Re: Free-will

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

Jamie,

Ultimately, Rosen's definitions are to be found in Rosen's works. I'll refer
you to chapter 2.1 of AS, and p. 47 specifically, for his definition of
'natural system'.

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of James N
> Rose
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 11:55 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Free-will
>
>
> 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 P.S. - I should add that included in the unpublished manuscript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