Re: complexity ontological or epistemological

["John M" <***>]

Dear Judith,
be careful how to screen your fathers 'pencilled-in' notes! A man of his
cultural diversity, mental connectivity - humor(!) can scribble all kinds of
remarks that 'came to mind' - seriously or not.

I appreciate his longer metaversion of Descartes' thinking', althogh
for the shorter one I could imagine (plagiarize) a reversed sentence:
---"I am complex, therefore I think"---

(Just to loosen up: the waiter in the beer-pub asks Descartes: "another
beer, Dr. Descartes?" He responded: "I don't think" and
disappeared.)

Best regards

John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: complexity ontological or epistemological


> 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.
> > >
> > >