>> which i interpret as the effective complexity corresponding, in some >> sense, to the "mental"/computing energy an entity would need to expend >> to consider all the aspects of a thing/system it considers important >> after disconsidering the parts which it consider irrelevant. > > ok, but the "aspects" of a thing re not a thing... ok? > The aspects are not additive, the same with behavior, > we all undestand the convenience of a model of Behavior > but it is a reduction of behavior (an emergent) to be handled > by the system during reflexion... we make it anObject to > be operated by the system; but it do not means that behavior > is an object nor can be part of a sum. > It feels like we are mostly into the philosophical now, but can we know anything through any other means than via an internally formed model of it? I'm not sure what your point is. My impression is that Gell-Mann's "aspects" are more general and, for a certain observer, can be many different things at different levels of abstraction. So no, they may not be "part of a sum" since they can be at different levels. I do not think we will get anywhere by discussing what something "really is"... ;)
In my view, the process of selecting the relevant attributes and then considering the object in light of them would be just the kind of in-formation process you are talking about. Regards, /Robert _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
