Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life

[John M <***>]

Thanks JJK!

you've put it much clearer than I could've.

John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: Life without evolution/evolution without life


> Howard, my apologies for the long string of comments on your posts - I
should have lumped them into one so you could respond to all at once, but
here I think I see the problem:
>
> Von Neumann’s fundamental question is: What is the threshold of complexity
> of a system that can evolve increasing complexity rather than degrade?
> Increasing complexity can be interpreted broadly as open-ended emergence,
> endless variety, or evolutionary novelty.
>
> Rosen's view of complexity, as I read it, would make this a nonsensical
question. Complexity doesn't increase or evolve, it is a basic principle of
nature. It would be like asking how light evolved from humble beginings and
increased its speed to what it is today. Complicatedness evolves and
increases, but that is just a measure of the number of relations or
connections in a system, and generally it is reduced to the number of
non-complex relations. So the endless variety that is discussed here is
variety of form only, because that is what is most rigorously observed. I
think to step out of complicatedness you have to consider functional
relationships (as causal). That, of course, introduces other problems; but
I'm not saying its perfect.
>
>
>
> Howard Pattee wrote:
>
> >Tim,
> >
> >You have to begin by asking: What is the question that von Neumann is
> >trying to answer? And also: What questions is he NOT trying to answer?
Also
> >you must remember that in Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata (von N) are
> >informal transcribed lectures with the editor, Burks, filling in large
> >sections. Von Neumann’s discussions of self-reproduction extended over 4
> >years, so there are some differences of emphasis. One needs to read the
> >whole story. An additional source is his Hixon Symposium (von N, HS) talk
> >(Vol 5, No. 9, Jeffress, ed., Wiley, 1951).
> >
> >Von Neumann’s fundamental question is: What is the threshold of
complexity
> >of a system that can evolve increasing complexity rather than degrade?
> >Increasing complexity can be interpreted broadly as open-ended emergence,
> >endless variety, or evolutionary novelty.
> >
> >He concludes that this will require a type of self-reproduction, and this
> >requires more than a symbolic Turing machine. He says, “For the question
> >which concerns me here, that of self-reproducing automata, Turing’s
> >procedure is too narrow in one respect only. His automata are purely
> >computing machines. Their output is a piece of tape with zeros and ones
on
> >it. What is needed for the construction to which I referred is an
automaton
> >whose output is another automaton.” (von N, HS p. 315)
> >
> >Consequently, he warns that with respect to his choice of parts for the
> >automaton: “ . . . this choice is neither rigorously justifiable nor
> >humanly unambiguously justifiable. All one can do is to try to submit a
> >system that will stand up under common sense criteria.” (von N, p. 77)
That
> >is, it is not a formal logical argument as Rosen incorrectly assumes in
his
> >critique.
> >
> >What von Neumann did NOT ask was about physical implementations. As von
> >Neumann warns, “One has resigned oneself not to explain how these parts
are
> >made up of real things, specifically, how these parts are made up of
actual
> >elementary particles, or even higher chemical molecules.” However, unlike
> >Rosen, he doubts that a relational model alone is adequate. In
constructing
> >a relational (“axiomatic”) model, he says, “One does not ask the most
> >intriguing, exciting, and important question of why the molecules or
> >aggregates which in nature really occur are the sorts of things they
> >are . . .” (von N p. 77)
> >
> >I’ll skip von Neumann’s “common sense” derivation here (I’ll do it later
if
> >you wish). His essential conclusion is that even entirely abstract
> >relational models of replication require two disjoint categories of
> >components: 1) components that can be described temporally by a dynamics
> >(“constructions”), and 2) components that are non-dynamic structures
> >(“quiescent descriptions”) that can be described as memory-stored
symbolic
> >constraints on the dynamic constructions.
> >
> >Von Neumann did not discuss the physical conditions necessary for
symbolic
> >descriptions. He simply assumed that his abstract concept could be
> >materially implemented. I took up the problem of the physical
requirements
> >for implementing symbolic descriptions, and this is what led to Rosen and
> >my discussions of Hertz and his modeling relation. (My intellectual
> >dependence on von Neumann is described at
> >http://wwwc3.lanl.gov/~rocha/pattee/pattee.html) The best single Rosen
> >paper for illustrating how we agree and disagree is Causal Structures in
> >Brains and Machines, Int. J. General Systems 12, 107-126, 1986. Also this
> >paper most clearly shows how he misinterprets von Neumann (p. 114).
> >
> >Von Neumann’s admittedly incomplete discussions of replication are often
> >credited as the beginnings of artificial life studies as well as a
stimulus
> >for the discipline of biosemiotics.
> >I would emphasize that Von Neumann’s conclusion is entirely consistent
with
> >Rosen’s conclusion that dynamics alone (the generalized Newtonian
paradigm)
> >is too restricted to describe life, and that complex systems require more
> >than one model. However their logics and levels of abstraction are quite
> >different. Von Neumann is actually making what I think Rosen recognized
as
> >a relational model that competed with his own (M,R) – systems. They are
> >both abstract models that do not employ any particular material
> >representation, but that would hold for any material embodiment. This
might
> >explain Rosen’s motivation for continually objecting to it on the same
> >grounds for over 30 years.
> >
> >Howard
> >
> >
>
> --
> © 2004 John J. Kineman
> all rights reserved