Replying to LO26656 --
the spontaneity of self-organizing is your concern, right?:
>I won't be able to animate it though, pity because some Russian scientist
>says he has created a parallel processing, bi conditional, self
>replicating computer. I am watching in anticipation, if this is so I want
>to build one too. But I am keen on re-growing limbs though. There must be
>a way to trick the underlying energy fields to re-create living matter
>from the wholes of the nerves, muscle cells etc.
Well, I can only beg you to take care of the essentialities, not only as
requirements but also as demand. For example if spareness is impaired in
the self replication, this computer may grow like cancer. And if it then
does not obey Asimov's fundamental "Laws of Robotics":
A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human
being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders
would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not
conflict with the First or Second Law.
(cited from: http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/Asimov.html )
then good night and see you in the "Matrix"... ;-()
>I am not using X and Z like that, X is the input, Y is the commutator, or
>transformer and Z is the output. So you are XYZ and I am ABC A=X, Y=B,
>Z=C. then we are two wholes chatting. X=tube, Y =pump, Z=tube. I then
>communicate with you, you take in (input X) what I say then transform it
>in your mind (Y), then put it out (Z). However your output might not agree
>with mine because your transformer has a different frame of reference and
I understand. So in your picture, wholes are built from parts, which are
not wholes in themselves. I think this is the reason, why your wholes do
not emerge spontanously. Those parts have to be designed and fit together
nonspontanously by an outside "creator" or engineer, as I would prefer in
this context. Even "thinking" as a transformation of input-information
into output-information need to be designed by a kind of "mind-engineer"
in this picture, right?
My understanding of wholeness requires spontanous wholes as parts to form
more complex wholes spontanously, when the necessary (enough free energy)
and sufficiency (essentialities) requirements are met. Thus in the XYZ
pattern, each X, Y and Z need to be wholes in themselves. This is my view,
because I do not agree to your last assertion:
>These things apply to matter, life and mind X, Y and Z can be
>abstract or concrete.
Your view may apply to matter, if handled by an engineer. When applied to
life and mind in an engineering way I am afraid this would cost the system
its spontaneity of self-organizing.
"Dressler, Winfried" <Winfried.Dressler@Voith.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.