Saturday, March 15, 2003

i think alot about self-referential/circularity in the nature of design (remember when we talk about it last time, where we ended with acknowledging the role of designer? at least i did) i mean, somebody (forgot the name) has tried to prove that what maturana talks about isn't tautology, while the man himself clearly stated that self referentiality is the essence of his theory. organism's metabolism and reproductivity, are all about circularity.

i remember read from peter bentley in his digital biology, that "a universe is made from set of rules that define outcomes... at least one of the rules must be define in terms of another universe"(p.17)

in p.15 he wrote "the rule tells us that every outcome depends on something" (IF something THEN outcome) and his example of the universe of sound:

p.18 "To us, we can see that sounds are generated from vibrations of our molecules in our universe. so the rules defining the universe of sound are defined with respect to another universe: our own... to us they appear to be spontaneous and without explanation. to an observer (my emphasis, we know an observer exists outside the observed), our interference patterns (between sound an ears) are caused by their photons (sound) interacting with ours (our photons).

the most interesting pages are 16-17.

if i read bentley and maturana together, thus i'll get:
1. an observer, and the observed and explanation of observation
2. an observer is not at all part of/belong to the observed in "universe term" (universe is, look up to what he says in p.17. + he also says in p.16, no rules means a condition which not allow the creation of anything. thus rules are the way to create)
3. observer has own universe; the observed another universe; and the explanation is the way to define the observed so as can be conceived/ agreed by the rule in the universe of the observer.
4. thus, i think AL researchers will not come out from self-referentiality until some acknowledgement to identification of a (conscious?) designer (or have they? at least i know peter bentley acknowledged it). either in laying out some initial conditions, or and some rules; designing role exists in the very first instance in the creation of any universe.

another thing, while i waited about 3 hours standing outside NL embassy 6 - 9 am in 5 'C, i read swarm book and understand more about it (i always confused with the content before)

what i noted for now is p.184. the heading is: the interplay of self-organization and templates. first part they stated the essence of self-organization is attractivity, ie: inducement of snowball effect; the larger the cluster, the more attractive. but, the second part stated that "used by insects-or by other animals... combination of self-organization and a "template mechanism" in the process of clustering.
their definition of template: a kind of prepattern in the environment... to organise their activities. further along: "in the context of building, the shape to be built is predefined by the prepattern, and (the subject, insects or whatever) build along the prepattern"

thus i guess "template mechanism" is another kind of rule. like the preference in following the sortest path, is in a way a predefined rule we carry on while we experience space.

what im trying to say, is that, we should hope for co-evolution to emerge from our model of space and human-movement. but before that, all possible simplest rules have to be created so thus the universe of what we're looking at been made possible. i think we should acknowledge that Hillier created this simplest ever possible rule, but lack of "template". only template which could make possible preferentiality (happy or not happy). or all together Hillier's intelligibility should be use as our template.

i need sources to formal kind of intelligibility. rules created from Hillier's the concept intelligibility? its been in the back of my mind to research this for along time, but always seem to forgot. now i have to find this, from sources, since i see that framework above.