Re: Free-will

["James N Rose" <***>]

Tim,

Thank you so much for synopsizing his definitions
for me.

But before we get further, if you re-read your remarks,
you cross define 'natural' in two different ways in
each of your paragraphs, or rather, Rosen had.

This is not a fault or weakness in his ideas or logical
arguments.  It merely goes to show how excruciatingly
difficult it is to specify such important distinctions
within a language which doesn't have the 'meme constructs'
(words) to accomplish the envisioned and conceived of memes.

In a post to 'Complex-M' today, which I cc'd to this list,
I proferred this logic statment as a possible solution
to stating the dilemma -and- understanding it as well.

                [A = {A=-A}]

Jamie


Tim Gwinn wrote:
>
> Hi Jamie,
>
> I'll take a look at that webpage. Thanks.
>
> I think below you might be using the term "natural system" in a way other
> than Rosen defines it. 'Natural system' refers to _any_ identified system in
> the material world, whether it is an organism, a satellite, a rock, etc. For
> Rosen, the universe of systems are comprised of two types: natural systems
> (causal systems in the material world) and formal systems (inferential
> systems). I think the distinction you were looking for is the distinction
> between a Rosennean mechanism (the satellite) and a complex system (the
> organisms).
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
> P.S. - I should add that included in the unpublished manuscript "Rosennean
> Complexity" that Judith has for sale, is a letter dated 10/7/1998 (making it
> later than any of his published books) in which RR refers to three (!) types
> of systems: 1) natural systems, 2) formal systems, and 3) volitional systems
> ("the category of systems involving judgement or volition" p. 7). These
> comments are in the context of his describing his development of - what
> seems to me to be - a very profound generalized mapping model for _any_
> system.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of James N
> > Rose
> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 1:12 AM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Free-will
> >
> >
> > Tim Gwinn wrote:
> >
> > > Jamie,
> > >
> > > Regarding the chirality example, it demonstrates an interesting
> > > idea. What I am unclear about is which aspect of "form" is deemed
> > > as the informational source: is it the chirality? or is it the
> > > specific form of that specific instance of that molecule? or some
> > > quality of form in-between? That is, can we identify the aspects
> > > of a form that are causal in the sense of your example, or will
> > > each instance necessarily be considered unique in form from all
> > > others? If the latter, then a science of this would not really be
> > > possible, since we could not generalize any to create models of
> > > classes of whatever aspects of form; if the former, then how do
> > > we identify what aspects of the forms constitute distinct
> > > informational classes for study?
> >
> > This is the excrutiating problem.  Any Bateson 'difference that
> > makes a difference' is a distinct 'source of information'.
> > Chirality (left/right twist alternatives) provides 'form'
> > with non-abelian non-commutative distinctly different
> > 'information' states, allowing different EM signatures and
> > therefore different state-instructions or messages vis a vis
> > the molecular environment/potential surrounding it.
> >
> > If yes is distinct from no at a decision-gate node, then
> > the chirals are different 'form's.
> >
> > There -is- a science involved here, to address another of
> > your points.  We simply have to place the alternatives in
> > context of 'options' and stochastics.  "Which patterns and
> > processes reinforce existential presence or continuation?"
> >
> > Rosennean 'natural' systems are so thoroughly and
> > extendedly integrated together (throughout all sub-
> > and supra- systems present), that there is no way
> > for an organization or organism to have reached the
> > state of "functionally existing" without having complied
> > with and satisfied all cosupportive co-relations that
> > preceded and now comprise the corpus or soma of its being.
> >
> > In other words, all tasks and involvements are 'satisfied'
> > or in the process of being satisfied.  Artificial systems
> > only have to satisfy a few tasks well, and others not at
> > all.  They are ex-communicate from involvements, which,
> > if those dis-connects happened in a extendedly integrated
> > 'natural system', the system would be pushed outside its
> > health and performance envelope, it would cease living.
> >
> > A satellite in orbit.  Competent, semi-sentient, purposeful
> > and functional.  Only, it can't adapt to micrometeorite
> > assaults, it can't repair itself spontaneous, it can't
> > draw from its environment the energy to safeguard itself,
> > and so on.  Its programming is directed to a task or tasks
> > separate from dealing with bodily challenges.
> >
> > Natural systems are better than that.  More competent than
> > that. More holistically integrated than that.  Hyper embedded
> > communicatively in 'form' and therefore in 'functional
> > competence'.  Sensitive in maximally possible ways for the
> > materials and arranged formations of those materials it's
> > made of.  No events or encounters or information/energy
> > exchanges are 'unimportant'.  No part of its entire forma
> > is 'numb' or non-reactive to events or encounters.
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps this is something that is already on your website, or
> > > perhaps it is too detailed for an email post, but can you
> > > elaborate on the HUP "translation" above? It's hard to tell
> > > from your description exactly what this translation consists
> > > of in formal terms.
> >
> > Understanding the Integral Universe.
> > <http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/UIUcomplete11-99.htm>
> > Section 12. "Math & beyond"
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Tim
> >
> > Hope you see/read good things there, Tim,
> >
> > Jamie
> > 11/13/03