Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life

[John M <***>]

Seeking the truth?
Who's truth? at what level? what Judith wrote first (and sort of rescinded
later) makes more sense: the 'truth' based on a model. Howard's
"Aristotelian" causal
explanation would make the "truth" if the unlimited interconnections and ALL
existing influences could be included as 'causal entailment'. Cannot be. So
Aristotle is still right that the 'total is more than the sum of its
components' -
the accountable ones, of course. (He even thought about 'material'
components
only, as eg. a parts-inventory, a chemical analysis, a census-statistics,
etc.) .

RR was 'seeking' an explanatory way for 'life' addressed to his biological
collegues within the awesome aura of LIFE (some even including divine
connotations).
Unless we consider ourselves the 'most intelligent and knowledgeable
creatures' in the existence (more thn our universe only) our 'rating' of
life is based on the awe we feel for our own existence exceeding our mind's
capability to handle.)
Other complexities' 'life' functions are similarly awesome, a live magnet
vs. a dead one, the process of the stars to 'cook up' elements,
radioactivity, etc. etc.
We may formulate models with explanations upon such things, just as we have
models for the life-function. RR tried a version including his terms.
I side with Howard's first wording.

RR could not tell the 'science potentates', who powerfully OWNED the
reductionistic science of biology (think of other domains as well) -
possessing
and guarding all conventional "wisdom" of the model-based science, that
*"You are all wrong"*. He knew the difference between Giordano Brunos's fate
and Gallileo's wisdom. And he was a teacher with pedagogical skills.

Please continue reading after the quote of the original post.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life


> Hi Howard,
>
> This came in just before I was going to sign off. I'll answer most of your
> email tomorrow, but there was one thing that needs immediate
clarification.
> This exchange:
>
> [Judith] Incidentally, I would say that my father was after much more
> than "a causal, explanatory model of life"-- He was after the truth; a
full
> understanding of why living things are alive.
>
> [Howard] Incidentally, I would say that your father is not alone in
seeking
> the truth. What exactly would a full understanding require "much more" of
> besides full (Aristotelean) causal explanations?
>
> I had one of those "AHA!" moments when I read this-- I was answering a
> different question than the one you have in your response: See the part in
> quotes in my statement? "A causal explanatory MODEL of life" is what you
> said my father was in pursuit of. So I said he was after more than an
> explanatory model, he was after the truth (because we all know that some
> explanatory models are not true models of what they are designed to
explain,
> right?). The way you phrase it in your response is a different animal, and
> better describes what Dad was interested in. Don't you think there's a big
> difference between "a causal explanatory MODEL" and a "full (Aristotelean)
> causal EXPLANATION"? Maybe I'm being too literal, and if so, I apologize.
> It's late! More discussion tomorrow.
>
> Judith
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[John Mikes post continued]:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In Judith's today's continuation, however, H & J are included with:
>>H.: How does Rosennean Complexity Theory define when life first arose?
*
>>J: When naturally arising, self-organizing complex systems organized
sufficiently to reach the threshold of complexity where life is one of the
effects.

Both 'drawing' comments in my views:
I wonder if H's "Rosennean Complexity Theory" is really a theory - I hold it
as a way of thinking, requiring a lot before it can be 'closed' into a
theory. Hence the duscussions on this and other lists and off lists.
Allowing that we call it a theory, does it have the task to define the first
arising of life? Maybe RR-ideas can be APPLIED in biologists' theories how
life arose, but that is still questionable.

J. however mentions self-organization as a fact. No matter how many people
use this misnomer, quantity does not make it right. There was one reasonable
opinion how to accept the term (Stan Salthen): when a system is in
formation,
the connections adjust in the shaping and this activity can be seen as S-O.
Once, however, a system is formed, only additional initiations can cause
further changes in its organization. The system does not 'decide' to
improve. It has to be kicked for a decision.
The 'threshold of complexity' is a vision of reductionist simplicity: in the
universal interconnectedness EVERYTHING has tremendous (I almost wrote:
unlimited) "complexity" and adding to that is negligible. Reductionist ways
do not recognize the 'latent' interconnections beyond the boundaries of the
model-view, so a new 'blip' added seems essential. Let's think differently.
I question the question: does 'organizing' increase the 'level' of
complexity?
It may or may not (irrespective of my denial of such 'level' in finite
terms).
It may be a streamlining, senescence, when the organization grows simpler.
It may be a widening boundaries, when more connections get into the model -
'increasing' the complexity into the new model. I think in un-static
changes.

Regards

John M