Re: Fw number 2: [ROSEN] [life] MR as ontological; 3 kinds of life

["John Kineman" <***>]

Judith,

Thanks for this. Just to clarify, what you say about "complexity" being the
universal is basically what we concluded in the discussion as well. My challenge
of saying reality is more alive than dead is really on the philosophical
level, removing criteria for life-principle as a question of how we are to
think of  reality in the new view. We have such a strong culture now of thinking
that reality is essentially Newtonian, passive material, and that all the
bizzare properties of life, the atomic world, social systems, psychology,
etc. have to be somehow built on top of that foundation. By shifting the
whole foundation to a complex and (metaphorically) living one, I am profering
a philosophy, not additional criteria. The philosophy of a living reality,
as such, would be based on: (a) complexity is essential for all living forms,
and (b) it is so radically different from the usual concept of non-life (Newtonian).

However, I also agree that it is not sufficient alone to explain the development
and evolution of life forms, as such; where additional processes are needed.
But I think, unlike the Newtonian model, complexity is a foundation on which
those additional processes can be theoretically constructed, whereas they
could not be built on the Newtonian model. Thinking this way leads one to
consider that "living" and "dead" may not be the dichotomy we are used to
thinking they are; but more a matter of degree or level where complexity
manifests (or emerges) as something we then recognize as having life.

JohnK

Judith Rosen wrote:

 

From: Judith Rosen

To: ***

Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 1:18 PM

Subject: Re: [ROSEN] [life] MR as ontological; 3 kinds of life

 

Hi Everyone,

 

I guess I'm coming into this discussion late (again)-- sorry! I do have a few comments:

 

What I think I'm seeing here is that John K. seems to be putting the term "life" into sentences that my father would have put the term "complexity" into instead. John is right that my father felt that all of this theoretical work WAS applicable to many other areas of inquiry than just biology. But don't forget: Biology was his main focus. All rest were tools he acquired and developed to approach his main focus in useful ways. He once confided to me that people (colleagues) often saw him in terms of their own area of interest (ie; mathematicians thought he was a mathematician, systems theorists thought he was a system theorist, physicists thought... etc.), but I think it was more likely that  people who didn't know he was a biologist would see all that math and physics in his published work and make assumptions based on that. People (even now) rarely label him or think of him as a "life scientist" and yet that is exactly what he was.

 

Complexity--according to his own definition--  is what my father believed was applicable to all other areas of inquiry. Life is (so far) the province of organisms--which is what makes them "organisms". Life is an effect (or offshoot or progression--my words) of complexity-- or putting it another way; (Rosennean) "Complexity" causes Life.

 

CAVEAT: I think that as this work progresses and is developed further, some of what my father believed may prove either incomplete or even incorrect. There is no blasphemy involved in saying that. He wasn't perfect, he wasn't omniscient, and he wasn't infallible. The work he did was simply the best he could do at the time he wrote it. Therefore, it is entirely possible that John K will find that "Life" (in the scientific sense) has much more to it than the preliminary sketch that my father drew up. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all. Robert Rosen was only looking for the answers to HIS own questions. And his life was cut short-- right after he had found his answers, but hadn't had enough chance to really play with them much. He was only 64 when he died. He should have had another decade or two and then many of these preliminary findings would be fleshed out or changed or what-have-you.

 

So, my final comment is: If  this disagreement is about  what my father MEANT-- then I hope I have satisfied some of that in the first two paragraphs. If it is about other ways of using the approach my father developed and seeing things slightly differently... That's exactly what a discussion group is FOR. I would simply say the phrasing ought to be clearer when the ideas are being laid out: "What if Rosen was looking at it from the right angle but interpreted it in too limited a way? What if life isn't the end result of complexity but a component on a continuum? ..." Etc. No one's gonna shoot valid thoughts like that down, right? This discussion list isn't here to "glorify" Robert Rosen. It's here to discuss openly ideas that are received somewhat inhospitably in many "mainstream science" venues. If John is suggesting alternate possibilities for explaining how "complexity works", more power to him.

 

Judith

----- Original Message -----

From: Tim Gwinn

To: ***

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 5:43 PM

Subject: Re: [ROSEN] [life] MR as ontological; 3 kinds of life

Hi John,

 

See interposed. I think it's pretty safe to say we have some very deep differences in our interpretation of Rosen. 

 

Maybe Judith can comment if she has a chance?

 

Regards,

Tim