Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> Mario:
>
> I would be most interested in getting your comments on Don Mikulecky's
> article entitled: LIFE, COMPLEXITY AND THE EDGE OF CHAOS:
>
> The address is as follows: http://views.vcu.edu/ [here you need to
> insert a tilde but my keyboard won't let me print one] mikuleck/rev.htm
>
> The article is not about free will. And free will is not the point I am
> concerned with here. What I am concerned with is the concept of what I
> call "multiple views." Don's/Rosen's view of a "complex system" has
> very little to do with how complex it is in terms of the number of parts
> it has and the intricacy of its interactions.
>
> If I understand it correctly, their view is that to understand such a
> system, one needs to view it from at least two points of view. More
> important, these multiple views yield a model of the complex system that
> can not be derived from or understood in terms of the other models of
> the same complex system.
yes! and this is the issue....it means we MUST go beyond one approach
> So what you have is a definition of a complex
> system that says it is at once the same as and yet differs from itself.
>
> One of the qualities of such a complex system is that it is self
> referencing. So, as I understand it, the fact that its actions cannot
> be predicted has little or nothing to do with the narrow definition of
> chaos and probability that most Cartisian/Newtonian oriented scientists
> might use.
> yes...determinism has led us to a logical dilema!
> Free will may be interesting because it is a model of some complex
> systems that can not be derived from other views of that same system.
> What I am suggesting is that to fully understand the systems you
> describe so beautifully in your paper, you might want to see if a model
> that incorporates something like free will might help. What I am
> refering to is akin to the view that pattern recognition is qualitative
> and emerges like a cake. The important thing to remember though is that
> this complex system cannot be understood well without this different
> view.
>
> What I'm saying is that when I put your and Don's papers together, I
> seem get a deeper and richer understanding of what I think data is.
> Recall I said I thought it was both physical and non physical at the
> same time. I also said data appeared to me to be a non physical quality
> or difference that could make a physical difference.
> ah...there you have it!....it is both syntactical and semantic....(there
> are many ways of saying it!)
> More important, I think these multiple views may give me a better grasp
> of what experience is. As you suggest, experience may be "...apparent
> at the molecular level..." In some ways, experience is a complex system
> that must be viewed from many perspectives to be understood. So we can
> look at it from the quantum, molecular, biological and mental
> perspectives. Each view differs from the others and is a formal model
> of a system that stands on its own and can be thought of as a seperate
> entity.
I sense that you find this notion of complexity to be useful. I think it
stands alone in pointing us toward the next level of understanding. Thanks
for spending the time to digest it!
> Yet at the same time, each system is a form of what you call pattern
> recognition. Others might say it was a matching and selection process.
> So it is a physical process that depends on differences. Yet the
> differences themselves are just qualities, they are not physical.
> Hence, data embodies the qualities of non physical differences. Yet
> these non physical differences can make physical differences through the
> various levels of experiencial processes. I will be most interested to
> see what you and Don think of all this.
Don thinks you are right on the mark! And...there is more to come!
>
>
> But first, I also think it is vital that you read each others papers.
> So Mario perhaps you can send Don a copy of your paper.
Mario...please do!
>
>
> Norm McPhail
gratefully,
Don