Collective Dissipative Structures, Force Flow Reciprocity, and the Foundations of Perception–Action Mutuality

Abstract

Physical systems maintained far from equilibrium exhibit self-organization of structure and behavior. These dissipative structures can exhibit life-like qualities and activities, such as collective and coordinated behaviors. We review such collective behaviors in electrical and chemical dissipative structures. Electrical dissipative structures can functionally coordinate their behaviors to maximize the rate of entropy production. Coupled oscillating electrical dissipative structures exhibit in-phase and anti-phase coordinative modes characteristic of biological coupled oscillators. Chemical swimmers form collective flocks with emergent properties, including sensitivities to magnetic and thermal fields, and rudimentary navigational capabilities. We review previously published work on electrical and chemical dissipative structures in the context of functional coordination. We also present a novel study of the functional coordination within the electrical dissipative structure. These collective behaviors are enabled by coupling of dissipative entities through diffuse energetic fields. We propose that the causal structure of the physics underlying these collective phenomena may be the same as that supporting coordination between organisms. We draw analogies between thermodynamic forces and flows driving the non-living dissipative structures and the perception–action mutuality which supports biological behavior.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 One might imagine that coordination of the trees could exist at a different time scale, such that the trees moved successively, as if they were taking turns moving. This would be coordination at the level of bouts of movement and would necessitate changing the time scale of analysis appropriately. Davis et al. (2016) did not report on this possibility. Trapping time was particularly relevant here because the two trees could, in principle, move independently.