Re: Howard's challenge

[Kevin de Laplante <***>]

Howard has expressed a view here that in general terms I share.  I think
it's worth serious consideration.


Kevin



----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Pattee" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:49 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN Ways of defining Rosennean Complexity


> 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.)
>