Re: Robert Rosen's weaknesses...

["John Kineman" <***>]

Judith,

I feel a definite empathy for the man, feeling much the same way myself.
It fits the profile of a renegade. But who else but a renegade can come
up with new paradigms in a very self-supporting community? I suppose
there might have been a way to "play the game" and still be as creative,
but it would have been extremely difficult. One is asked to make
compromises in order to fit in. If you don't do that, then, your choice
or not, you get excluded. Sometimes quietly, subtly, and thus more
painfully. He seems like someone who was responding more to the call of
destiny than to immediate and more vocal surroundings, and I respect
that. It is where real insight and wisom come from, as long as one is
reasonably connected to world, at least enough to understand what
problems need answers. I think to connect better socially, one would
have to take on almost the character of a jester - to be able to proceed
freely and yet be socially acceptable, the only way would be to get
everyone used to the idea that your role in society is to provide the
wacky ideas and they can either listen or laugh as they wish. Its not a
character everyone wants.

JJK


Judith Rosen wrote:

> Hi, Pete, Tim, et al,
>
> Maxwell's Demon In a Skirt, here. I see two areas in the ongoing
> discussion that I have something to add to.
>
> One is the Chaitin limitations. I met this guy, at the Santa Fe
> Institute, when my father was there for the same meetings that Chaitin
> was participating in. He seemed much put off by my father, and avoided
> us most of the time. He hadn't written his book by that point (with
> Complexity in the title), but his talk was summed up by my father-- as
> Pete has correctly paraphrased: "He's talking about "complicatedness",
> not complexity." My father said Chaitin's work was interesting
> mathematically but doesn't answer any of the deep questions. Maybe
> Chaitin never tried or even wanted to answer the deep questions? I
> don't know. Applied math is a whole 'nother animal. But whatever he
> intends with his work, that's what I remember of meeting Chaitin.
> Incidentally, I don't think he ever referenced my father in any of his
> work, either. Since the book I saw of his in a bookstore was
> supposedly about "complexity", and came out a couple years after the
> Santa Fe meetings where we met him, I took that to mean he dismisses
> Rosennean Complexity entirely. However, I have had no contact with the
> man in more than half a decade. I would agree that even if Chaitin
> sees no value in my father's work, that doesn't mean Chaitin's work is
> useless. It's probably very useful in dealing with "simple" but
> complicated things.
>
> The other subject mentioned, about which I know considerably more, is
> the subject of Robert Rosen's "blind spots" or weaknesses.
> Scientifically speaking, I think the only one I can list is that he
> was human. That's both a strength and a weakness, and the diagnosis is
> as subjective as anything humans base their opinions on. So any
> weakness I list is likely to be only "weak" in a certain light and
> then, only in certain people's minds. For example, he decided that the
> process of awarding Nobel Prizes was entirely politicized and that it
> had little to do with merit. Once he made that determination, he
> ignored all awards groups and the people involved. Some might say that
> was a weakness; he never was willing to play the game. In fact, he
> even went the other direction, out of disgust (and sheer perversity)
> over the irrelevant nature of the whole circus. However.... If you're
> a scientist and want to make a contribution to creating a positive,
> strategic position for yourself-- with the funding and freedom to be
> able to do your work your way-- maybe it behooves you to "play the
> game" at least a LITTLE. He would have had an easier career if he had
> been a bit more politically active, but he felt it was all beside the
> point and had a distaste for engaging in it, period. I respect him for
> that, but others have damned him and called his attitude "stupidity".
> Believe it or not, I think there is some small truth to that. But I
> understand why he made the choices he made. His biggest ambitions were
> all internal.
>
> One other weakness worth mentioning is that while he was "rather
> smart" in science.... he was lousy at money management. Just lousy.
> Balancing a check book? Keeping track of details? Forget it! He threw
> all the mail he didn't want to deal with into a pile at his townhouse,
> which I discovered when I went up to Halifax to help him break out of
> the hospital after a particularly bad episode of diabetic side
> effects. In this pile were things like tax refund checks and royalty
> checks for thousands of dollars, some of which were expired and not
> cashable. There were also Canadian IRS notices that he had back taxes
> due that, because he didn't respond, were accruing massive penalties
> and interest. He was hopeless at handling such things. Lots of
> opportunities missed.
>
> Judith