Re: Medical science and Rosennean Complexity

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Dan,

I agree with you regarding side-effects. I almost included a similar comment
in my own post, so I'm glad you mentioned this.Where you speak of "value", I
am reminded of this line from Rosen: "Adaptation is a meaningless concept
unless it is tied to an individual whose survival is enhanced by
it.Otherwise, it just disappears into dynamics." [EL 323] In an analogous
way, I think the same thing is true of "side-effects": unless we tie them to
some extraneous criteria,  some policy or valuation, side-effects disappear
into dynamics (perhaps only to arise later in the form of transgressions of
some other value or policy).

"Waste" is something that came to mind when you were talking, in an adjacent
post, about making your lab or science facility "sustainable". When I read
that, I wondered if such a goal was achievable without invoking symbiotic
relationships with other organisms (to process waste, for example). That is,
do the components of a complex system have to themselves be complex?

However self-sustainable a system might be made, it will still be an open
system, and will still impinge on the environment. Even if the chemical
inputs/outputs were made fairly innocuous, they would still represent
possible sinks and sources for other nearby entities. Even the physical
presence of the facility will influence the surrounding area, create niches
and so on. It is an interesting problem.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Dan
> Fiscus
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:52 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Medical science and Rosennean Complexity
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Re: this excerpt that you wrote:
>
> Tim Gwinn wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I agreed to as much in my last email to Jack, but now I wonder.
>
> I wonder if these answers are of the same quality as we'd have if
> we could answer/solve the same questions/problems with complex
> models/science? I think another issue that is becoming clearer all
> the time is that reductionist/mechanist "solutions" also create new
> problems. In fact, it may be that in general the value or effect of
> the problems (side-effects) are of more weight, greater difficulty
> than the value of the solutions (main effects). My evidence that
> this may be true is my usual noting of the myriad, interacting,
> increasing, worsening set of global, systemic environmental
> problems. All the accumulated "residue" or neglected, ignored or
> denied side-effects of billions of cases of solving isolated problems
> via mechanistic/reductionism is coming home to roost at the
> global and systemic scale.
>
> The alternative that is needed is a kind of solution that is a real
> net solution - some mode of science + technology for which in the
> integrated, total accounting of all main and side-effects the whole
> effect is positive for life as a whole, with some balance of "good
> for the one" as in organism or person and "good for the many" as
> in interdependent biosphere boat we are all in.
>
> That truly net positive science + technology is the great promise
> I see in Rosen's work, and also the near magic I see operable in
> life itself (but life as organisms-in-ecosystems, not just organisms).
> Life already knows how to make things better as it goes, to not
> only solve a local problem but to have the side-effects be beneficial
> too. Good example is soil - it is an emergent, systemic property of
> myriad actions of zillions of organisms and it increases both the
> productivity and the productive capacity of life systems like forests.
> Pretty good models + technology when your residue or waste is so
> darn good. And 180 degree different from the trajectory we are
> heaed in. Anything good about our waste products? Ever been to a
> land fill?
>
> Dan