Alexei Sharov wrote:
> Don Mikulecky wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> I agree with this. When we make a TV we intend to make a mechanism.
> But instead we end up with manufacturing a complex system which
> does not always behave as we thought. As I understand, you propose
> to start building TV sets without having a mechanism in mind. For
> example, we can make some self-organizing network that under some
> conditions may develop into a functioning TV-set. In other words, we
> will let the system to have more freedom. This is all fine.
>
> But my point was that even if we intend to make a mechanism, we
> still allow our product to have some freedom (unintentionally). For
> example, we do not specify the path for every electron in a circuit.
> Thus, the difference between bilding mechanisms and building
> non-mechanisms is more in perception of what we do and less in
> methods of manufacturing. But I agree that even methods of manufacturing
> can be improved if people realize that they never can manufacture
> a mechanism.
no disagreement here....just wanted to make sure you saw what I was getting
at...there is continuity in my recent postings (I hope)
>
>
> I suggest the following summary of this discussion:
> 1. All real systems are complex, and there are no mechanisms
> among real systems
> 2. Models of real systems may be mechanistic (attempt to
> describe and control every detail) and non-mechanistic (that
> have some internal freedom, e.g., neural networks,
> genetic algorithms).
> 3. Modelling strategies can be:
> a) using mechanistic models and believing that they are true
> representations of real systems
> b) using mechanistic models as metaphors keeping in mind that
> real systems may be quite different
> c) using non-mechanistic models and believing that they are true
> representations of real systems
> d) using non-mechanistic models as metaphors keeping in mind that
> real systems may be quite different
>
> I vote for strategies "b" and "d" and against "a" and "c". Using
> non-mechanistic models may give substantial advantages in some
> cases compared to known mechanistic models. But I would not
> consider non-mechanistic models as a panacea. In many cases
> mechanistic models give a very accurate (but metaphoric)
> description.
as you wish..you summarized very well...thanks!
>
>
> -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