[From Rick Marken (961022.2230)]
Martin Taylor (961022 14:15) --
One needs to know something more about the system in order to determine
whether there's an attractor or a coincidence.
No, Martin. An "attractor" is a _description_ of behavior. All you have to
know about the system is its behavior to see how well that behavior can
be described by an "attractor model". You still seem to think that an
attractor is a possible _explanation_ of system behavior. Try replacing the
word "attractor" with "exponential" in your sentence above and perhaps you
will see the problem.
For example, I believe sufficiently in the process of learning
called "reorganization" to believe that it reduces conflict and improves
control. That's all that is necessary (I think), so say that it makes
the dynamic of society belong to a class of systems that has point
attractors, probably many in number, with highly convoluted (fractal)
boundaries between the basins. That in turn allows one to say something
about what may happen when societies that develop quasi-independently
come into closer interaction. (Actually, the latter part, about convoluted
basin boundaries, requires that there be some non-linearity in the process.
But it would ba astonishing if this were not the case).
I can't imagine a statement that more clearly exemplifies the belief that
because the same mathematical equation approximates the behavior of two
different processes, it represents some natural force or principle that
"governs" the processes in some trans-physical way.
which was Bill Powers' description of the reification of a metaphor. Saying
that:
the dynamic of society belong[s] to a class of systems that has point
attractors,
says nothing about _why_ the society behaves this way -- unless you believe
that, because a society can be described by the same equation as the one
that approximates the behavior of a system with a point attractor, there is
some
natural force or principle that "governs" both processes in some
trans-physical way; this is Pythagorean mysticism.
Well, you nearly spoke for me
Martin, if you are able to interpret what I said as being even remotely close
to your position on the value of "attractor models" of behavior then it's
clear that the war on drugs is failing miserably in Canada too;-)
Me:
Proving once again that those who can, do. Those who can't, teach;-)
Bruce Abbott (961022.2020)
I'd be VERY careful about swinging that two-edged sword in such close
quarters, Rick; it just might cut the wrong target. It seems to me that the
main thing you and Bill do on CSGNET is . . . teach!
You're right. It was a thoughtless and rude comment. Fortunately, however,
I'm not responsible for making it since what I say is just the
"evolutionary" result of the history reinforcement to which I have been
exposed (subjected?)
Best
Rick