Systems theory may explain ecosystem dynamics even if they are not "under control". But +, - feedback well defined even in absence of goal
-
-
-fb stabilizing, +fb destabilizing. We tend to observe ecological negative feedbacks b/c systems don't stick around in unstable states.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ecosystems have had major irreversible changes in attractor basins over geologic time. Photosynthesis, multicellularity, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
We also often err in thinking systems are in equilibrium when they aren't just because change is slow on a human scale. Balance of nature?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Absolutely :) . But I would love examples of non forcing signals in nature. Like your heart beating. Or gene expressions. The signal is weak
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
but essential or a much higher level feedback system kicks in ;)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Maybe some forms of symbiotic systems have them? But really most ecosystems are -fb systems.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Sometimes punctuated by a strong oscillation or a +fb until a higher level -fb kicks in, or space runs out.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
In a way non forcing signals are (always?) learned. Either by slow evolution or faster brains. Learned by that much higher level -fb.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But I would love examples or counters. Especially of places where we don't expect them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
A cell is not directly regulating its metabolic reactions, but it maintains the systems that do, using meta-regulation, etc...
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.