifts my spirits and adds significance to experiencing and to reaching out to others. Yes, sometimes it is just to listen to them in quiet reflection. Always, to see a bit of oneself in others. Oftentimes something that could not be fully anticipated. Yes, but then there's reality.
I didn't anticipate needing a break, but I do.
In fact, the root of the word 'system' is derived from the Greek synhistanai, meaning "to place together".
Systems theory itself is a multi-disciplinary scientific study whose goal is to derive and formulate principles that may have different ancestry, but have some degree of commonality to many fields of scientific inquiry.
The basis of this rides heavily on the view that all phenomena manifest as a web of interrelated elements, forming systems. Also, that these systems, whether electrical, chemical, biological, technical, or social, demonstrate patterns, behaviors, or properties that offer insight into complex phenomena. Ultimately advancing on a unified perspective.
Whereas science's assertive nature is expansive, competitive, quantitative, and dominating, the systems side of the house is more integrative and tends towards conservation, cooperation, quality, and networking.
Systems theory is the genesis of Autopoiesis, which I had not heard of until recently, but found intriguing enough that I wanted to give it a bit of exposure here.
But then...reality set in.
Yes, what an interesting dynamic our lives would be if they physically do interpenetrate one another. Yes, fantasizing about this dynamic lifts my spirits and adds significance to experiencing and to reaching out to others. Yes, sometimes it is just to listen to them in quiet reflection. Always, to see a bit of oneself in others. Oftentimes something that could not be fully anticipated. Yes, but then there's reality.
I didn't anticipate needing a break, but I do.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Composition...
I don't know if it happens to everyone, but there was a period of time when I inquired into the composition of God. Perhaps "spirit" is a better term, because in a round-about way this applies to we spiritual beings as well. Even still, a quantum aware whole.
Anyway, for God to exist in its own right, the minimal list of attributes that came to me were "self-reflecting", "self-referencing", "self-organizing", and "self-replicating".
Ahh the mind of a systems nut.
Self-reflecting, because being One, it had to be able to perceive itself.
Self-referencing, because it had to keep track of its focus within the history of its self-reflection.
Self-organizing, because it had to arrange these affairs to effect context and meaning.
Self-replicating, because, well, I exist, and though being a part of God, I wouldn't describe myself as being God. So, somehow, an expression of God produced me.
Continuing from that, I recognized myself as an open-system, dependent on the environment outside myself. Yet that is not true of God, so I found novelty fascinating. I imagined God as a closed-system, being One that is. So how did novelty ever arise? Wouldn't God get rather bored? So, in addition, I posited the attribute I label "self-perturbation". Something had to upset the apple cart. Undoubtedly, not a flattering label, but that is what I came up with. Googling it, I see it has been used elsewhere, so a patent isn't pending on my part. Damn.
Of this exercise, I came to realize the essence of life was experiencing. And so, from that point on, I've always admired my experiences, the good and the bad, because, to me, they were the spice of life.
There is a scientific theory called "Autopoiesis" that I am going to spend a little time with. Science is coming to understand one of these attributes, self-organization. To treat life as a science to some threatens its very essence. What informs the senses of one is lost on others. Such is the nature of life.
Anyway, for God to exist in its own right, the minimal list of attributes that came to me were "self-reflecting", "self-referencing", "self-organizing", and "self-replicating".
Ahh the mind of a systems nut.
Self-reflecting, because being One, it had to be able to perceive itself.
Self-referencing, because it had to keep track of its focus within the history of its self-reflection.
Self-organizing, because it had to arrange these affairs to effect context and meaning.
Self-replicating, because, well, I exist, and though being a part of God, I wouldn't describe myself as being God. So, somehow, an expression of God produced me.
Continuing from that, I recognized myself as an open-system, dependent on the environment outside myself. Yet that is not true of God, so I found novelty fascinating. I imagined God as a closed-system, being One that is. So how did novelty ever arise? Wouldn't God get rather bored? So, in addition, I posited the attribute I label "self-perturbation". Something had to upset the apple cart. Undoubtedly, not a flattering label, but that is what I came up with. Googling it, I see it has been used elsewhere, so a patent isn't pending on my part. Damn.
Of this exercise, I came to realize the essence of life was experiencing. And so, from that point on, I've always admired my experiences, the good and the bad, because, to me, they were the spice of life.
There is a scientific theory called "Autopoiesis" that I am going to spend a little time with. Science is coming to understand one of these attributes, self-organization. To treat life as a science to some threatens its very essence. What informs the senses of one is lost on others. Such is the nature of life.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Parts and Wholes...
Scientists note that some events in particle physics do not lend themselves to a definitive cause. Some physicists continue to strive for "local" determinants. Others accept that "non-local" connections exist throughout the whole. Here, it is the dynamics of the whole that influence the probabilities and the actions of the parts. I see this in my own life. Like it, cause I do, I am influenced by the breadth of the environment I find myself in.
The scientific method expounds upon approximate answers yielded by isolated entities. Each building off the next. Yet, given the true scope of what science is trying to grasp, could this be an endless cycle? Could Fritjof Capra be right...
"We believe that while the properties of the parts certainly contribute to our understanding of the whole, at the same time the properties of the parts can only be understood through the dynamics of the whole."
Ancient Chinese observed the cyclic nature of events. The dynamic interplay became a principle characteristic of the Taoist perspective. For them, change was not a consequence of some outside force, but was an innate tendency of the parts and the whole. Though it wouldn't be until a year ago that I could put my finger on it as such, it had always been present within, had been an unknown guide.
The resulting attraction to the Tao Te Ching led me to Fritjof Capra's book, which has been woven into several of the physics posts. Too, Capra has moved on to Deep Ecology, which has been a part of my journey as well, and which I intend to turn back to in the near future. For the curious however, at heart I am a systems nut, having successfully built a career on it. That is likely why you will gather an effort on my part to take disjointed pieces and arrive at some form of context and meaning. Though I am learning that this application at differing scales may be forced. Yet I do see parallels.
With all that, this blog is going to morph. The subtitle "Physics meets Philosophy" has already given way to "Of Parts and Wholes". I hope you stick with me. I enjoy your company.
"The Master views the parts with compassion, because he understands the whole."
- Tao Te Ching
The scientific method expounds upon approximate answers yielded by isolated entities. Each building off the next. Yet, given the true scope of what science is trying to grasp, could this be an endless cycle? Could Fritjof Capra be right...
"We believe that while the properties of the parts certainly contribute to our understanding of the whole, at the same time the properties of the parts can only be understood through the dynamics of the whole."
Ancient Chinese observed the cyclic nature of events. The dynamic interplay became a principle characteristic of the Taoist perspective. For them, change was not a consequence of some outside force, but was an innate tendency of the parts and the whole. Though it wouldn't be until a year ago that I could put my finger on it as such, it had always been present within, had been an unknown guide.
The resulting attraction to the Tao Te Ching led me to Fritjof Capra's book, which has been woven into several of the physics posts. Too, Capra has moved on to Deep Ecology, which has been a part of my journey as well, and which I intend to turn back to in the near future. For the curious however, at heart I am a systems nut, having successfully built a career on it. That is likely why you will gather an effort on my part to take disjointed pieces and arrive at some form of context and meaning. Though I am learning that this application at differing scales may be forced. Yet I do see parallels.
With all that, this blog is going to morph. The subtitle "Physics meets Philosophy" has already given way to "Of Parts and Wholes". I hope you stick with me. I enjoy your company.
"The Master views the parts with compassion, because he understands the whole."
- Tao Te Ching
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Law and Order...
Having met the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Conservation of Energy, we can address the Second Law, which deals with increasing Entropy. Here, physics reaches its limitations. For this law states that the path the universe is on is towards the disordered, towards the dispersal of energy.
However, something stands out in the dynamic web of inseparable energy patterns, and that is Life. Life orders and brings context and meaning to the interconnectedness of energy patterns. Life works in the opposite direction of entropy.
The universe as a whole requires self-consistency. The study of how the universe came to be ordered in the first place though is "beyond physics", and is aptly named Metaphysics. Since it is life that orders, it is the nature of life we can turn to next for insights.
The first insight...to be sensible, events in nature must harmoniously interrelate. And it is this consistency that constrains individual choice, our free will.
"For every force there is a counterforce. Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself."
- Tao Te Ching
However, something stands out in the dynamic web of inseparable energy patterns, and that is Life. Life orders and brings context and meaning to the interconnectedness of energy patterns. Life works in the opposite direction of entropy.
The universe as a whole requires self-consistency. The study of how the universe came to be ordered in the first place though is "beyond physics", and is aptly named Metaphysics. Since it is life that orders, it is the nature of life we can turn to next for insights.
The first insight...to be sensible, events in nature must harmoniously interrelate. And it is this consistency that constrains individual choice, our free will.
"For every force there is a counterforce. Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself."
- Tao Te Ching
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Law of Energy Conservation...
In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins artfully articulates an atheist perspective. I have traversed a number of his points along life's path. He drew a chuckle from me regarding his statement that pantheism is sexed up atheism, considering that I float between pantheism and panentheism.
Anyway, this caught my attention…
"David Mills, in Atheist Universe, transcribes a radio interview of himself by a religious spokesman, who invoked the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy in a weirdly ineffectual attempt to blind with science. 'Since we're all composed of matter and energy, doesn't that scientific principle lend credibility to the belief in eternal life?' Mills replied more patiently and politely than I would have, for what the interviewer was saying, translated to English, was no more than: 'When we die, none of the atoms of our body (and none of the energy) are lost. Therefore we are immortal.' Even I, with my long experience, have never encountered wishful thinking as silly as that."
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), pp. 84-85.
I was to close to the silly, for I had to read this a couple of times to understand the point. Is Dawkins amused in the case that if the body is energy, and energy is indestructible, then the body can never die, which is ridiculous in light of the fact that the body does die?
I have to admit to finding a degree of immortal comfort in this law of physics that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. In regards to our quantum nature, I have tried to be careful in posts and refer to awareness rather than consciousness. The difference may be subtle. Awareness is the explicit understanding that one exists. It is this that persists. Consciousness is credited with the development of an identity. It is this that is transient. Extending this to the manifest world of energy, this too at its root is non-descript. Gasoline and water are both made of elementary particles, both forms of energy. Yet, the properties of gasoline have the ability to animate a car, the properties of water do not. Likewise, with the body, not all energy contained within has the property to animate, but some form of it obviously does. It is this that I embrace.
"Every being in the universe is an expression of the Tao. It springs into existence, unconscious, perfect, free, takes on a physical body, lets circumstances complete it. That is why every being spontaneously honors the Tao."
- Tao Te Ching
Anyway, this caught my attention…
"David Mills, in Atheist Universe, transcribes a radio interview of himself by a religious spokesman, who invoked the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy in a weirdly ineffectual attempt to blind with science. 'Since we're all composed of matter and energy, doesn't that scientific principle lend credibility to the belief in eternal life?' Mills replied more patiently and politely than I would have, for what the interviewer was saying, translated to English, was no more than: 'When we die, none of the atoms of our body (and none of the energy) are lost. Therefore we are immortal.' Even I, with my long experience, have never encountered wishful thinking as silly as that."
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006), pp. 84-85.
I was to close to the silly, for I had to read this a couple of times to understand the point. Is Dawkins amused in the case that if the body is energy, and energy is indestructible, then the body can never die, which is ridiculous in light of the fact that the body does die?
I have to admit to finding a degree of immortal comfort in this law of physics that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. In regards to our quantum nature, I have tried to be careful in posts and refer to awareness rather than consciousness. The difference may be subtle. Awareness is the explicit understanding that one exists. It is this that persists. Consciousness is credited with the development of an identity. It is this that is transient. Extending this to the manifest world of energy, this too at its root is non-descript. Gasoline and water are both made of elementary particles, both forms of energy. Yet, the properties of gasoline have the ability to animate a car, the properties of water do not. Likewise, with the body, not all energy contained within has the property to animate, but some form of it obviously does. It is this that I embrace.
"Every being in the universe is an expression of the Tao. It springs into existence, unconscious, perfect, free, takes on a physical body, lets circumstances complete it. That is why every being spontaneously honors the Tao."
- Tao Te Ching
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)