Re: complexity
DON MIKULECKY (MIKULECKY@VCUVAX.BITNET)
Wed, 24 May 1995 16:50:26 -0400
Don Mikulecky, MCV/VCU, Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
Reply to Luis
I'm glad to find that I'm not alone in those feelings! I have been
giving a course on this stuff (A-life, etc) and also feel we are
short on realizations. That goes for Rosen and the others too I'm
afraid. But then it's not so surprising. The "eye of the beholder"
idea is right on and totally consistent with Rosen as I read him.
We have been into the Newtonian Paradigm and reductionism so long that
we have been conditioned to look at one aspect of a system at a time,
and only those closely mimicked by syntax (Turing machine, computer, whatever)
I suggest that we really have to create an alternative. I'm struggling
withthat and am following this network as one of the few sources there
is for dialog (and dialectic) on the issue. If I read Rosen correctly
(I'm back to "Fundamentals of Measurement" at this time) the problems
of complexity, emergence, etc. arise out of our on way to look at systems.
Yes, all things get more complex the more ways we find to interact with
them, but now, how does that help us? I think I see a ray of light
out there and am going to try it out in France. Luckily, I'll have
Jeff Prideaux to keep me honest.
Best wishes and thanks for your thoughts, Don