This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Web Buzz
by Mark Masterson.
Original Post: Gödel, Nagel, minds and machines | Lambda the Ultimate
Feed Title: Process Perfection
Feed URL: http://www.jroller.com/MasterMark/feed/entries/rss
Feed Description: Life, the Universe, workflow, BPM, Java, Ruby, functional/generative/meta programming, pi calculus, patterns, the Grid, agents, software architecture and the kitchen sink. :)
A fully developed model for inter-machine decisions would most likely become unbearably complex and subject to emergent behaviors
... in a post that is a continuation of the Pile O' Lamps conversation and deserves a good answer from me (which this post is not). But when I read the quote above, I was struck (not for the first time) with the following thought: what are the most successful systems we know of? Answer: biological. And biological systems work this way - think of how cells reproduce, repair themselves, implement security or communicate. I've had this conversation before, and had some modernist/classicist folk say something to me like "Well, but why would we want to model systems on biology? Biology is an accidental architecture, and much too messy. We want our system to be better." Apart from the fact that I think that such an answer is breathtakingly arrogant, I also think it's just dumb. Why would I turn my back on such a rich and useful trove of examples of things that work?
So that's why I struggle to learn as much as I can about how the brain works. It's why I've subscribed to Nature for many years. If I can make the systems I design even vaguely resemble biological systems, then my strong suspicion is that those systems are better for it.
Previous Topic
