Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> Paulo Garrido wrote:
> >
> > Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> >
> > > I would be most interested in getting your comments on Don
> > > Mikulecky's
> > > article entitled: LIFE, COMPLEXITY AND THE EDGE OF CHAOS:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > 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. 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.
> > >
> >
> > If I understand correctly this Rosen's insight, I can propose a
> > formal account for it (I dont know if I am repeating Rosen). It is
> > a property of complex systems (Don Mickulecky will prefer probably
> > the term 'organisms') which is revealed at the domain of the
> > models we can build for them.
> >
> > Among models it stands a relation of 'derivability' or of
> > 'understandbility' which is an order relation.
> > Then to say that for some systems it is possible to build a model
> > from which al the others may be derived (a LUB or GLB), is the
> > same as asserting that the set of models forms a lattice under the
> > derivability relation.
> > Then to say that for some systems one needs to view them from at
> > least two points of view (or models), is the same as asserting
> > that the set of models can not form a lattice, under the
> > derivability relation (there is no LUB nor GLB).
> >
> > Then one could arrive to the following temptative formal
> > distinction for machines and organisms:
> > 'machines' - systems that accept a set of models with a
> > (semi-)lattice structure.
> > 'organisms' - systems that do not accept a set of models with a
> > (semi-)lattice structure
> >
> > The next question would be to know if Logic can give an account of
> > organisms under this definition. First to show that there are two
> > (consistent?) logical systems which are irreducible under
> > (consistent?) abduction. Then to show that they may be interpreted
> > to the same entity. I dont know enough of Logic to be able to
> > answer.
> >
> > Paulo Garrido
>
> Paulo:
>
> I think you said this much more clearly than I did in the e-mail I just
> sent to you. It would certainly help if Don could jump in here and
> comment on what we are working on.
>
Sorry...I was out again yesterday....new knees are complex!Don
> All I can add is that I have found this approach useful in trying to
> understand non physical processes like experience, thought, awareness,
> consciousness and most importantly understanding. It is also essential
> to understanding self organizing processes such as the life and what I
> like to call human understanding.
>
> Norm