> > 2. If so, what is its level of Quality (value) compared to other
> > 'livingsystems'?"
> Romana:
> It's boring.
> So maybe "characteristic of living systems" is too broad.
<snip>
> Information Theory, General Semantics, Chomsky's work, Complexity
> Theory (to name four significant cases, in roughly chronological order)
> all seem to run aground on the "but is it _interesting_ or is it _boring_" thing.
>
Well I see two cases for "boring". First, when what I am looking at
becomes predictable in some simple manner, so viewing it does not add to
my internal model. In this case I have managed to encode within me a
model which adequately describes what I see. Second is when it looks
like noise, and I cannot comprehend a pattern in what I see. This
doesn't mean there is no pattern there, just that I can't create a model
with any useful correlations. The interesting stuff lies between these
extremes.
O---------------------------------O
| Hara Ra <harara@shamanics.com> |
| Box 8334 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 |
O---------------------------------O