Onar defnding the view that computer systems are not dissipative
structures:
> The important point is that these (potential) self-organized structures play
no
> role in the computation process. They do not constitute the structure of the
> computing system at hand. The computation is therefore an illusion, much like
> the photons bouncing off the movie screen creates the illusion of another
world
> on the other side of the screen.
This is not true, they *can* play such a role. Techniques of
self-modifying assembly language are now standard, not to mention
compilers that are used to compile themselves, etc. You could use
your argument by analogy - "that organisms organise themselves is an
illusion, they play no part in the iteractions between atoms"! These
arguments are false at the relevent level - DNA does not alter the way
atoms interact but does control the context in which they do -
software does not alter the way the electronics operates but does
control the context in which they do. Life is no illusion.
Be clear, I am *not* saying that computers are alive! I am saying
that they are a potential environment for the self-production of
life (an environment where life has not already evolved to preclude
its emergence). All the pre-life building blocks are floating
around it is alternatively a benign/hostile selective environment
with now a large and varied environment in networks, replication is
obviously possible, as is self-organization ...
Yes, a turing machine has no 'final causation', but why can't real
computers be an environment where such causation could emerge?
(Just the sort of debate to start (I'll bet I get a deluge of
replies) just before I go on holiday for two weeks)! 8+)
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Edmonds
Centre for Policy Modelling,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Building,
Aytoun Street, Manchester, M1 3GH. UK.
Tel: +44 161 247 6479 Fax: +44 161 247 6802
http://bruce.edmonds.name/bme_home.html