Re: [ROSEN Ways of defining Rosennean Complexity

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Judith, Tim, John, and others,

Judith?s clear summary of Bob?s view of complexity leads me to raise a dormant uneasiness 
about these discussions to a verbal level.

Some time ago I gave a reasoned suggestion that it would be best for Bob?s legacy if you 
would drop trying to find fault with von Neumann. Thirty-five years is enough. But since 
you all seem determined not to, I will use it as an example to explain a broader 
strategic suggestion. I have what you may justifiably call an ad hominem criticism about 
Bob and his disciples (but without the connotation of prejudice). My purpose is to try to 
improve the persuasiveness of Bob?s ideas on working biologist.

As Judith points out, Bob has constantly explained the fundamental epistemic principle 
that multiple inequivalent models are necessary for adequate understanding of life and 
even nature. Everything is complex. And yet in practice both Bob and his disciples sound 
defensive and intolerant of all models that do not conform not only to his own ideas but 
also to his special vocabulary in which they are expressed. This is at least ironic, if 
not hypocritical. What happened to ?multiple models?? None of you appear to be sensitive 
to the fact that this is not an effective way to promote his ideas among skeptics. His 
ideas are difficult enough to grasp even among his sympathizers.

So I?m using your responses to Von Neumann?s model of a threshold of complexity as just 
one example of how not to promote one?s own models. I could give more. Von Neumann?s 
model contains the essential genetic and metabolic functions that even Bob considered 
necessary for life. Rosen: ?I think anything that we would want to call alive would have 
to have at least these two basic functions: the function of metabolism and what I call 
the genetic function.? Von Neumann?s model contains these and much more.

Unlike the grandiose claims of Rosen disciples, like ?reformulating the foundations of 
science, itself,? von Neumann?s claims were very modest (?vague, unscientific, and 
imperfect,? vonN-B p. 78). A more reasonable hope for Bob?s ideas would be to 
?complement? von Neumann?s.

So how do Rosen disciples respond? Do you really try to understand von Neumann?s model? 
Do you know what questions it answers? Do you see why it might complement Rosen?s ideas 
and why it contributes to understanding life? No. Instead you merely call it names with 
non-specific words like ?not legitimate? or not the ?right? model, or it?s an ?improper? 
model, or that von Neumann doesn?t use the ?correct? definition of complexity, etc., etc. 
Bob used even stronger words like ?invalid? and ?equivocation.?

The fact is that von Neumann explains, broadly but correctly, why real cells are 
organized the way they are, and why unique, emergent, novel complexity evolves in living 
systems and does not occur in non-living systems. Furthermore, his discussion has 
stimulated thousands of papers and three new and active major fields of study, artificial 
life, biosemiotics, and even complexity theory, itself. Nothing in von Neumann?s model 
challenges Bob?s work. In fact one could use von Neumann?s logic to support Bob?s claim 
that physical laws are inadequate for models of life. At the least it complements Bob?s 
ideas.

You seem to have inherited Bob?s own intemperate wording like calling physics 
?impoverished? and biology a ?disaster.? Even as hyperbole this is embarrassing at best 
and arrogant at worst. Also, your constant dismissal of useful models simply because they 
are ?reductionistic? without regard to the specific questions they usefully address turns 
everyone off.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a model by virtue of its being reductionist. From 
genes to brains, life depends on reductionist models. That is not the test of a good 
model. No one claims completeness for any model, and there are always improvements; but 
such blanket dismissal of other?s models just because they are ?inequivalent? to Bob?s or 
don?t use his definitions is no way to persuade doubters to pay attention to Bob?s ideas.

Well, that?s enough. I hope you see my point. Here is a more positive suggestion: Why 
don?t you focus on constructing what you think are Rosen-acceptable models? What explicit 
questions about life do you want to answer that are not answered by other models? If von 
Neumann?s or anyone?s model does not answer your question, fine. Don?t waste time calling 
it names. Instead, work on a complementary model that answers your own question.

Awaiting your response,

Howard

PS: Sorry, I?ll be out of touch for a few days. (I?m not going away angry. I?m just going 
away busy.)