[FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems?

[glen ☣]

Maturana and Varela, Robert Rosen, Mark Bedeau, Stuart Kauffman [†] (as well as a huge ecology of others) have written about this to no avail, apparently.  We _insist_ on having our ambiguity and eating it, too.  In the end, it's rhetorical trickery (of which I'm no less culpable than anyone else) to use words like "complexity", "emergence", "interestingness", "agent", etc. in a technical context without making _some_ (any!) attempt to disambiguate.

There are bottom-up rhetorical tactics (Newman, Moore, et al), where they reserve their vague-speak for the vague contexts, and simply tolerate their own and others higher order pattern-matching homunculi to imagine categories like complexity and agency.  And there are top-down tactics (M&V, Rosen, et al), where the rhetoriticians try to speak directly about the "can't define it but I know it when I see it" categories.  If you view these two rhetorical tactics as inductive vs generative (e.g. back-tracking), respectively, you can appreciate both.

But we have to be careful not to arbitrarily swap one vague concept for another.  Just because "interesting", "life", and "complexity" are all vague doesn't mean they're analogs.  We need Russ to clarify his question before we'll have anything useful to say about it.

[†] Including this "gem" by Kauffman: https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5684, wherein he proceeds to treat subjects Rosen had treated way earlier, way better, and with no citation of Rosen, to boot. [sigh]  But, hey, defection can be profitable.


On 05/25/2017 05:23 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> maybe an interesting (but relevant) question is also "what is interesting?"
> 
> It seems that we, as examples of complex, organized, far-from-equilibrium, systems of dissipative systems entities find other examples with similar (subsets) of those properties "interesting"...  I'm not sure what a system without those properties would call interesting (or if it could/would call anything anything).
> 
> I think what you are calling "interesting" are systems exhibiting nonlinear phenomena, self-organization, and aghast! emergence.   I think therefore that such systems exhibit proto-life-like properties by definition.   Your exclusion of systems arising from biological (explicitely alive) systems seems to be trying to niggle at the root of "what is life"?
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/25/17 5:59 AM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>>
>> Russ -
>>
>> I *think* I know what you are getting at, but I don't think we are there yet in this discussion.
>>
>> I think we've come full circle to the challenges we encountered in the early days of Artificial Life.  The first year or two of ALife conferences had a lot of focus on "what IS life?"  It is a bit too early in the morning for me to give this proper consideration but as I remember it, there were many examples of systems with life-like or more to the point proto-life-like properties.  I doubt I can put my hands on my proceedings from ALife I and ALife II easily and couldn't pull them up online beyond this:
>>
>>     http://alife.org/conferences-isal-past?page=2
>>
>> I think your intuition that "unless all of physics would be" is correct, especially when caveated by your own reference to dissipative systems which go on to imply far-from-equilibrium and irreversible systems.
>>
>> A precursor to the ALife work was that of Tibor Ganti:
>>
>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemoton
>>
>> which invoked "metabolism" and "self-replication" as qualities of proto-life.
>>
>> It seems like Autocatalytics Sets are useful and near-minimal abstractions?
>>
>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic_set
>>
>> I feel like my maunderings here are vaguely circular when concatenated with your own but I hope someone more incisive than I takes an interest in this discussion and tightens these ideas up a little.


-- 
☣ glen