Re: MR as ontological

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

Hi John K.,

Thanks for the reply. I will focus on just one part since to me it seems to
be an important central issue.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John
> Kineman
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 5:49 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: MR as ontological
>
>
> Tim,,
>
> We won't reach agreement, obviously, but to frame the problem more
> clearly, let me answer with some questions and whatever:
>
--snip--
> >I also find Penrose/Hameroff utterly unpersuasive. The claim of
> >consciousness as based in quantum coherence in microtubules is
> to me a kind
> >of last-refuge of the ardent reductionist who realizes the inadequacy of
> >causal efficacy within a Newtonian framework, but who can see
> the only way
> >out of this dilemma as necessarily residing in some deeper level
> of reality;
> >in this case, the poorly understood nooks and crannies of sub-atomic
> >physics.
> >(For those interested, Hameroff's page is:
> >http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/)
> >
>
> Is there not another way to see this? That looking at quantum processes
> as a link to understanding consciousness is a way to seek consistency
> with the mechanistic view - consistency that will be necessary for any
> successful theory of consciousness. We are not talking about different
> reality claims here, but different theory constructions.


Here I think is a major difference in our views. A large part of what Rosen
demonstrates in Life Itself is that the Newtonian view does indeed make
strong claims about reality. In particular, it claims at least that: 1)
state-based descriptions are universally valid; 2) material reductionism is
a valid universal program; 3) all systems are mechanisms; 4) causal
structures can only be predicative (no loops or final cause). Not all of
these claims are necessarily explicit in Newtonian mechanics, but they
follow directly from the Newtonian view. These claims about reality also
apply to the extensions of the Newtonian view: relativity and QM. So, the
formalism called 'quantum mechanics' does not sidestep any of the above
reality claims.

In contrast, Rosen's view of physics and complexity claim that: 1) reality
allows much richer causal structures than the Newtonian view; 2) state-based
descriptions are not universally valid; 3) material reduction is not a valid
program; 4) mechanisms are not representative of systems in reality.

These two views are mutually exclusive. It is not merely a difference of two
theory-constructions within one paradigm; rather, it is a situation of two
deeply conflicting paradigms.

So, if one adopts the Rosennean paradigm, then there is no basis for seeking
consistency with a mechanistic view. The Newtonian view represents only an
artificially idealized and heavily restricted (degenerate) subset within the
Rosennean paradigm.

Conversely, if one adopts, like Penrose/Hameroff, material reductionism (or
any other of the corollaries I mentioned), then one is by logical necessity
adopting the Newtonian paradigm (or an equally restricted one), in which
there can be no Rosennean complex systems, no closed causal loops, and no
anticipatory system, to name a few things.

So I feel that one must choose their paradigm (Rosennean, Newtonian, or some
other) and adhere to it, otherwise one is inviting deep inconsistencies.

One can certainly do Newtonian physics within the Rosennean paradigm, as
long as we realize that those Newtonian models represent only a very small
amount of physics, and that the Newtonian formalism and its corollaries is
invalid as a universal paradigm.


> It is important
> to relate the constructs because each one reveals solidly documented
> phenomena that one's future thoughts must be reconciled with. Also,
> while it is nice to think of Rosen's views as offering a better quantum
> reality (as I suggest it might), I don't think that has been
> well-developed yet. I would hope to avoid automatic rejections of
> phenomena viewed from a classical (including QM) perspective, which is
> clearly important within its limitations (as are all phenomena,
> variously viewed). Rosen himself was victim of this "either-or" syndrome
> and I believe it is important to emerge from that to a more synergistic
> ethic.
--snip--


Regards,
Tim