Jacob, you wrote,

1. "Andross, could you expand on the basic tenets of the Chaos theory, as understood by you? As for Complexity, my personal view is that it has been and continues developing by way of Emergents and Resultants."

[1a] Chaos theory, as I understand it, is the antithesis of an idea expressed by Einstein: there are no real chaotic systems, meerly patterns more complex than we currently understand. The Lorenz Attractor and other such illustrations of chaos theory show that most likely there are systems that may have patterns but will never repeat.

1a:-} Chaos Theory intends to show that 'Chaos' --as is commonly understood-- can be analyzed in a rational way. Chaos, from Greek, means Disorder. The opposite concept is called Cosmos. For a better understanding, it is worthwhile to get some information on Hesiod's Cosmogony. Ovid provided a non-paganic interpretation to the concept. Genesis uses the Hebrew words 'Tohu Vaavo'hu' for the original chaotic state. 'Seder' is the word for Order, both as opposed to disorder, and also in its taxonomic denotation. (Please see: 1. CRACKPOTS, 2. ORDER, and 3. THE BEAUTY)

The application of Chaos Theory principles discovers patterns in apparently utterly 'chaotic' systems (such as storms). Obviously, no pattern can be identical to another, as digital prints can neither be. A butterfly flapping its wings in Peking (the "Peking effect") is enough to modify a storm pattern. In a parallel way, any slight difference in the conditions of the Physical Laws as we know them, would have resulted in a different reality.
The degree of chaos in a system is dependent on the number of variables and their intensity. I posit that there is a critical point below which self-organizing prevents the chaotic situation.
The greenhouse effect is constantly changing the atmosphere. Seemingly, those changes increase the frequency of chaotic situations such as storms, which are submissible to study, with the intention of finding the specific pattern.

From my own D-SP approach, I say that the present universe is another of an unending series. The Big Crunch marks the end of one universe: it is utterly contadictory to accept the existence of Black Holes, together with 'evidence' of an inflationary universe. Please see ENTROPY.
At the moment the last Black Hole accretes to the primordial --end result-- Super Black Hole, the immediate --cold and dark-- release of the Energy-Matter (proto-electrons and proto-positrons, as I posit) appears to be CHAOTIC. But immediately the ordering, organizing principle --the SEDER, the COSMOS-- gives rise to the first atom, hydrogen. As clouds of this gas coalesce in fusion to a core of helium, heat and --of course-- light appear, in the form of stars. The rest is history...(Please see: BANG!)

[1b] What do you think about a complex system that contains (perhaps wholely) elements with various degrees of chaos?

1b:-} D-SP considers as complex systems those where, axiomatically, 'the total is greater than the sum of the parts.' A very simple example is a chair; more complex are all machines. These are instances of Artificial Complex Systems. Natural Complex Systems may be altered artificially --i.e., by human activities-- but they are dynamic entities. They are of two kinds: the Mechanical (non-living), and the Biological (living) Natural Complex Systems (NCS).
Both kinds of NCS, are not only dynamic, constantly changing, but --and that is the gist of Chaos Theory-- both are self-ordering. El Ni~no is a stiking example of a Natural Mechanical Complex System: it creates intense atmospheric changes that look 'chaotic' because of the long time required for self-ordering. But patterns are being discerned in that 'chaos.'
Biological NCS are axiomatically ordered, until disease strikes: the chaotic state of disease ends with death, or with recuperation, related to self-ordering evolutive mechanisms of tissue repair.

2. "Mind is the term applied to the cognitive and sentient properties of the brain. Therefore, mind does not 'develop': it is the brain (and its functions) what develops. Your phrase should be:
'The spinal cord progressed evolutively to develop the brain, which allowed for the cognitive and sentient functions called 'mind'."

[2] Yes, that is correct; part of my point in exploring this idea of "super-organization" is that here we have a system composed of both ordered and unordered components, whose entire structure is chaotic but the resultant function is relatively organized. (See in April 1999 Scientific American, Alan Turing's recently unearthed essay on "The (Class B) Disorganized Machine." )

2:-} I suggest using the prefix 'Super' to indicate a higher degree construct, yet basically linearly developed EMERGENT. H2O is a linear emergent developed by the combination of the component elements. When the emergent is the result of non-linear, that is, branched construct, it deserves the prefix 'Hyper,' as in HTML. Thus, computers can be divided in the following classes: a) the Turing Machine, from which principle the basic computer was constructed. This would be the A-type. Super-computers are resultants, of linear complexity, whose construction allows for increased computering capacity. b) The B-type, as imagined by Turing, and only now made known, is a hyper-computer, an emergent --axiomatically a non-linear complexity. Its principle is the Neural Network, simulating the neurons' branched interconnections. Turing called it an "Unorganized Machine," actually a computer capable of being 'organized,' this word referring to learning through inputs. After all, Turing is also the father of Artificial Intelligence. He compared this machine to the crebral cortex of the newborn: an interesting correlation with Locke's 'Tabula Rasa.'
Nowadays, an even more futuristic computer is the so-called O-type: 'O' for Oracle, an imaginary box containing infinite computing wisdom..."

3. "Everything constituting a system or organism is by definition a complex: it is more than the sum of the parts. If it were not so, it would not be a system or organism. A 'super-organization' would be a higher degree of complexity. The brain is such. I really do not see the need to use the term 'chaotic.'"

[3a] But isn't the brain based on many chaotic elements? Patterns in those chaotic elements reinforce each other, creating a more ordered system. Still, the entire structure of the mind is constantly changing, and is fairly chaotic...

3a:-{ No chaotic elements in a Biological NCS. The mind, being a function (of the brain) has no structure. It is the brain that has structure, non-chaotic if unharmed.

[3b] ...Yet, there seem to be various devices within the mind (BRAIN!) that create some sort of structural order upon this background of chaos. As such, the brain/mind is a culmination of structural organization that is a paradigm shift away from that of the respiratory system, the nitrogen cycle, a computer's boot cycle, or many other systems in the universe...

3b:-{ I have the impression that you are using your own words to actually express your own inchoate ideas, which stike me as parallel to those of Turing! You are actually saying: "There seems to be an innate capability of the brain to organize the initially --in the newborn-- blank slate that is his cortex." Now I realize that by 'chaos' you actually meant a dearth of developmental organization!
Truly, you state that other complex systems are completely different, since they are organized from the start.

I suspect that there are quite a few more systems that may prove to be simmilar "macroscopic systems"; for instance, the flow of information on the internet.

** Yes! This is a dynamic, ever advancing process, becoming more and more ORGANIZED (less 'chaotic,' as you have been saying until now). But, this organization process is artificial (man-made), different from the self-organizing process of the NCS. **

4. "Mind is the term applied to the cognitive and sentient properties of the brain. Therefore, mind does not 'develop': it is the brain (and its functions) what develops."

[4] This reasoning implies that the mind's cognitive process cannot be developed. I tend not to agree with that.

4:-{ The mind develops together with the brain where it sits, as more experiences are acquired during the individual's life time. The brain has been developing evolutionarily: the inseparable result has been the development of the brain's function we call mind.

Cognition: The mental process or faculty of knowing (ie awareness, perception, reasoning, judgemnent).

** Only the faculty of knowing, present also in other animals. A lion is aware of the prey, but not aware of being aware, because of the lack of the META function. Perception may exist without knowing, as in people whose disease makes them believe that they do not perceive. This phenomenon is easily reproduced hypnotically. Also the opposite situation, where a blind person doesn't know that he is not perceiving. Judgment is the capability of rationally comparing against a standard. (See AXIOLOGY.) **

In the convoluted system as the human mind, it seems that a by-product has emerged: that which we call consciousness. I believe this may be somewhat explanatory of the talent man has to "think about thinking".

** By-products result only from artificial processes. I believe that Consciousness, actually Self-conciousness, the result of evolution, appeared suddenly in one individual, as a result of a mutation. This individual became the leader of that group.
By inbreeding, a superior group developed, wich dominated the other groups. Eventually, that mutation became the rule. This phenomenon is a Natural Emergent. Subsequent improvements are Natural Resultants. Self-awareness is a nuance of self-consciousness. I believe that the Meta capacity came later on, again as a mutational emergent. At that moment, H. sapiens could meditate about all the selfhoods. (Please see: WRITING and H. sapiens.) **

ADDENDUM: I checked the article on Turing, and found that I had misquoted it.
Turing wrote about the O-type machine. However, he did not give details. As expressed nowadays, the "oracle" is not a box with infinite knowledge, but one that can distinguish between computable and non-computable situations. Turing's words indicate that the machine should work without understanding. I believe that here lies the problem: without understanding, how is it possible to differentiate between those two situations?