Alexei Sharov wrote:
> Reply to Don Mikulecky
>
> >> Let's start with the modeling relation,
> >> i.e., relation between a natural and formal systems. In "Life itself"
> >> Rosen first introduced the modeling relationship between 2 formal systems
> >> and then said that the same thing can exist between a natural and formal
> >> systems. This transition is not clear at all!
> >> A formal system is a set
> >> of statements expressed in a formal language which can be combined in
> >> a number of ways or deducted from each other. We don't see anything
> >> comparable in a natural system. The natural system may have no
> >> language and no statements!
> >
> >You clearly have not read the three chapters in "Anticipatory Systems"
> which the
> >sections in "Life Itself" refer to. There he builds up the elements of
> >correspondence between the symbols in the formal system and the symbols in
our
> >PERCEPTION of the natural system. He does this with the other aspects
> > too...with great care and VERY convincingly. What you are forgetting is
> >that our only acess to
> >the natural system for manipulations like the modeling relation is after
> >perception.
>
> The major problem here is that modeling makes sence only if models can
> be communicated to somebody else (or at least to yourself in the
> future). But there is no guarantee that the receiver of the model
> will have the same perception.
granted....this is ALWAYS true.
> It may easily happen that the model
> diagram will not commute after the model is communicated.
then the communication is faulty...not the model.
> In order to communicate (even to yourself) you need a common
> classification of your perception tools (e.g., sense organs) and
> you need to test if this classification is reliable.
this is why Rosen wrote the book..."Fundamentals of measurement".....to
establish
exactly that in the most rigorous manner I have ever seen. Are you familiar
with
it?
> In other
> words, you should be sure that you can extrapolate your perceptions
> to other people. This is the core of the discussion on non-physical
> experience. But Rosen starts all his formalisms AFTER perception.
>
so does everyone else...it is inescapable.........you need to understand what is
meant by those words....see the three relevent chapters in "Anticipatory
systems"....as I say..once you see what is being said you will see it as
inescapable.
> >> Rosen wrote his equation
> >> [10C.6] without further explanation. He said "I have since repeated
> >> this formal argument many times in previous work and not need repeat
> >> it here" (p. 251). No citations follow. Don, can you help to find the
> >> reference?
> >
> >the key work is: Some Relational Cell Models: The Metabolism-Repair System."
> >Chapter 4 of Foundations ofMathematical Biology Vol. 2, 217-253. N.Y. &
London,
> >Academic Press. 1972
>
> Don, thank you for the reference!
> I got this paper and found that this formalism works for some
> very specific self-reparing systems like neuron networks. Rosen's
> formalism is based on replacing system components. It is easy to check
> that the component was replaced if it should appear in the SAME PLACE.
> But what if you don't know beforehand where this component will be
> replaced? The replaced component may appear in a different place.
his mappings among components are in terms of function...not location..you are
misinterpreting them
> You may think that the system is dying, whereas the real system
> has already escaped and is in another place. Try to use Rosen's
> formalism to describe replication in cellular automata, e.g., the
> Langton's self-reproducing loop.
Rosen and others have done this...no problem if you understand the formulation
> You will see that it is not
> feasible.
on the contrary....it is trivial!....it is even in books on category theory...
>
>
> >> The problem of replication/fabrication is very important because
> >> it is the only way for a system to become entirely autonomous
> >> (self-entailed). Did Rosen say anything new about replication
> >> compared to Von Neumann? Von Neumann actually described a self-replicating
> >> machine (in Rosen's sence), not an organism.
> >
> >Read Rosen's paper critiquing von Neuman......he shows why von Neuman was
> > totally
> >wrong!
>
> I would like to read this! Please, give me the reference.
see the list @ http://views.vcu.edu/complex/
he writes about it in "Anticipatory Systems" as well as I recall...but the list
gives specific papers.
>
>
> >your comments seem to be mainly about the 70% you missed. Do not interpret
> this
> > as
> >an attempt to be rude as it is not. It is my frank opinion. You need to do
> > lots
> >more work before you understand even why you are having difficulty....it is
not
> > in
> >Rosen's work...but in your own unfamiliarity with it. Only you can deal with
> > that.
>
> I appreciate very much the philosophy of Robert Rosen. But at this
> point I don't see much value in his mathematics.
c'est la vie!
> This is my personal
> opinion and I am not going to insist on it. I hope that there are
> some other people on the list who may correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Cheers!
> -Alexei
> -------------------------------------------------
> Alexei Sharov Research Scientist
> Dept. of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
> Tel. (540) 231-7316; FAX (540) 231-9131; e-mail sharov@vt.edu
> Home page: http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/alexei.html
I don't expect you would find value in that which you haven't taken time to
understand!
respectfully,
Don