First, thanks for clarifying the semantic closure questions.
At 11:31 AM 7/17/98 -0400, you wrote:
......
>I agree that quantum systems also have semantic closure. But the
>difference is that their semantics is NOT COMMUNICATED because
>they are unable to reproduce (except nuclear chain reactions).
So then non-locality counts for communication in space but not in time. Can
this be the basis for awarenes of the "now" -- or "experience" as we've
been discussing it?
>
>
>>But back to ecosystems. Ecosystems do not have well defined boundaries.
>>Traditional definitions pay homage to the idea that an "area" is associated
>>with an ecosystem, just as components are necessary features, but space
>>actually plays no part in the definition. The abstract definition of an
>>ecosystem (as opposed to completely useless definitions that attempt to be
>>spatial and material) is functional -- as a set of relations in "n"
>>ecological "dimensions."
>
>This "abstract" definition of an ecosystem is actually a MODEL
>that is reasonable for very large (or clearly bounded like a pond)
>and homogeneous ecosystems. There are no definitions of real
>objects. Any definition refers to a model. For example, the
>definition of gas refers to ideal gas. There are many other
>ecosystems for which your functional definition would not work.
>For example, how can you measure the population density if you
>don't know where to measure? Another problem is with successions.
>Is it the same ecosystem (like ontogenesis) or is it a replacement
>of ecosystems. As far as I know there is no general definition of
>an ecosystem that would work in all situations and in all time-
>and space scales.
I see the n-dimensional concept more as a worldview than a model. It says
"this is how we should think of ecosystems" but does not provide any
formalism -- which is then a matter for individual ecosystem theories. I
get your meaning, but I think the n-dimensional concept is not so limited.
Space and time constitute 4 of the n dimensions, and the others -- the way
ecologists tend to employ them -- can be highly dependent dimensions.
"Population density" certainly fits in this view. I perhaps overstated it
by saying that area is not part of the definition. I do not mean that it is
not part of the result. My point is probably more mundane and trivial than
you suspected -- I'm refering to some very practical definitions that try
to identify an ecosystem with a piece of ground, or "eco-region" as I would
call it, and deny more abstract realities. We are very abstract in
PRNCYB-L, but many ecologists don't get past what they can collect in the
field and some of the "definitions" appearing in the landscape ecology
literature are strictly material. These universally don't work except
descriptively because there's more to an ecosystem than what we can see.
That's all I was getting at.
>
>>The residual need for semantic closure seems
>>inescapable, and, as you say, can be provided for ecosystems from the
>>species level, the semantics of which is then merely elaborated into
>>resulting ecosystem patterns. This provides yet another level of semantic
>>closure, however, since ecosystems are the ultimate reality in evolution
>>theory -- being the all-powerful selective environment. Hence semantic
>>closure at the phenotypic level can affect evolution - which is my
>>"autevolution" hypothesis.
>
>I did not get this. I think that most ecosystems are "coded" at the
>species level, i.e., species semantics expands to the ecosystem level.
>I briefly looked through your paper on autoevolution at PCP and got
>the impression that by autoevolution you mean self-evolution of a
>persistent system (like Gaia) without reproduction and selection. Of
>course, the term "evolution" has a very broad meaning and can be easily
>applied to Gaia, I would argue that the evolution of Gaia was not
>adaptive. Of course, now the fate of Gaia is in human hands. It
>has become a part of noosphere (a term of Vernadski and Teilhard de
>Chardin). Humans may start reproducing Gaia to other planets.
>
Let me try to clarify my idea from the paper. "Autevolution" DOES involve
the normal "modern synthesis" idea of biological evolution, which provides
"communication." But it also claims that, in addition, what we might
describe here as "the ability to produce semantic closure," meaning some
form of awareness/experience or semantic ontology, must also have evolved
along with form. If quantum phenomena can be identified as a valid semantic
ontology (we keep changing the words, but I think you know what I mean here
-- its the "whatever it is" that adds the necessary meaning to collapse the
wave function, make a decision, create a physical state, achieve semantic
closure, etc.), then it seems reasonable to suggest that mechanical
biological evolution has managed to amplify this phenomena into what we
experience as "self," free-will or awareness & choice (the "special
theory"). The paper began by considering where a more organismic concept of
Gaia MIGHT be legetimately found (trying to rescue it from pure metaphore)
and decided on quantum phenomena as the obvious candidate (because it is a
valid existing theory structure). But it did not conclude that Gaia (or the
ecosystem) was in fact an organism. Rather my conclusion was that "life
itself" as Rosen puts it (I had not read Rosen) may indeed be responsible
for those spiritual qualities some people attribute to Gaia, but that they
REQUIRE a biologial structure capable of the magnification process
(otherwise those qualities are as interesting as quantum popcorn).
Ecosystems have no such known structure, but organisms perhaps do. I left
the question of Gaia with the thought that perhaps there are some
intelligent system-level phenomena that result through complex interactions
of organisms (a possible "general theory," which was left unexplored). The
result is pretty much what we've written in the past several messages --
that semantic closure seems most probable at the organismic level and not
at the ecosystem level, but that ecosystems derive their self-organizing
properties from the properties of organisms. Gaia, then, would do likewise,
but would then only metaphorically fit Lovelock's original idea of a global
organism.
Regarding the autevolutionary aspect of an emerging and self-creating
"self," I suggested that there is a feedback with the environment (changing
selection) which allows phenotypic behavior (which involves semantic
closure) to communicate with future (mechanically produced) generations.
There results a complementarity between form and function (function being
affected by semantic closure and form being affected by natural selection);
and a biological uncertainty principle that results and causes form and
function to "chase" each other. In simpler words, free will can alter
selective forces and thus decisions can reproduce themselves through this
means and become "registered" in future forms, altering evolutionary
pathways. It is easiest to see this in the human case. Part of my reason
for seeking a fundamental (some would say "reducible" but I don't like the
negative connotations to that) quality in QM is to argue that it cannot be
restricted to the human case. Semantic feedback through time must be true
of all organisms that reproduce, if the ability to produce semantic closure
evolved from primative origins. We've mostly been discussing semantic
closure in current time, which is ecological time. Semantic feedback
(between form and function) through time (via generations) seems likely in
evolution. That would produce semantic pathways which would affect
phylogeny, getting very close to a causally effective end-directed process,
or teleology. This is a very different conclusion than many evolutionary
biologists believe (e.g., SJ Gould's "Full House").
>I already said that although quantum particles have semantic closure,
>they usually don't communicate it (no reproduction). Evolution
>without communication is limited by a thermodynamic equilibrium
>(each event has its fixed probability). An interesting case is Gaia
>which has no external communication, but has very intensive internal
>communications. In this case, thermodynamic description is not
>relevant. There is no way to estimate probabilities (because
>the system is unique and transition processes are too long). I am not
>sure that Gaia should be considered alive. It looks more like a
>non-living system made of living components. We talk mostly about
>living - nonliving dychotomy. But life depends on the level
>of hierarchy (e.g., scale), and eventually we may find it useful
>to distinguish more categories of life. Some living ssytems have
>higher organization at the bottom level, other systems have higher
>organizations at the top level.
Yes, I agree with this conclusion, except for the interesting speculation
that humans might form the global semantics (awareness, values, etc.) and
encoding (science) that can allow the planetary system to evolve through
physical reproduction (not just spreading). We musn't forget that all of
our data and research are part of the system now and we are developing the
means to use it to reproduce ecosystems. Perhaps we are the agents that
will allow Gaia to become an organism. The paper was intentionally vague on
this (because I couldn't think beyond this speculation), leaving the
question open for further definition, which perhaps PCP is doing.
At the other extreme, quantum phenomena, as you say, do not necessarily
"communicate" to future generations without some other macroscopic process.
But we also cannot get rid of it when we have mechanical evolution> So once
quantum phenenomena are carried along with biological reproductive
evolution, it seems that a means for communication of quantum phenomena to
future generations exists. Without this form of communication, however, is
seems reasonable to say that states are "communicated" only by their
non-local effects, which I assume is thermodynamically limited as you say.
But it is this non-local phenomena (communication in space) that I suggest
is being magnified by biological evolution (communication in time). Is this
consistent with what you are saying, or do I not understand what you mean
by communication?
-----------------------------------------------
John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
(303) 497-6900 (phone)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)
jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)