> AH this does indeed look like something solid to argue about:
> At 10:24 26/06/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >Don Mikulecky replies:
> >
> >
> >I thought this kind of distortion was the property of the press, but it
> >appears not.What I have been writing about here and elsewhere is the life
> work
> >of Robert Rosen. I resent a brilliant scholar's work being thrown into a
> >hopper as a wild assed guess.
> >
> >Rosen saw in the 1950's that traditional science had put on blinders when it
> >came to the issue of the complexity of real systems. He then established the
> >following:
> >1.There is a clear, unambiguous distinction between our perception of systems
> >as simple mechanisms or as complex systems.
> >2.Dealing with complex systems NECESSARILY means dealing with more than the
> >physical constituents since complex systems are irreducible.
> That seems like a category-error non-sequitur : since
> all emergent levels of existence/being are BOTH non-explainable purely with
> the descriptors of more elementary (evolutionary pre-decessor )levels and yet
> they also are phenomena which exist only through (vastly complex)
> mass-energy activity, and
> therefore are inevitably dealt with physically. (Our thoughts are neuronal
> electrochemical activity etc.)
Missed the point here: I tried to amplify this in another post using the TV set
as and example. We make this distinction clearly in network thermodynamics,
showing that there are constitutive laws and then a topology to systems. The
topology is in no way physical, yet it relates the physical entities. What is
done in Relational biology goes far beyond this. There it is shown that we
normally stop at mappings (relations) between physical objects. The subject
gets
far more rich as soon as you realize that what we seek to understand about real
systems involves more the mapping between relations rather than the mappings
betwwen objects. thus the physical aspects of a system quickly take on less and
less importance as we see its complexity.
>
>
> >3.Relationships between functional components are far more important than how
> >the pieces fit together and these two aspects do not map into each other in
> >any 1:1 manner.
> In a sense at the `real' physical level there are no "pieces" just
> mass/energy flux interaction.
That is ONE way of looking at it. Complexity demands others as well.
>
>
> >4.Complex systems have more than one way with which they can be interacted.
> >These are distinct(not derivable from each other).
>
> >This is just a glimpse of what is at stake here. It's substance requires
> hard
> >work and study to master.
> I don't think you will get very far by making fun
> >of it or by ignoring it.
> OK, agreed.
> >respectfully,
> >Don Mikulecky
> >
> Professor Gary Boyd, Education (Educational Technology Graduate
> Programme)Concordia University,
> 1455 DeMaisonneuve West, Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8.
> <boydg@vax2.concordia.ca> tel.(514)848-3459, fax(514)848-4520.
> homepage <http://alcor.concordia.ca/~boydg/drboyd.html >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Toward Eco-CO-cultural conviviality, through participative cybersystemic
> modelling, and Grace & grudge networking.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
respectfully,
Don Mikulecky