> Me talking about computer systems:
>> >It is certainly far-from-equilibrium, and potentially
>> >can contain self-organized structures.
>
> 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.
>
Here's why I keep asking us to see the causal differences here. A number
of things are involved. In a computer, hardware is distinct from software.
The hardware has a limited number of configurations, the software is
essentially unlimited. What is being discussed lies entirely within
the realm of software (Onar's point?) In that realm, some fantastic
things are possible, some of which seem to mimic life(Artificial Life,
viruses, etc.) [Bruce's point?] The difference is in the causal
relations, all four of them, not just final cause. Material cause in a
computer program is totally different from material cause in a system
functioning to produce new computers from existing one. So does
efficient cause differ. This is why von Neuman's self reproducing
automata are not at the same level as Turing's universal computer.
> 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 ...
These events, when manifest in a computer, are very different from seemingly
similar events from which or after which the computer's activities
are being derived by comparison. Simulation has limits and these are severe
in the realm of comlexity. Rosen spends a lot of time proving that
complex systems are not simulable except in the limited sense that
their mechanistic subsystems are. Onar: are there aspects of what
hypersets do that are not simulable in this sense?
>
> Yes, a turing machine has no 'final causation', but why can't real
> computers be an environment where such causation could emerge?
>
In some sense, this is the purpose of things like genetic algorithms.
However, the other causalities make the computer generated event distincly
different from others. The new Dna computers may be a way around all
these limitations. Now we can envision a strict allignment of
causalities between a computing device and other systems which are complex.
> (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+)
>
Have a good trip. Like soap operas this may not seem akll that
different when you come back!
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 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
Best regards,
Don Mikulecky