Skip to content
Create an account for full access.

Behavior - is not a system.

It is bad to consider behavior and system as the same object ---it will be extremely difficult for you to describe the behavior of behavior: "dance states during the dance according to the dance method" --- you will get confused right away. Ifyou have chosen a verb or a deverbal noun as the system ("dance", "life", "relaxation"), it will lead to ambiguous interpretations, and difficulties in describing "process states" (and not system states) --- and therefore we will consider such a choice an error, no matter how much you refer to the works on 4D **extensionalism and declare that "systems and processes occupy the same place in space-time, therefore they are the same." ** Formally, yes, it is the same. But because of the peculiarities of language and communication, you will not be able to clearly discuss, clearly describe/model, that’s why such choices"process-is-system" will be a mistake.

We will distinguish between systems and the behavior of systems, but to clarify the boundaries of the system and the behavior of systems, we will still use 4D extensionalism, simply enumerating interacting things/physical bodies that change their states. Method:: removing drafts during ventilation will be described by changing the states of the door: first the door will be in the "door closed" state, then the "door open" state. If you need to understand what was there, we will list the items participating in the state changes (foot and door, key and door, gust of wind and door). Different objects participating (participating relation) in the "behavior" objects define different types/classes of the method/process/practice/style::behavior. For example, "draft cessation"::method::behavior consists of smaller methods "detect the cause", "eliminate the cause, close the door", "verify that there is no more draft", "declare to those present that there is no more draft".

The use of "above-" and "below-" terminology for methods/practices can be used in two ways:

  • As a temporal part of the situation of using some method of work (here exactly this --- and we used the words "a smaller method" instead of the word "submethod" when describing the steps of closing the door)
  • As alternative classes/types of methods::type (for example, stopping drafts by closing the door, versus stopping drafts by closing the window --- and there will be other objects listed there, including not the door, but the window). In our course, we prefer to use the terms "type" or "class" (referring to phylogenic-species relationships), for example, "type of work", "type of activity", "type of culture", to show different types/classes categorized by the type of method/work/culture::type. Although in this case, one can also speak about the specialization relationship (the method of preventing drafts specialized to stopping drafts by closing the door and stopping drafts by closing the window).

So when talking about "submethods"/"subpractices", be careful about which hierarchy the reference goes to. Classification, specialization, and part-whole relationships are very different relationships, be careful.

All these considerations of system states are necessary for detailed (often collective) discussions of some behavior as a system transitioning from one state to another.

Thus, an engineer who thinks about dancing::behavior as requiring a set of objects existing in their interactions ("dance performance") can also think about the source of air vibrations and include a player (smartphone as a player) and an audio system in the performance.

And you will also have to add spectators to the dance performance (because dancers like to say that "if there are no spectators, it is just movements, not a dance." Please note that dance::style or dance::performance or dance::work --- it is unclear, dancers themselves with great difficulty talk about dances. This is one of the reasons why it is difficult to learn to dance: you are just poorly explained what to do!).

Note that adding spectators to the performance (literally: spectators as a subsystem::"physical part of the performance system" of the performance::system) is not an obvious mental move. For example, if two dancers are dancing with each other, it is enough for a dance, they are "spectators" for each other (spectators are roles, not some separate objects). Thus, spectators and dancers are participants (participation relationship, role specialization) of the dance performance, and there is a fairly wide set of objects for discussing the performance situation. We can reason more accurately about the dancing of the artists by focusing on the physical objects, physical space-time.

The dancing of a dancer is a process/action/activity, but when we add other objects to the dancer and it becomes a "dance performance"::system (a set of subsystems, not an "action-dance"), thinking about the dancer and the performance involving them can already be similar to how we think about a "lath", "car", "hole." Clarifying what "dancing" is (specificing/grounding) can be done by giving examples of the embodiments of this behavior/process in various performances by the dancer, rather than referring to the dictionary definitions of the term "dancing" or "artistic performance." Turning to definitions leads to long and fruitless "term disputes," avoid such disputes. Clarify meanings through grounding.

So, even about behaviors, one can think more or less the same, as whole objects (processes), consisting of part-objects (subprocesses), and this greatly saves thinking.

Regarding the dance performance, in which the dancers/artists are dancing, behaviors within it operate much like behaviors within a car: "engine operation" behavior, "wheel rotation" behavior, hence, just as inside a car, there are various processes happening, besides the actual dancing behavior of the dancer::system, providing various services, influencing the environment, changing internally --- that is, systems always participate in processes, always exhibit behavior externally, somehow change their environment.

The conditional ability to "knock" on such distributed systems in space is still convenient thinking, but it should be understood that all these various changing physical objects are present in the physical world, not descriptions::"mental objects" and not documentation::"description on a physical carrier," as well as not actual changes/behaviors/processes. Processes as changes of systems are quite physical, and objects participating in system processes as separate objects simply participate in them (participate in processes, participate in changes, * "realize changes," e.g., "realize service::behavior").

Saying that a "dance performance" (like any "event") can easily be called a "system," and the leading process/change there is dancing by the dancers, and also providing music (musicians playing music, or playing speakers connected to a player, via Bluetooth) --- is quite understood, even if we do not know exactly which parts (neurons and other brain cells --- which exactly, transistors of a classical computer) perform the thinking::behavior.

Do not abuse the fact that processes/changes are physical; do not declare them systems. The fact that there is a mental trick of representing some dynamic system-process in the physical world through enumerating participating objects should not lead to you searching for these processes everywhere and immediately declaring them systems.

If a child gets a hammer in hand, all objects in the house turn into nails. If, at some point, you see a dancing dancer and an enterprise carrying out activities, then you see a dancer and an enterprise, not the dancing and the activity itself. A banana is a banana, not the ripening of a banana! A hammer is a tool, not always "hammering a nail"! You will have to collect many other objects participating in the change and create a new system from them (superior system to the hammering hammer) to cope with packaging the process into a system. The name will be different, the properties of this system will be different, and suddenly! this system will also have some behavior, different from the behavior of the parts of this system; it will self-behave in the surrounding world (why do they make a dance performance? This "why" will be the function::behavior of the dance performance. If the dance performance did not produce any changes in the world, it would not be built from many objects, including living people or robots, they would not have worked on its creation).

Yes, if you reason about the "dancer"::system, it is the correct example of system embodiment, carrying out the "dancing"::behavior and included in the "dance performance"::system. It is well supported by thinking without additional reasoning; it is generally accepted. But if you start highlighting "eating bread"::product/system/embodiment of a system instead of "eating bread"::behavior, then something is wrong, you have clearly gone too far; you have confused the system and the behavior of this system. Will the bread be an embodiment of the system, or will the bread eater be? Most likely, the bread eater, although the bread will also be involved. But one can imagine a system "lunch" with the eater and the food, where there will be "eating bread"::process performed by the eater::system, and involving the "loaf of bread." After all, behavior (work, services, functions, processes, procedures, practices, activities, culture and behavior styles, types of work, methods, strategies --- here there are many different terms denoting different considerations of behavior) are assigned to some system objects; they exhibit behavior, while the behavior itself is not the main character in thinking, but it is attributed to things. There are things they somehow behave, which means they change the states of other objects in their environment, and they can also change their state.

It is bad to represent all objects as behaviors, inside of which hiding interacting objects, although in the tradition of systemic thinking, there were schools where systems were declared as processes (or processes were declared as systems, which is the same: processes and systems were equated to each other, "behavior is primary, what exactly behaves/changes does not matter" and there is usually a reference to Heraclitus). These schools did not become the leading ones; such thinking turned out to be inconvenient, it did not survive in competition with other variants of understanding the nature of the system. Today, it is commonly accepted that systems participate in physics-based processes (meaning that systems change themselves and change their environment), and systems are comprised of other physics-based processes --- and so on for many levels.