Judith,
I’m responding to both your posts, but only where I think an answer is
significant.
First post, Judith asks:
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.
Howard replies:
Definitely “yes” to your question, and “no” you are not being too literal.
There is a big difference in the connotations of these phrases, and that is
why I expanded my first inadequate statement. And I’m happy the difference
struck you agreeably.
H: But what if we can show that the threshold of complexity necessary for
evolution requires anticipatory behavior?
J: I'm not sure what you're asking. If you are asking whether evolution
involves anticipatory behavior, I think it definitely does involve
anticipatory behavior-- which means evolution requires the level of
complexity that causes life. They both seem to emerge at that threshold
level.
H: I’ll settle for your last sentence. I think they are two sides of the
same coin.
Howard wrote:
Unfortunately, Bob never engaged his critics, (snip)
J: He spoke of von Neumann's ideas (and pronounced it "von noyman"—
H. That’s the right pronunciation.
J: Anyway, this morning I read through the
things my father wrote in his books about von Neumann's ideas and how they
differed from his own. It's a set of small, but my father felt CRITICAL,
points that couldn't be ignored. One of the main ones appears to be that von
Neumann defined complexity completely differently.
H: I work with the idea that there are no true or false, correct or
incorrect definitions, only more or less useful ones, and their utility
depends on what ideas you want to communicate and who your audience is. So
I have no problem with Bob defining complexity differently than von
Neumann.
I find both definitions useful. Bob measured system complexity by the
number of inequivalent models necessary to understand the system at any
given time. Von Neumann used complexity simply to distinguish a threshold
above which systems evolve in time (i.e., have open-ended evolvability).
One might call Bob’s definition synchronic and von Neumann’s diachronic.
J: I can't settle this dispute between you and my father, but it certainly
seems to me that he didn't ignore von Neumann, didn't discount his ideas
out of hand, and did his homework before he made any statements that these
were not congruent with his own ideas.
H: This is not a dispute just between me and Bob. He did not ignore von
Neumann, but on the issue of the logic of self-replication he should have.
There have been extensive discussions and publications on von Neumann’s
theory of self-replication as well as Bob’s criticism. However, I know of
no one, including close associates of von Neumann, who feels that Bob’s
logic, though formally correct, relates in any essential way to what von
Neumann was actually saying. I think it is no longer a question of
substance, only a question of misinterpretation.
In this one case, I found Bob uncharacteristically stubborn in his
persistent objections to an argument that von Neumann did not make. As far
as I know, Bob never answered any carefully argued (sympathetic)
resolutions of his criticism (like Guttman’s), but continued on the same
grounds to fault von Neumann in many of his later publications. For
example, his “parenthetical” remarks on von Neumann (LI p. 234) appear
entirely gratuitous, implying that von Neumann could not distinguish
hardware from software. It is clear if you read von Neumann (5th Lecture,
Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata) that this distinction is explicit.
Only in his last video-taped interview with Peter Cariani, did he appear to
grant the possibility of an alternative to his interpretation. I was happy
to see this, because in my opinion it would be best for Bob’s legacy if the
subject were dropped.
J: On the subject of "never engaging his critics" though, I'm extremely
biased in my father's favor. It seems to me that the 'critics' that had
legitimate questions or disagreement and didn't resort to uncivil
behavior... he DID engage.
H: I was wrong to say “never.” We are now not talking about scientific or
philosophical issues, but about psychology – strong biases and personal
opinions.
J: You've said yourself that you two didn't agree on everything, and
yet he spoke of you with deep affection and respect. So he didn't change his
mind on those issues you two apparently disagreed on, but he did engage in
discussion and he actually named you on a very short list of people he would
consider friends as well as colleagues (when I asked him).
H: That is true. I not only benefited enormously from discussions with Bob,
but also I’m sure we both enjoyed our disagreements. Also, both of us did
alter many of our ideas because of these discussions. It would have been a
dull friendship if we always agreed. [Was it Oscar Wilde who said: “When
everyone agrees with me I know I must be doing something wrong.”?]
J: The kind of critics he ignored were the ones who engaged in personal
attack, who had power issues, who had hidden agendas, who were not
interested in the truth but in maintaining a comfortable status quo, etc.
H: The motives of others are always uncertain. The problem is that good
criticism can come from impolite, powerful, aggressive critics, and
unfortunately ignoring a critic can be interpreted as arrogance. Also, we
all have egos, hidden issues (even from ourselves) and inadequate
communication skills. There are no unbiased critics. You just have to fight
it out ignoring the possible motives of critics.
I never had a problem engaging Bob in critical discussion. So it is not
just my opinion that Bob was reluctant to engage critics. One example: Bob
was not invited to Waddington’s Bellagio meetings on theoretical biology
(even though Waddington had been Visiting Professor at SUNY Buffalo the
year before they began). When I asked him why, Waddington said in effect
that he did not find Bob eager to engage in the type of critical
discussions that he though was important for a successful workshop.
It is also my feeling that Bob was more fully engaged with colleagues and
students at the Center in Buffalo than he was in Halifax. He gradually
became more and more isolated after his move. I think it is significant
that the ideas in Fundamentals of Measurement and Anticipatory Systems that
were all discussed with colleagues at Buffalo both contain acknowledgements
and references. The later Life Itself has neither acknowledgements nor
references.
What is your feeling about this?
Howard