Quoting Horse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> 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.
I guess Wilber doesn't understand complex systems theory either. Oh, well. The fact that you and others do doesn't make it right either. > >> 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. Your right about not understanding what you said. > >> 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. Please tell us what causes slime-mold. ant nests, bee hives, termites and a free market economy. > >> 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. If computer modeled, the cause is the modeler (programmer). > >> 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. Are you saying chance, as in chance mutations, plays no role in Darwinian evolution? Without it, the whole theory collapses. Best to you, Horse ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ 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/
