Hi Platt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Horse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > <SNIP> > [H] >> There are plenty of examples of self-organization and not a single one >> has anything to do with god or ghosts or some mysterious self. >> Self-organization simply means that there is no central system which >> plans the organizing from the top down. > > Right. Not only is there no central system organizing from the top down > but there's no known organizing system of any kind that can be identified. > Where I come from, that's called "Oops."
Where I come from this is called complex systems theory and is a growing body of work. It has nothing to do with "Oops" or "Aha" or anything of a similar nature. Because you don't personally understand it Platt doesn't make it wrong. > >> You know, like those nasty >> socialist systems you purport to not like very much, but here you are >> saying that this is how the world works. Oy Ve!!! > > Socialist systems with their planned economies are self-organizing? Yeah, > right. Planned economies are explicitly not examples of self-organising bottom up systems. They are exactly the opposite - top down and planned. This is a case of you understanding neither what I have said or the ideas of self-organization. > >> It can be observed in >> biological and social systems all over the place and the causes are well >> known. > > What are the causes of self-organizing systems? If there was a cause they > wouldn't be self-organizing. They would be organized by a cause, not a "self." It depends upon what self-organizing system you're looking at. There are far too many to generalize upon. The whole point here is that the cause is not pre-planned or top down. Slime-mould, ant-nests, bee-hives, termites and a free-market economy are some examples of self-organizing systems. > >> So well known that computer simulations can model self-organizing >> structures. The system within which I work at my place of employment >> utilizes a form of self-organization and it works a whole lot better >> than having a top-down structure imposed upon it. In general, >> self-organization works from the bottom up following simple rules. It >> really isn't rocket science. > > Last time I looked computer simulations modeling self-organizing systems > are caused by a human programmer who turns out to the be the "self." Most of the software that runs on your computer works as you suppose but cellular automata is an example of computer modeled self-organization. > >> And what's all this about chance and Darwinians? Have you been reading >> the creationist literature again? Many in the fundamentalist god-squad >> try and pass of this sort of garbage but this is because they either >> don't understand the first thing about natural selection of they are >> deliberately trying to confuse those with little or no idea about it. >> Natural selection in Darwinian evolution has as much to do with chance >> as sexual activity has to do with plate tectonics. Natural selection has >> nothing to do with chance and any advocate of Darwinist or neo-Darwinist >> theory would not seriously entertain such a notion. You really pick the >> most outrageous things to say sometimes Platt - it's almost as if you >> want to start an argument! > > What an outrageous thing to say yourself, Horse. Of course Darwinian evolution > depends on chance mutations. Are you suggesting perhaps that mutations do not > occur by chance but are directed by a designer? Your original statement was "Or "chance," the favorite of Darwinians." Nothing said about chance mutations and this is certainly not a favourite of the Darwinians as the majority of mutations cause death. Why would a process that will almost certainly cause death and thus prevent evolution be favoured by Darwinians? Your statement was straight out of the creationists handbook. > <SNIP> [H] >> Its no more than a form of shorthand. I'm not trying to personify social >> patterns any more than you are. Social patterns of value of the city do >> not value creativity or individuality (or any other patterns of value) >> unless it reinforces the social patterns of value of the city. >> Biological patterns of value are only valued inasmuch as they benefit >> social patterns of value. I think 'concerned with' is much less of a >> mouthful. > > I don't think social patterns value anything other than the status quo. Could be. Cheers Platt Horse moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
