Excellent! We are beginning to come to grips with the various core issues:
what are systems? What are parts/components of systems? And how do we
define a system or a component without utilizing expressly or implicitly a
"teleology"? -a purposefulness of function? It is extremely hard to separate
purpose from our understanding of any observed phenomena. Consider the
following:
A will do P in environment Q;
A will do W in environment X.
If environment Q predominates in observations of A, will we say A's
'function' and 'purpose' is to do P rather than W? Why not suppose that A's
"highest purpose" is to do W, and that during A's existence A is simply
biding time until X environment obtains and the opportunity to do W occurs?
Is it the highest purpose of matter to be at rest? in motion? converted to
radiant energy?...
Think of how this example applies to biological phenomena- sperm cells
'waiting' to fertilize an egg; antibodies waiting to attack an antigen;
viruses waiting to infect hosts; humans waiting to meet their Maker? Which
'function' is normative? Which is extraordinary?
So how define a system without teleology? We may define a system with
respect to interrelationships of components [sorry, Jan, but a better word
doesn't come to mind]. A component of a system is distinguished from an
'independent item' by the shared relationships with other components of the
system. This may be like a loop of interaction, or loosely akin to Rosen's
idea of a loop of causation.
But obvious problems quickly arise- A set of tiles on my kitchen floor are a
system under this definition because they share several important
relationships with each other- all in the same plane, all bounded on 1+ sides
by another tile; all made of the same material, same shape, color, etc....
Does this set of components comprise a system? Or shall we define a system
so that it includes some kind of thermodynamic/informational interaction
(making it dissipative)? We could add the criteria that each component be
interdependent on the others, so that removal of one will have a significant
impact on one or more of the remaining parts of the system. By doing this we
exclude the kitchen tiles as a system.
Would this exclude a complex artifact like a TV? If we remove our notion of
'purposefulness' as applied to a TV, it may not be a "system" at all- The
only part that 'depends' on the others is the picture screen- and that is a
human evaluation. The screen doesn't 'care' whether it displays static,
perfectly resolved transmitted images, or anything at all. If functioning or
non-functioning is not applicable, then the parts are not interdependent,
because removing one (diodes, wires, etc) will not effect any other parts
**when it is not turned on**.
So how can we come to grips with the notion of a recursive function, or
"self-organization", if we leave aside external evaluations of purpose or
function?
Let's continue our efforts... 8^) ....
Mike