Re: complexity ontological or epistemological

["Judith Rosen" <***>]

Hi Everybody,

Sorry I'm coming into this discussion so late.

Regarding Descartes quote "I think...."; My Dad used to joke that it oughta
be "I think I think, therefore I think I am."

I have been immersed in the two "partial" manuscripts of my father's that
are being published (done, they promise me, by 3:00 this afternoon!!!). One
of them, "Rosennean Complexity", has a bunch of handwritten notes of my
Dad's and on one of the pages, he was musing, "I think, therefore... I am
complex." I can almost "hear" his grin as he wrote that.

On observers/observations/surrogacies: He wrote; "Not all observers are
models of each other."

On causes and effects, and human existence, he mused, "We (humans) are only
effects, not causes. Our minds are not answers. The external world is a
cause, NOT effect. Certainly not of perception. But... understanding it
seeks to entail it?! Understanding e.g. Euclidean geometry seeks to entail
it. Make it effect or output of something. "Something" = context. Relate two
things to each other by relating them to context."

He also brought up the "chicken/egg paradox", asked "Is "FIRST" entailed? An
effect?"

Bear in mind that he was thinking of these things in a certain light, not in
absolutes, and was just prodding his mind along and noting it down so that
he could use it again later. These notes were never meant to be seen and
should not be taken as Rosennean theory or put on the same level as his
polished work. But I think the process he always went through in sorting out
his thoughts may be of value to others, especially those who have read some
of his previously published work.

Cheer,
Judith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Fiscus" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] complexity ontological or epistemological


> 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.
> >
> >