First, you need to agree that there are logical typing differences
between coded and uncoded replication. Since you both seem to have
already agreed that coded copying is of one logical type and uncoded
copying is another logical type of replication, this shouldn't be a
problem.
The next step is even easier. All you need to do is agree that coded
and uncoded replication both differ "and" are the same at the same time.
Thus, I am proposing the use of what I call "and" logic in place of the
"either/or" logic Luis Rocha is insisting on.
At first, you may think that what I have just proposed is a trivial
solution that adds nothing to an understanding of the processes you are
examining. But I claim that to understand the processes and components
you are trying to model, you must take great care to combine "and" logic
with a careful application of logical typing analyses.
You might also find it useful to substitute the notions of problems for
the self referencing components and solutions for the processes involved
in self replicating and self organizing systems. Once you do this, it
is vital to expand the notion of the noun problem to include the verb to
problem. This is hard for most of us because we don't use the word
problem as a verb. What's more, normal language syntax won't let us use
the same word as both a noun and a verb at the same time.
So we need to use "and" logic again to make the notion of a problem
become both a noun and a verb at the same time. To make this easier, I
call this new notion "probleming." I find that once I combine
probleming and solutions, it's easy to get a mental simulation of the
self-organizing process. You might want to try it.
I try to explain all this on my web site. It's called: THE DAWN OF
HUMAN UNDERSTANDING. [ http://204.94.86.93 ] While the whole site
incorporates these ideas, much of the above is covered in section III
HONING OUR UNDERSTANDING. Specifically, parts 22 and 23 focus on
probleming. Part 26 goes into what I call "and" logic charts.
Norman K. McPhail