Re: complexity ontological or epistemological

["Dan Fiscus" <***>]

Jeff,

I agree that your approach to differing perspectives is a
fruitful one. But, I am not sure that question, phrased as an
either/or, true/false, predicative logic question, can be answered
or discussed in ways that can get at the deep core issues of life
and complexity. I think it is precisely the inseparability of these
two issues that is part of the central issue of life and complexity,
i.e. that ontology and epistemology are entangled, mutually
causal and not easily separable.

I sometimes wonder what history would have been like if
Descartes had thought, said, written, if he could have:

"I think...

only by virtue of continued connection to a stream of physical
nutrients like fresh air, clean water and good food that come
from my environment; and these nutrients are usually provided
outright or greatly aided in quality or quantity by plant life; and
I in turn supply needed nutrients back to those plants in the
forms of my spent air, used water, and processed organic
wastes;

therfore I am...

essentially an ecological being that exists only in relation to the
context of other life forms; and I am also a conscious being
whose processes of thinking and observing and knowing all
involves self-knowing and self-reference, as my life - the
biophysical basis of my consciousness - exists as a stream
within an inseparable cycle of flows, and is therefore spread
over, distributed in or also existing in part in the other beings
and processes in my ecological and physical environmental
context."

If he had said this, I don't think we'd still be debating whether
the cartesian split or epistemic cut between knower and known
is a necessity or even a good starting assumption. What
happens when we drop this is where it gets interesting, to me.

Just my angle on it...

Dan

Jeff Pridaux wrote:

>Is complexity ontological or just epistemological?
>
>This has been on my mind since the mid-90s.  Consider the following....
>
>1.  Certainly, different people can look at the same thing (Natural system)
>and see different things (formal system).  Just think of politics.  For
>instance, liberals and conservatives can look at the same issue and come up
>with completely different models of reality and push for different courses
>of action (when in many cases they both want the same end-result).
>
>2.  Certainly just because we (scientists) may interact with an entity
>(like a sub-cellular organelle) with one set of observables (like
>concentrations of molecules), doesn't mean those observables
>(concentrations) are what something else (like other subcellular
>organelles) "sees" with its interactions with the entity.   The
>concentrations may be there but the concentrations may not really be the
>observable used between the organelles.
>
>3.  It could follow that organelle B could use one set of observables when
>interacting with organelle A and organelle C could use a completely
>different set of observables when it interacts with organelle A.  The
>subcellular system could (in its own right) have complex modeling
>relationships going on independent of any human observer.  The system has
>its own interior complex modeling relationships inside it.  And as such,
>the complexity of this subcellular system could be thought of as having
>ontological existence.
>
>