I thought the implication was that the organization of life is an inherently ill-posed question from an observer's perspective. To me that either means you accept 'bad answers' or 'better and better answers', and the difference is methodological.
Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com -- "it's not finding what people say interesting, but finding what's interesting in what they say" -- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen E. P. Ropella > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 12:24 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Marcus G. Daniels on 01/08/2008 08:49 AM: > > As far as detecting (supposedly) ill-posed questions goes, > if you are > > willing to put aside the complex matter of natural language > processing, > > it seems to me it's a matter of similarity search against a set > > propositions, and then engaging in a dialog of generalization and > > precisification with the user to identify an unambiguous > and agreeable > > form for the question that has appropriate answers. > > But the issue isn't about handling ill-posed questions on a > case-by-case basis. In fact, the hypothesis is that ill- > versus well- posed questions is an unrealistic dichotomy. > It's just another form of the "excluded middle". > > A primary point made by RR is that living systems can handle > ambiguity where "machines" cannot. > > Of course, it's true that if a programmer pre-scribed a > method for detecting and handling some particular ambiguity, > then the machine will _seem_ like it handles that ambiguity. > But, programmers haven't yet found a way to handle all > ambiguity a computer program may or may not come across in > the far-flung future. That's in contrast to a living system, > which we _presume_ can handle any ambiguity presented to it > (or, in a softer sense, many many more ambiguities than a > computer program can handle). > > - -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > Almost nobody dances sober, unless they happen to be insane. > -- H. P. Lovecraft > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFHg7G4ZeB+vOTnLkoRAjTtAKCu0nimkhWcQdIYDn8Uy05N6jwaUACfUzUc > g6rWx3ZPlmAaayG7qqJHJ1g= > =kWTj > -----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
