5 ms·

I think the authors' (flawed) bulwark to this would be that their notion of "agency" requires a system with a well defined boundary -- in other words essential

I think the authors' (flawed) bulwark to this would be that their notion of "agency" requires a system with a well defined boundary -- in other words essential entropy cannot come from outside the system. Section 3 spends a lot of words on this concept of agency and closure. > The most central distinction to be made here is that the selection of a specific behavior is not purely reactive, not entirely determined by environmental conditions, but (at least partially) originates from and depends on the internal organization of the system making the selection.... [Agency] requires organizational closure .... Organisms, as autonomous agents, are Kantian wholes, i. e., organized beings with the property that the parts exist for and by means of the whole. What's funny is that I can't imagine how a serious modern biologist signed off on any claims of closure for biological systems. Our own behavior arises out of a mess of genetics, epigenetics, symbiotic relationships, and other external feedback loops which intermingle the "agency" of many self-preserving and self-replicating systems, from transposons hijacking our genetic strands to gut biomes regulating our hormonal balances. The history of biology is essentially one of humans drawing labels around supposed units, and nature making a mockery of those boundaries upon further research. Like other efforts before, this particular definition of closed agency is more a projection of our own psychology than an observation of the natural world.

mannykannot 4y ago
Indeed, and I think we can make a couple of specific responses to the passage you quote. The first thing is that if selection of a specific behavior is determined by environmental together with the internal organization of the system making the selection, how is that not reactive, why would it matter if it isn't, and why does that not apply to robots? The second point is that the internal organization of organisms is a result of evolution, so it too has been determined by the environment, and, furthermore, by a process that can be - and is - used to develop programs. There are heavy doses of ontological argumentation here ("this is an X and that is a Y"), but our categories are determined by what we know (or think we do.) As you say, nature can make a mockery of those boundaries.
asplake 4y ago
I am not a biologist, but I have read Maturana and Varela (originators of autopoesis), and they are not that naive. If there’s anything they do understand, it is the co-development of things over time in mutual relationship, ie structural coupling.

mannykannot 4y ago

Indeed, and I think we can make a couple of specific responses to the passage you quote. The first thing is that if selection of a specific behavior is determined by environmental together with the internal organization of the system making the selection, how is that not reactive, why would it matter if it isn't, and why does that not apply to robots? The second point is that the internal organization of organisms is a result of evolution, so it too has been determined by the environment, and, furthermore, by a process that can be - and is - used to develop programs. There are heavy doses of ontological argumentation here ("this is an X and that is a Y"), but our categories are determined by what we know (or think we do.) As you say, nature can make a mockery of those boundaries.

asplake 4y ago

I am not a biologist, but I have read Maturana and Varela (originators of autopoesis), and they are not that naive. If there’s anything they do understand, it is the co-development of things over time in mutual relationship, ie structural coupling.