At 08:17 AM 6/6/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>I think it's important to make three distinctions:
>>*) Dynamical systems, which have bounded, generally continuous, phase
>>spaces and are describable in terms of dynamical equations and
>>trajectories within basins of attraction
>>*) What Kampis calls "component systems", which begin with chemistry, and
>>include genetics and language. In these systems a finite collection of
>>atomic parts are joined in discrete combinations to fill an indefinitely
>>extendable, and combinatorially vast, space, with each new "production"
>>possibly possessing "emergent" properties.
>>*) Semiotic systems, which (to my mind) necessarily involve issues of
>>decision and control as a variable constraint over variation (to invoke
>>Francis'es definition of a meta-system transition) by a system bounded
>>from, but coupled to, an environment in virtue of its input-output
>>relation, and thus describable in terms of its achieving "its" "goals".
>These are not different systems but DIFFERENT LANGUAGES that can be used
>to describe systems.
The duality in semiotic systems between models and their referrents is
something which is very difficult to get a handle on. I construct a model
of a system using a particular modeling language (e.g. a component system).
I then ASSERT the properties of the model to be those of the referrent
(e.g. a particular chemical system). I know in advance that this movement
is limited and bounded, but while I operate within that modeling
environment, I simply take it to be true within that frame of reference. So
I assert that these are BOTH difference languages AND different kinds of
systems, depending on where one draws that boundary.
>However, some languages are more useful for describing
>one kind of systems, and other languages are more useful for describing
>another kinds of systems. Let us consider the set of all systems, S. Then
>there are subsets of systems S1, S2, and S3 that can be described by
>physical language, component-systems language, and semiotic language.
>These subsets definitely intersect (not just S1 and S2, and S2 and S3, but
>S1 and S3). The picture is actually more complicated because each system
>has parts and these parts can be also described using these languages.
>It may happen that the whole system is better described using semiotics, and
>subsystems are better described using physics.
Yes, I agree.
>>>Semiotics is just a high-level language that can substiture
>>>attractors and differential equations.
>>I believe it would be a mistake to invoke semioitcs JUST for that
>>purpose, relegating it just to the analysis of our MODELS, rather than
>>also their REFERRENTS. My hope is that we could work towards a real
>>science of semiotic systems, identifying what distinguishes them from
>>other classes of systems, what principles they all have in common, how
>>they relate to dynamical and combinatorial systems which are also NOT
>I did not say that I would like to use semiotics just for this purpose.
---- O------------------------------------------------------------------------> | Cliff Joslyn, Member of the Technical Staff (Cybernetician at Large) | Distributed Knowledge Systems Team, Computer Research Group (CIC-3) | Los Alamos National Laboratory, Mail Stop B265, Los Alamos NM 87545 USA | email@example.com http://www.c3.lanl.gov/~joslyn (505) 667-9096 V All the world is biscuit-shaped. . .
======================================== Posting to firstname.lastname@example.org from Cliff Joslyn <email@example.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 20:06:59 BST