Re: Non Physical Experience
Norman K. McPhail (norm@SOCAL.WANET.COM)
Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:03:06 -0700
Alexei Sharov wrote:
>
> Reply to Norm McPhail:
>
> >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. 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.
>
> Norm, it looks like you want to distinguish between mechanisms
> that allow exhaustive modeling (i.e., any other model is derived from
> the the exhaustive model) and organisms that do not allow such an
> exhaustive model. I am afraid that there is no such distinction.
> Mechanisms can be described exhaustively only if they work well
> (i.e., in accordance with the purpose of their creation). But if
> they fail, then they are no longer described by this exhaustive model.
>
> For example, a tape player is a perfect mechanism until it starts
> jamming the tape. This jamming does not fit to any single model.
> There may be infinite models of jamming. If a Turing machine
> starts jamming the tape, it is not a mechanism any more. Thus,
> mechanism is not just a "simple object" but an object considered
> from the point of view of a single function.
>
> My argument seems to agree with Don Mikulecky and Robert Rosen:
> "Complexity then ceases to be an intrinsic property of a system,
> but it is rather a function of the number of ways in which we
> can interact with the system..."
> "In a very real sense all natural systems are complex."
>
> I consider Rosen's ideas very valuable, but my impression was
> that his understanding of purposes (usages, functions) largely
> remained anthropocentric (as in most of cybernetics).
Don says that Rosen uses the idea of subjective interaction, but I don't
think this necessarily equates to an anthropocentric set of purposes for
the formal system or the natural system. In fact, I gather that his
notion of complex systems includes a functional understanding which to
my way of thinking implies a purpose that is self referencing for the
model under consideration.
Norm McPhail
>