Stephen Reed wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As for the organizational perspective, I am not quite sure which point
you were addressing with that.
Perhaps my point is clarified if you can imagine that a multitude of
unorganized human beings is a complex system, as you define it.
However, when organized, these same humans can perform in a scalable,
understandable, justifiable, and predictable manner. The Texai
architecture not only aspires to be cognitively-plausible with respect
to a single human mind, but to be organizationally-plausible with
respect to a vast number of Texai instances acting in concert.
Ah, well I would not say that a human organization was a complex system.
They can have complexity at one level (e.g. the sexual affairs engaged
in by members of the organization would count as a type of interaction
between local elements that was governed by an extremely messy, tangled
algorithm), but at the same time the interactions at the relevant
(workplace) level could be mostly regular, not complex. The
organization could be complicated, but it would not have to be complex.
A sufficiently big multinational organization would probably have
complex characteristics, but even there I do not think that the
functioning of the organization depends on the complexity.
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
