Re: Not So Spooky...Just Geometry
Yes, I'd agree with that.
OK, cool. We agree on bilateral symmetry. Would you also agree, extending upon the bilateral concept, that "systems" (be they natural species, or man-made) which employ bilateral symmetry also a possess a "discriminator" function which integrates the two bilateral halves into a single state? If you agree with this, then can you see how bilateralism leads to tripartism, in a natural sort of way?
Hmm, this is having strange parallelles with semiology again. Something is not so much defined by what it is, as by what it's not, eh? A cube isn't just ""a cube, a cube is also "not a sphere", and also "not a rectangle".
Not really. But you did come close, perhaps without even knowing it. In the world of systems engineering we refer to "Fit, Form, and Function". The first two define something by describing what it "is" (Fit and Form). The concept of Function defines something by describing what is DOES. So it's really both, right? There's that bilateralism theme again...Any "thing" can be described in Noun-based forms (what it is) and Verb-based forms (what it does).
Now...I can take that one step further. Thinking from a "systems of systems" perspective (which all evidence in our universe seems to support), I claim that I can completely describe any system in terms of just three domains of information. Those domains also reflect the means by which mankind has evolved to design and deploy complex systems. The domains are "Operational, Functional, and Physical". The physical domain describes the physical elements and the physical environment they are designed to operate in. That is the last domain we perform design in. The functional domain describes the verbs (transformations) that the system elements perform (or execute). A function takes inputs and provides outputs. The operational domain is the "problem space" that drives the functional and physical designs based on an operational need. But the operational domain is also where the final design is proven. In other words OPERATIONS are characterized by time-based phases, where FUNCTIONS (verbs/motion) are invoked to transform inputs to outputs, and the PHYSICAL elements (nouns/matter) perform those functions.
So, my point here is that it is not just the domains, but their interactions, that define the "thing" (system): What it is, what it does, how I use it....and the interdependencies that link the 3 domains for any given system.
To my mind, both 1-D and 2-D are human constructs, as opposed to physical realities.
Ever hear of fractal dimension? Now...I need clarification on what you are saying here. Did you purposefully leave out 3-D because you feel this IS a physical reality, and that 1-D and 2-D are NOT physical realities? If so, then I'd suggest you read-up on fractals and topology. Not only are 1-D and 2-D very "real", but so are fractional dimensions, such as 2.6.
Well, I suppose so, but it's a bit of a vague statement. I mean, you have to have two or more things interacting to have an exchange of anything between them, by definition.
Well, you may think it is vague. But if you think like a systems engineer it is not so much vague as it is an important generalization of all systems. No system exists in a bubble, without interactions with other systems. A systems engineer (different from a physical designer) is charged with not only understanding the "widget" that some physical designer is designing, but most importantly for understanding and quantifying the RELATIONSHIPS that the widget has with other widgets. Understanding relationships (interfaces) is the key to understanding how to manage energy interactions among systems.
The fact that "no system lives in a bubble" is one reason I have a bit of heartburn with some arbitrary definitions that some people claim are at the level of a "law". For instance, let's take the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The "stipulations" for this law are two in number:
1) The system must be CLOSED (no energy transfer across boundaries).
2) The system must be "far" from thermal equilibrium.
Now you get people who will claim that this "Law" is really a "Law" and cannot be broken. I claim it is nothing more than a convenient definition that helps us measure reversibility of a process. For can you tell me ANY system is that TRULY "closed"? And with regard to thermal equilibrium... if this is truly a "law", then there should be some quantification of what "far" means, at least with respect to when a system will obey the "law" and when it may be violated.
However, I believe that intelligence and thought are nothing but the processes of electro-chemical computers.
You say "nothing but", but do you really mean to minimize it that much? Do you accept the concept of "emergent properties of a system"? In other words, a system can exhibit characteristics that are "greater than the sum of its parts". You see, this is how I see intelligence and thought...they are emergent properties of a highly complex system that interacts with its environment in highly complex ways.
I get you, but I still don't think that what you say is entirely true.
And all this really says is that truth/falseness is not a binary function. Certainly our physical makeup and upbringing have an impact on who we are, and what our capabilities are. But often times people get wrapped-up in thinking this is ALL that defines us. Such limiting thoughts are what can hold people back, as they use these things as an "excuse" for why they can NOT accomplish something. Regardless of what my physical limitations are, or what my upbringing was like, if I do not THINK I can accomplish something, then the chances of me accomplishing it are pretty remote.
So, no I'm not sure how much of who we are and what we can do is down to us, really, and how much is down to circumstance and physical make-up.
But you would agree, I take it, that it is not COMPLETELY down to a selection of just one or the other, right? It is probably more like a "fuzzy" boundary...dependent on each individual, right?
RainmanTime
