Re: terms
DON MIKULECKY (MIKULECKY%VCUVAX.BITNET@letterbox.rl.ac.uk)
Wed, 6 Sep 1995 11:14:23 -0400
Don Mikulecky, MCV/VCU, Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
Reply to Cliff, Onar and Jeff: components vs parts
components equal parts in a machine....hurricanes, Benard cells, and livers
are distinct from machines. Onar's point, that the liver decomposes when
removed from the organism, howbeit more slowly, is true of the organism as well
if its food and oxygen are cut off.
Kampis (Self Modifying Systems in Biology and Cognative science)
follows Rosen's ideas rather closely on this. He introduces the notion
of component systems. He states that components change during a process and the
refore form a complex set of non-computable entities. In order to encode
them, we would need the outcome of the process in advance. These very
processes, defined by the system also define the system.
These criteria ensure that components are compatible with a basic plan that
determines their constitution and with a natural dynamics that constructs
them from others. Component systems with just a few different substances
instead of an open-ended pool are not genuine component systems. I'm afraid
that many examples posed here fail to meet this criteria, which is crucial.
This seems to be a major role of proteins in living systems, to provide, at
that level, a selectivity among pool conctituents.
O.K. We seem to have more work to do before definitions worth putting on the
web are at hand. I recommend looking closely at Kampis and the "Chaotic
Logic" book which builds on it.
Bset regards,
Don Mikulecky