MessagePhil, I think it's a method of two Zen Buddhists checking each other by
asking koans (that are inaccessible to rational
understanding, yet that may be accessible to intuition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koan) about the subject. ? -Mikhail
To understand is to invent. --J. Piaget
You cannot change a reality if you remain in the same consciousness that made
it. --G. Braden
----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Henshaw
To: 'Mikhail Gorelkin' ; 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 11:10 PM
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] When is something complex
Mikhail,
Well, I was perhaps including that sort of natural category that is known
only by the experiential step of 'entering', like
stepping into someone else's shoes and the indefinable change of consciousness
that always seems to produce. I was more thinking
about distinguishing between the systems we see forming in our minds, and the
systems we see forming in the physical world outside
our minds. There are many many different ways a mental system can form to or
reflect a physical system. The trick is to find a
method that two minds can check each other on. That's a tough performance
standard to meet.
Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
explorations: www.synapse9.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Mikhail Gorelkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex
>...so we need some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient
method where definition is impossible.
Phil, I like this example: "categories" in those astral worlds that we can
enter only ***unconsciously***, and where, therefore,
we lose our ability even to ***define*** :-) --Mikhail
----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Henshaw
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex
Well, one of the most fascinating things about observation is rolled up
in that question. It turns out to be naturally
difficult to tell whether your data reflects behaviors of the environment or of
your method of collecting information. The point
is that observation is always a matter of dealing with 2 complexities each of
which is indescribably complex and neither of which
can be used as a general standard reference.
Both the process of the observer and the process observed are
uncalculable, and most particularly because they are real
physical processes, each displaying the behavior of the whole indescribable
network of distributed independent complex processes of
nature from which they arise, including all the features and scales of order we
have not yet found a way to observe in detail and
have no clue as to how to begin to describe! One of my favorites in that
area is molecular light, all the photons being emitted
and absorbed in particle interactions all the time. I understand it's real,
but molecular light is just another subject on a long
list of 'dark matters', for our understanding.
So...complexity means in part that not everything (actually not any
physical thing) can be abstractly defined and so we need
some way to capture and relate categories by an efficient method where
definition is impossible.
Phil
On 9/19/07, Mikhail Gorelkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent
property, ontologically separate from any descriptions
of the
> system
The problems with this statement are: 1) what I comprehended as the
complex thing some time ago, now maybe it's not so
completely.
Like walking in a big city: for a child (a less sophisticated, less
evolved, conceptual mind) the task is too complex to
handle
properly, but after living here for a number of years it's the most
natural and simplest thing in the world. So, does
"complexity"
belong to this situation? or does it reflect our ability to comprehend
it? 2) Some things are complex to me, but not, for
example,
to you. ? --Mikhail P.S. "Complexity" may be one of the "archetypes" of
our cognition.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen E. P. Ropella" < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] When is something complex
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
>> ...let's use this: the minimal description, which "works". ?
--Mikhail
>
> The problem is whether or not complexity is an inherent property or an
> ascribed attribute. If it's an ascribed attribute, then the above is
as
> good a definition as any... I prefer the concept of logical depth
> (primarily temporal aggregation); but that's effectively the same as a
> minimal description that works.
>
> The justification for assuming complexity is an ascribed attribute
lies
> in parsing the word "complexity". Complexity talks about cause and
> effect and the "plaited" threads of cause/effect running through a
> system. The more threads there are and the more intertwined they are,
> the more complex the system. But, cause and effect are human
cognitive
> constructs. Hence, complexity is an ascribed attribute of systems
and,
> hence, can be defined in terms of descriptions and the efficacy of
such.
>
> However, I think many people consider complexity to be an inherent
> property, ontologically separate from any descriptions of the system.
> That doesn't imply independence from intra-system sub-descriptions
(e.g.
> one constituent that describes other constituents, making that
> description a constituent of the system), only that there need not be
a
> whole system description for it to be complex.
>
> If it's true that complexity is an inherent property, then definitions
> like "minimal description that works" is either irrelevant or is just
a
> _measure_ of complexity rather than a definition of it. And if that's
> the case, it brings us back to complexity being an ascribed attribute
> rather than an inherent property. =><=
>
> - --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com
> I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty
> enough to want to force it upon anyone. -- H. L. Mencken
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFG8WGdZeB+vOTnLkoRAgJyAKDT//zvtrt/7o3R34hax7ozoiPYxgCgxi1c
> Vi8FwXZ8Y6femw37O6aJzAc=
> =lEhK
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
