Just now realized I allowed my own thread to die. Time for a necro.
My suspicion would be that the key word is disturbance (encounter?) with the perturbation as response within all the elements of the system. A closed system encountering something new and in having to accommodate it rapidly shifting (?).
So, acquisition of outside elements and eventual incorporation into a closed one?
Rather, is it by chance or by design that positive feedback loops exist? Of course, evolution is directionless, and I think the most rational explanation would be the ability to re-use self-created resources for a previously existing function. With that said, the second step would have to exist first.
Kind of like the photosynthetic system?
I know it's named photosystem II because it was discovered second, but I believe this exemplifies what I'm trying to say. The "second" step is only second because of the way we're looking at the problem.
This thread could easily develop into a more philosophical one (and by all means I hope it does) with the question:
How does sequential perception influence action thereafter (among other things)?
I hope we come back to this.
I think this is also relevant for some reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_transition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking
"symmetry is broken in what are called phase transitions, rapid, abrupt reorganisations in a dynamic system that radically restructure the system, allowing new forms to emerge. Bearing the psychological equivalant of phase transitions and reorganisations can be highly stressful for an individual even if ultimately positive in transformational affect."
Phase transitions, nice.
For evolution of the system, absolutely. For creation of a previously non-existent system? I think perhaps my previous (albeit brief) explanation could suffice for that. It seems plausible enough. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
I think it might be why Aleister Crowley said the surest way to change/ develop higher intelligence is to experience terror, to do the opposite of what one is comfortable with. This also seems to link to the
depression thread and the link to "positive disintegration", (positive if it means eventual reorganisation) but my minds leaping about now and I'm not sure if I'm still on topic.
"violence does not consist so much in injuring and annhilating persons as in interrupting their continuity" - Levinas. Maybe I'm not a pacifist afterall.
If your above point is true, then this surely follows. I understand what you mean
It is difficult to keep focused on a singular path, especially when discussing abstract things like this. That's why I love my Ni; I'm better at staying on track than most other people
I think it'd be interesting to combine phase transitions with reciprocal causality regarding exotic invasions...
Consider
centrifugal organization.
I still don't think I understand
this.
Would you mind explaining what you mean behind the exotic invasion thing? I know it's been a while since this post but I think it's actually an incredibly interesting concept and one that I think has some serious potential, both philosophically and scientifically speaking.
"How is positive feedback incorporated into a system (Biological, social, or otherwise)?"
proces A -> output -> enables proces A to produce more output.
In a system, a positive feedback loop will take over the entire system unless there is a negative feedback going on.
For example, bunnies when left alone will procreate exponentially until food runs out to support their population. Food depletion here is not linear as like the bunnies: the more plants the more plant production (until all the land/sunlight is taken up)
That is why any exponential curve depicting a natural process will eventually flatten out to an
s-curve or go back down again, parabolically or otherwise.
Nice! I like the graphical representation here: rather than a circle (which is what I was previously thinking) it's an exponential phenomenon. If the graph wasn't linear (over time) would it create a circle? (Food for thought)
However, negative feedback isn't always necessary, as I believe you noted. Unless you consider running out of food a negative loop (which would be from the initial step - action resulting in plant death [which I'm not opposed to]) then no food or no space resulting in a complete crash is simply a by-product of the positive loop.
How does a system evolve into positive feedback? Where do we start, and how to we achieve it?
In evolution, if a lifeform does not procreate itself more than it dies by natural causes, it will eventually die out. Thus any process of evolution will always start with that first point, optimizing it as it goes from there on out. (Thus, any life form is in essence a positive feedback loop at continual odds with the limitations of nature.)
Of course. But how did it all start? What causes a positive feedback loop in the first place? If that's all we are, is it actually a positive loop? This hits on my last point.
Everything that lives gets energy from somewhere else (which ultimately comes from the sun). I understand that Newton's Law of thermodynamics prohibits energy from being destroyed or created, but that doesn't necessitate the energy being confined to a single arbitrary system (say a positive feedback loop like protein production or something). Is it simply by chance that the same resources are continually used in these systems? Have they effectively closed themselves off from other systems? How have they done it, and aside from the advantage of ease of access (to resources) what's the point? Or is that the only point? so many questions XD
It seems to defy logic to me, for some reason, that systems can exist that function only to build themselves up.
What do you think is the reason of existence of any type of process?
There is this idea that when you start a committee to achieve something, and it appears to reach its final goal, that the members will (mostly subconsciously) actively try to find ways to continue the committee's existence. Either by sabotaging the very cause it tries to achieve, or by redefining its function. (This has nothing to do with PFL, but it too has some perverted logic to it. )
As for the reason behind it? I don't know. That's what I'm trying to turn the thread into, now; what is the reason behind all this propagation?
The only logical step I can see from here is that created resources (you can apply that term liberally) are the easiest to re-obtain and use again. That answers simply physical problems of achieving tasks; the problem I have is that
positive feedback loops are ubiquitous in evolution, yet evolution is directionless.
Perhaps this is redundant (circles have no direction) but temporally speaking, there is always a direction. Evolution only occurs over time.
This isn't to rebut anything, just to expand a bit on my earlier post ITT.
The key to positive feedback loops is frequently the exchange of "currency" through different mediums, and we often make the mistake, in conventional understanding, of naming the cycle after the currency instead of the path it flows through. The straw is more important than the liquid that flows through it. E.g. the nitrogen cycle involves a lot of hydrogen, oxygen, and other intermediate compounds including living ones and energy input from other systems.
It's intricate to the point where the loop is guided by a collective of other systemic processes, which is where reciprocal causality comes into play.
You're over my head again. I'm in rapid-fire Se right now so anything involving critical analysis and dissection is beyond me at this moment. Can you explain this further?
