>Alexei Sharov wrote:
>> Rosen's definition of a mechanism is aplied to a description of a
>> system, not to a system itself. Thus, the previous discussion about
>> possibility to manufacture a "complex", i.e. non-mechanistic system
>> becomes a contradiction in terms. We do not manufacture a description
>> of a system, but we manufacture a system itself which cannot be
>> a mechanism. Of course, the question can be turned around and we may
>> ask, can we manufacture a system that does not behave according to
>> our description? But this question is a trivial one because our artifacts
>> too often behave unpredictably.
Don replied:
>Allthough all real things are complex, we often deal with them as
>abstractions, especially those we make. A good example is a TV set. It
>can be abstracted to circuitry, knobs and dials, and a picture tube. In
>reality, there is much more, but we ignore that. We deal with the TV as
>a MECHANISM. What would a COMPLEX (NON-MECHANISTIC) TV set be like?
>Imagine the following (and we can only imagine, as such things do not
>exist):
>It still has the picture tubes, knobs and dials, and antenna. These are
>imbedded in some structure. Also in that structure is all the circuitry
>the mecahnistic one has, but it is no longer clear where each component
>is located...the structure seems not to reflect the functional
>components in any clear way. Parts of the structure may simultaneaously
>be engaged in being a power supply, ampplifier, tuner, or what ever.
>maybe this functional characterization is even different from time to
>time. If we fragment the structure, we destroy an organization which is
>vital to function, but which we do not understand. We can not fins a
>1:1 mapping between the physical parts and the functional components
>even though it is clear that the function arises from the parts.
Don, please clarify your terms! If you apply terms "mecanism" and
"complex system" to our descriptions (or perceptions) of real things,
then your example of a complex TV has no sense. In your example
you are talking about conlex TV versus mechanistic TV rather than
about a mechanistic or non-mechanistic perception of the same TV set.
If you apply terms "mecanism" and "complex system" to real objects
themselves, then your example is again wrong. Even an ordinary TV
is a complex system that can be described and used in a multitude
of ways. For example, cockroaches or wasps may use it as a nest.
Some TV sets may be better as wasp nests than other models.
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