Why should engineers be interested in bizarre systems?

Examines the shortcomings of conventional analysis when applied to complex processes, and considers the consequences of ignoring process behaviors simply because they do not conveniently project on to lists of numbers. Complex behavior is bizarre, but not absurd. Bizarre systems are counter-intuitive, and yet bizarre behavior is logically tractable. The inferential linkages within a bizarre system´s epistemological model are congruent with the causal linkages that govern its ontological behavior. From the perspective of neurophysiology, the behaviors that we normally consider to be intelligent are irreducible to a list of numbers. This being the case, no list of numbers, no matter how big, can emulate intelligent behavior. To discuss intelligence other than by empirical observation, some logical description of it must be found that is not limited to predicative inferential structures. Mathematics abounds with such alternatives; impredicative mathematical entities provide powerful ways of describing complex behavior. They do so at a cost, being non-algorithmic. Engineering decisions based on predictions made by attempting to reduce complex behaviors to algorithms cannot be trusted; the projection ignores key aspects of the behavior. Present-day computers only work for algorithmic processes. An engineered artifact that exhibits intelligent behavior requires at least one, and possibly both, of the following developments: a more powerful model of computation than the Turing machine, and/or a computing element that has entailments similar to those observed in complex processes