Re: Howard's challenge

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

Quoting Kevin de Laplante <***>:

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


Kevin and Howard,

Some good points here and a healthy challenge.
I will agree with the general recommendation to
get beyond criticism of von Neumann and the
mechanist/reductionist/computationalist view,
but I also have a some major disagreement with
some of Howard's points and on what angle to
adopt as we attempt to be "more positive" - see
below.

Howard in > quotes after

> 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.

I think this would be a good place to start with the complementary
modeling. I would not think von Neumann's treatment in any way
to finally, completely or self-sufficiently "contain" metabolism and
genetic functions. I'd recommend we try to clarify how these two
could be seen, modeled, interacted with in terms of being
unfractionable as part of a single life function. For ex., I think
we could attempt to model how they co-arose at the origin of life.

> 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.

This is OK, except for the fact that von Neumann is/was part of
the mono-model that is the mechanistic/reductionist worldview
that has brought humanity and all life on earth to the brink of
self-destruction, and so I think reformulating the foundations of
this specific science that has brought us global, systemic,
environmental dysfunctional of the greatest variety and danger
from global climate change and damage to the ozone whole to
accumulating toxins in human breast milk is a worthy goal and
worth stating explicitly, if as again agreed more tactfully than we
have been doing so as not to sound too arrogant as we try to
deal with all the damage of those humble servants of mankind,
the mechanical reductionists. (oops, sorry...I am angry)

Here's why I feel I can say with confidence that this mono-model
of life and everything as computable machine has directly caused
this state of global ecological disaster. Each and every time this
mono-model is invoked (and it really is just one model with many
variations) the goal is local control of some cause-effect relation
or network of relations for the purpose of solving a local problem
or need 1) directly and 2) without any consideration of the
indirect, non-local and integrated side-effects that may ripple out
and accumulate at the global and systemic level. These
side-effects are "externalized" in the same process that is used
to create a fictional, artificial "control volume" around the isolated
subset of reality being modeled for the purpose of prediction and
control. Each time a local, direct problem is solved this way, there
is more or less, but always some amount of, residue or negative
side-effect that is ignored, exported into the world and left for
others "downstream" in space or time to worry about. These
side-effects and the problems they offload onto innocent others
are not valued by reductionist/mechanist science, and this is
one of the main ways that this form of science is exposed as the
value-laded enterprise that it really is, despite claims to the
contrary.

The antidote is to *require* that this form of science - one that
when enacted alone as a single, universalizing mono-model in
many forms and variations becomes pathological and destroys
life and knowledge more than it helps to understand, celebrate
or build it - be enacted *always* with a complement like that
Rosen developed that is complex and has explicit valuation of
unfractionability. Together these two may enable some truly
useful hybrid by which local solutions can also lead to global
and systemic health of the biosphere. This may seem like a
contradiction, that the "tragedy of the commons" is to be
expected and is unavoidable. But such is only true when a
single model dominated by ideas such as competition, survival
of the fittest and a mechanistic mania for prediction-for-control
is allowed to rule unopposed and unbalanced by any constraint or
complement.

> 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.

I question this. Woese and others are now suggesting that
there was not any last universal common ancestor cell, but that
prior to life congealing into cellular form there may have been
a community of pre-cellular forms with genetic material that
was traded in a network of lateral exchanges. von Neumann
could not very well explain why cells are organized the way
they are if no one knows this yet. If metabolism and genetics
are not fractionable, then there may be a more basic process
that unifies both, and this in turn could suggest a very
different idea of why cells are. For instance one view which I
think fits with Rosens metabolism-repair model as an
unfractionable unity is that well before cells there were
cyclic processes akin to primary production and secondary
consumption that co-arose much like oxidation-reduction
reactions are inseparably coupled and were able to generate
complex molecules by iterating a unitary two-step cycle of
molecular string composition and decomposition. This would
have been able over time to generate metabolic and genetic
processes as specialized variations on this theme, both of
which still retain these same sub-functions of molecular
string assembly and disassembly, and these are still
unfractioned. HT Odum proposed this ecosystemic origin of
life in 1971.

> Also, your constant dismissal of useful models simply
> because they are "reductionistic" without regard to the
> specific questions they usefully address turns everyone
> off.

Again I will agree to try to tone it down, but in the process
of an emerging oppressed minority gaining its strength
and gaining its voice, sometimes anger and angry words
can be part of an important rallying process. I think we
should try to move on. It would help I think if some of the
old guard, establishment reductionist/mechanist camp
could return the favor by acknowledging the shortcomings
and major global problems that their model and science
have caused. This is one of the major lacking things
which to me is as much responsible for continued angst
in circles like this list - the reductionist/mechanists are
well-entrenched, not seeing any problems, not asking for
any help, not making any apologies, don't see any need
for synthesis or conflict resolution with holists, etc.. They
seem content to fiddle on while Earth burns. Maybe all
our angry words are good for raising some hell. I'd rather
be raising hell actively this way than passively going there
in a planetary bucket.

> There is nothing inherently wrong with a model by virtue
> of its being reductionist.

If that model is used alone, it is wrong in that it leads to
exported problems to be solved by others. It is unjust,
unfair and elitist. It is all about exploitation of some
local gradient with total disregard of global or other
elsewhere local negative side-effects. From chlorofluorocarbons
to DDT to gas powered cars to coal fired powerplants,
etc. etc. ad infinitum, a reductionist model left unchecked
is wrong for the health and development and equity of
life on earth treated as an integral whole.

Only if a reductionist/mechanist model is balanced by
a complex/holistic complement can it claim some kind
of neutrality or break even account balance.

> From genes to brains, life depends on reductionist
> models.

I would disagree. I think life's models are qualitatively
different than human reductionist/mechanist models.
Life's local models/solutions when integrated up to the
global scale have led to a "bounty of the commons" not a
tragedy. Things like an oxygenated atmosphere, soils,
biodiversity, fossil fuels, beauty, resilience, etc. etc.
help all life, make much more possible, enhance the
environment for future generations rather than
hobbling them with mountains of problems, toxins
everywhere, massively less biodiversity, massively
less fossil fuels. The promise of the reductionist
mechanist mono-model has yet to be achieved. In
the balance so far, it is more harm than good.

> 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.

That sounds "more positive", but it's simply not that
simple. The reductionist/mechanist mono-model that
von Neumann helped build and champion is not an
academic debate topic - it by itself, unchecked and
unbalanced and heavily subsidized is a pathology
that threatens us all. Rather than make nice with it
and all its proponents we have to tame the beast.
That model is now in power, and power never gave
up anything without a fight. In my final agreement
I will propose that the process to reverse the damage
done and being done by this universalizing and
epistemically imperialist perspective ought to be
done "non-violently", as Gandhi, ML King and
others did to topple other oppressive, entrenched
regimes that held power illegitimately. We can come
to equality - build up Rosen complexity and related
holist, organic, life-preserving worldviews to an
equal standing in emphasis, discourse, teaching,
research, funding, application, etc. - and we can
do this in a way that loves the reductionist/mechanist
mono-model and those who believe in it and practice
it. But we need to put an end to its stranglehold
over the world. Since those in power see no real
problem, do not even see that their establishment
entails a single model, or that it threatens "life
itself", we have to do this ourselves.

Still angry, but trying to move toward unconditional
love while also being honest about what I see going
on...

Dan





-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/