Re: Medical science and Rosennean Complexity

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Jack,

Thanks for mentioning "fuzzy relational biology". I had missed that one.
There is an interesting 166 page PDF paper with that title at the Systems
Biology group at Rostock Univ., Germany:
http://www.sbi.uni-rostock.de/publications.htm
along with some other related papers.

As for the...well...'put up or shut up' challenge you offer, whatever tribal
animosity you are referring to has little or no basis in Rosennean thinking.
I think Rosennean complexity can be summed up by saying: the set of models
for a given complex system cannot be circumscribed a priori; for example,
reductionistic models do not exhaust the complete set of models for a given
complex natural system. It is not that reductionistic models are to be
dismissed, but simply that they do not tell the whole story of a given
complex system. There is no holism vs reductionism - understanding complex
systems involves both reductionistic and non-reductionistic kinds of models
and approaches.

The question, as I see it, is whether the solution to a _specific_ problem
_requires_ stepping outside of that set of reductionistic models in order to
solve that problem. If not, then - as alot of science, technology and
medicine has already shown - we can find the answers we seek with
reductionistic aproaches alone, regardless of the complexity of the
underlying system. On the other hand, if we do need to step beyond the set
of reductionstic models, then we are in rather unknown territory. As Judith
indicated, currently we do not generally know how to proceed to make such
models and how to apply them in ways that solve current problems. It is not
an excuse, it is simply the current status. We know relational modeling
offers one possible class of models, but we cannot say a priori that all
nonreductionistic models will be relational ones. There certainly has been
precious little professional work done in the realm of relational biology
and corresponding models. It's current practical value may be more a
reflection of that lack of attention, than of its inherent potentiality.

As to "10C-6" (that is, Figure [10C.6], the diagram of the (M,R)-system with
replication, on p. 251 of "Life Itself"), that model is itself already an
answer to some questions pertaining to the organization of organisms.
Whether this model - this specific aspect of the understanding of an
organism - will lead beyond knowledge and into application is still unclear.
At least one of those possible applications is the fabrication of organisms;
but this is a dangerous application indeed.

I think that given the current status of theoretical biology of complex
organismic systems it is unrealistic to expect practical medical
applications to be imminently forthcoming, as it would be to expect, say,
string theory to be imminently forthcoming with solutions to the world's
energy problems.We can talk about potentialities and possibilities, but
that's about it. Even if we were to find the appropriate complex models, we
currently have no developed technology, no engineering skills, for
_realizing_ a complex physical system from a complex model.

However, you do bring to light the need to be careful of our rhetoric and of
our claims of what these potential and possible applications of Rosennean
complexity theory might accomplish.

Regards,
Tim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Jack
> Park
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:32 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Medical science and Rosennean Complexity
>
--snip--
>
> It is interesting to me that, while walking along the hotel hall in
> Santa Fe talking with your father about an opportunity to fund his work
> by way of an SBIR, I told him about my diagnosis, and got the strangest
> look from him; my take was that he, too, may be carrying a similar
> diagnosis and didn't want to talk about it.
>
> In any case, my point is that he, and others, speak *about* modeling, as
> evidenced above, but don't actually articulate examples from which
> others can start down that road. It's entirely interesting to me that
> the only known dissertation directly from his work was, as memory
> recalls, about death and dying, the final functor, so to speak. The only
> other dissertation findable in google that uses the term "relational
> biology" is on "fuzzy relational biology." There is one woman in Israel
> who goes by the name "Zippie" who is actively engaged in modeling
> cognition using category theory. Not much else comes even close, as far
> as I can tell. 10C-6 is about the (M,R) system, but, nowhere, does
> anyone go beyond that (that I have found). Rashevsky was looking for the
> canonical organism, one on which organismic entities could be studied.
> If his goal, when cast in Rosennean terms, is to find the irreducible
> architecture from which a synthesis can follow, then, I suppose, the
> goal lies outside the bounds of RR's world view. In my view, we are
> engaged in wordsmithing, and not engaged in modeling. Part of that
> wordsmithing is involved in tribal immunity rather than holistic
> exploration. Indeed, consider applying Rosennean Complexity to the
> Rosennean tribe itself.
>
> And, Judith, Gleevec kicks serious butt, medically speaking. I no longer
> feel that I am dealing with a nasty visitation; one magic pill a day
> keeps the doctor away, so to speak. It is amazing to me that, when I was
> diagnosed in 1989, my personal physician and business partner told me
> not to worry, that in a couple of years, they would have a pill. That
> pill didn't show up until 10 years later, but it did, indeed, show up.
> It's also interesting to me that the chromosomal damage that is the,
> excuse me, cause of my particular dx was the first one discovered (1959)
> following Watson & Crick, and the first one to submit to active-site
> blocking by a small molecule. All that from science as it was practiced
> without benefit of Rosennean Complexity. I don't think the holistic
> tribes are justified in knocking the reductionists. At some point in
> time, methinks, the tribes need to understand that they are all rooting
> around in the same space and that there is room for all. That Robert
> Rosen ran into serious funding pathologies during his lifetime and
> career, is a sign of the same tribal behaviors, but is no excuse for
> flame throwing. My view is simple: show your stuff and stop talking
> about it. Either we know how to apply Rosennean Complexity to complex,
> urgent problems facing humanity, or we do not. If we do, then let's do
> it. I stand ready to hack software in that service. If we do not, then,
> let's see the program necessary to get there from here. If there are
> problems with the mathematics, then, rather than raise an immune
> response to the mathematician, sort out the mathematics.
>
> Jack