Alexei Sharov wrote:
> Reply to Don's comment about complex TV set:
>
> >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.
what we manufacture is a natural system. all real natural systems are complex.
however, we percieve the system through putting a formal system in its place.
that formal system need not be complex, it can be a simple mechanism. Indeed
when we make TV sets we work hard to make sure their complexity does not get in
the way of our design of them as a simple mechanism. A glimpse at any EE
curriculum will verify that! hence my description earlier....a TV as we know it
is an abstraction which is, as a formal system, a simple 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.
more interesting is the question of whether we can manufacture anything BUT
those things which can be made to behave as simple mechanisms?
>
>
> 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.
Yes, it has a sense...but only if you try to see what I am doing. I DID caution
that what I was trying to conjure in your imagination does not exist. That is
different from not making sense or we would not have science fiction.
I sense that the notion of complexity that I mimic from Rosen is not easy to
grasp. Thus I created this "thing" for our imaginations to try to concretize
the things I've been saying. Bear with me..it goes somewhere...it really does.
> 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.
yes.....pardon the language...but the "mechanistic TV" is both real and
complex...and most of us have one. The "complex TV", as far I know, doesn't
exist, but we can hypothesize it as a natural system and contrast it to the
other. In that contrast, we find that our abstract image, as a formal system,
easily fits the one but not the other. Does that clarify the relations?
>
>
> If you apply terms "mecanism" and "complex system" to real objects
> themselves, then your example is again wrong.
No my example is not wrong. just as definitions are never wrong. my example is
merely an attempt to exemplify some definitions according to Rosen. What must
be wrong is the semantics my example conjurs up for you. Thus we must clarify
further so you can see what I'm getting at. You need not agree, but at least
disagree with what I am actually saying.
> 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.
precisely my point
> 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
respectfully,
Don Mikulecky