Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-03-31 09:04 PM: > The notion is uncomfortable, and perhaps demonstrable with computer > simulations.
I have to agree with Victoria (and Eric), here. "Corruption" does not make sense in the context of evolution. The sense of the word is that we have some access to the purpose or intent behind evolution and any wandering off that purpose or intent is "corruption". But that's just not the case. We have no idea (or there does not exist) a telos to evolution. Hence, there can't be any corruption. When a scientist uses a jargonal or deeply domain specific method (or even just reformats a set of buzzwords) to get yet another paper published or secure tenure at a university, they are not corrupt in any sense. And I don't actually tolerate such activity, I laud it as a successful exploit of the system that exists. Now, when I switch hats from constructive to critic, I make my best attempts to critically point out to others how some science seems to have more merit. I try to help filter out the garbage. But even the best minds can be tricked or find themselves baffled (as Bertrand Russell seems to have been by Goedel's proofs). But with my constructive hat(s) on, even the wackos who espouse obviously debunked crazy stuff play a necessary (and welcome) role. Such "corruption" doesn't make me uncomfortable at all because it's all part of the same grand scheme. > As Sarbajit has pointed out, the system has more than a Single Point > of Failure SPOF. And that the identification of SPOF's has inevitably > failed to contend with systemic flaws. In fact focusing on SPOF's > may actually create more in a perverse feed back loop. > > A classic example was the discovery that the only way to keep > Spitfire pilots alive in air battles was to get rid of the armour. It > gave them speed and added enormous fear to the pilot's performances. > Today such a solution seems absolutely politically incorrect. Every > incremental increase of armour had led to more deaths. I think what you're trying to describe is an (at least partially) open system. Granted, to some extent Rosen, Maturana & Varela, Crutchfield, et al are right that a certain extent of closure is required for complexity; but to say a certain extent of closure is required is also to say that a certain extent of openness is required, as well. The trick is which part is closed, which parts are open, is closure dynamic, etc. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ 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
