Anil DashTHE PURPOSE OF A SYSTEM IS WHAT IT DOES
skottk@anildash man, I wish that account would move to mastodon.
or, if it has, that someone would tell me where it is.
Bill Seitz@skottk @anildash I assume you're referring to Systemantics Quotes?
https://twitter.com/SysQuotes
Yeah, agreed. (Though that's not the source of Anil's quote.)
http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/Systemantics
https://twitter.com/SysQuotes
Yeah, agreed. (Though that's not the source of Anil's quote.)
http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/Systemantics
Escarpment@anildash I'd be wary of statements like this. Just because someone said it with an air of authority and it sounds deep, does not mean it is true or useful.
For example, can one conjure examples of a system whose purpose is *not* what it does? Perhaps the solar system, which has no ulterior purpose, and yet what it does is have a bunch of planets revolve around a star.
Or a broken coffee machine. Its intended purpose is to make coffee, but all it does is sit on the counter.
@anildash Would anyone in good faith argue that, "See! Because the coffee machine is broken, the designers *intended* for it to just sit on the counter because they are misanthropic sadists." Or, does the simpler explanation usually fit, that they designed the coffee machine for the purpose of making coffee, but failed to account for some failure mode or only designed it to last a certain amount of time.
snoda@escarpment @anildash "they" designed the coffee machine to make money. If it's sitting on your counter, it succeeded.
@snoda @anildash Say the coffee machine was designed by a team of engineering students for a school project exploring the design of every day appliances. No money exchanged; just a team working to build a machine that makes coffee. But, alas, after brewing 10 cups of coffee, it broke and sits on the counter. Was the purpose of this system to sit on the counter?
Western Infidels@escarpment @anildash The purpose of the solar "system," which is a man-made mental construct, is to identify and characterize patterns in nature, allowing us to create and hold a simplified mental model of the world around us.
If some agent is forcing you to preserve a broken coffee machine on your counter, that agent is enforcing or embodying a system that has nothing to do with making coffee.
@WesternInfidels @anildash I suppose we have to distinguish the mental construct of the solar system from the brute fact of the solar system as it exists outside of human minds (if that's even possible). Does the brute fact of the solar system have a "purpose"?
Say no agent is forcing me to preserve a broken coffee machine. Say as a side project I decided to build a coffee machine with the purpose of making coffee, but I broke it and it doesn't work.
@escarpment @anildash But is there anything systematic about the brute fact of a collection of rocks orbiting a star? It's human intent that makes it a "system."
And we could say the same about the broken coffee maker; if it's not making coffee, if it's not serving a human purpose that transcends the "brute fact" of the existence of its parts, should we even describe it as a system?
In conclusion, I need another cup of coffee now.
@WesternInfidels @anildash That's a pretty narrow definition of a system in my opinion. I think systems exist outside of human minds. Systems are sets or networks of entities that operate inter-relatedly. An ant hill, a bee hive, a food chain, a river system. These systems feature lots of interdependencies, but not necessarily an overarching "purpose".
@WesternInfidels @anildash In other words, I think people need to impose *less* teleology on the world, not *more*. Even systems that seem to have human intent behind them, for example political systems or large crowds of people, might end up not really reflecting the individual intent of any person and rather operate with their own unconscious dynamics.
Ian Tindale@anildash who cares what a system does, that’s not important – what’s important is how it looks and feels
Knepherbird
debs“I’m teeming with emotions that a chat bot can’t begin to understand” - Tom Stoppard
winning a Tony last night
Faye@anildash 🤣 Because of it we assign ‘purpose’…
Michal Měchura@anildash Not why it does what it does? 🤔
FeralRobots@lexiconista
It's meant to be provocative & express the basic truth that we usually don't get to know intent - only results.
@anildash
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does
It's meant to be provocative & express the basic truth that we usually don't get to know intent - only results.
@anildash
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does
@FeralRobots @anildash I like laconic definitions! The meaning of life is to be alive.
dr2chase@lexiconista @anildash If we don't fix the bad outcomes, "why" becomes "our choices".
Thomas Michael Semmler@anildash this perspective only seems possible from a first-order cybernetics point of view.
And it differs with the type of system. A living system's purpose, from which most of systemic heuristics were derived from, is homeostasis.
That is not what it _does_. I would argue, that what a system _does_ cannot be divorced from an observer. Meaning, that it only does something when it is observed doing something. As such, [meaning] is a function of a subjects relationship to the object (system).
@anildash but maybe this is a joke that I am not in on. 🤷
But from a systemics point of view, this sentence is telling an incomplete story. Or, depending who you're asking, it could be considered just wrong lol.
But alas, as a systemic, I consider all meaning given. If one considers the purposes of systems to be behavioural only, then I could hardly argue with that.
But to postulate it truth, is not even possible from within systemic thinking itself.
@nachtfunke
My understanding is that the process you just went through is the desired response to a systems theorist asserting POSIWID.
@anildash
My understanding is that the process you just went through is the desired response to a systems theorist asserting POSIWID.
@anildash
@FeralRobots @anildash oh I see, that’s the acronym for this sentence
@nachtfunke
I.e. it's partly meant to provoke critical thought.
(That said, they will sometimes double-down on it & as I understand it the rationale is that we can't know the intent.)
@anildash
I.e. it's partly meant to provoke critical thought.
(That said, they will sometimes double-down on it & as I understand it the rationale is that we can't know the intent.)
@anildash
@anildash @FeralRobots even this is not really compatible on many schools that apply systemically. Intent cannot be perceived it can only be inferred. So if intent is the leading difference for purpose, even here, it is given in relation to what we perceive as such. Purpose cannot live in the object.
I feel like I am missing a Metameme or something lol. Though after reading up on it, it makes sense that a cybernetician would say that, in response to colleagues lol
Gary Bloom@nachtfunke @anildash And the concept, “purpose,” is created by the observer. Purpose is an engineering perspective and is teleological from a biological perspective.
Tin Tvrtković
Donncha22@anildash Sounds like Wittgenstein.
iwein@anildash i will shout this at full volume next time I receive a bug report. Goes well with "SHUT UP AND REBOOT" 😁
Virginicus@anildash Counterpoint: “The behavior of an organization can often be predicted by assuming it to be under the control of a cabal of its enemies.” -Robert Conquest
Kevin RussellPoverty is imposed. Poverty is put on, like a leash. Poverty is what the system produces.
Scott Perry@anildash and by god what this place does is let you post gifs
Mick Darling@anildash corollary: People are experts at what they actually do for a living.
Avi Rappoport (avirr)@anildash Defining “system” and “purpose” seems important here.