Re: Howard's challenge

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Dan's passionately pro-environment stance actually echoes my own feelings
pretty completely. I find it interesting (and gratifying) that Dan sees a
much better scientific basis in my father's work, from that point of view,
than in the accumulated achievements of the current paradigm. My father was,
of course, aware of my strong environmental protection slant and our
discussions on the subject often led to some very constructive work by both
of us. His attitude was more moderate than mine in that he was purely
interested in the scientific truth underlying the biosphere (whereas I, by
comparison, was motivated more by my sense of justice and balance and plain
common sense-- and was therefore really angry at the lack of all three in
what I have been seeing!)

This statement of Howard's, which Dan responded to, is an interesting
flashpoint for discussion:
> > There is nothing inherently wrong with a model by virtue
> > of its being reductionist.

That totally depends on how one evaluates "wrong". My father would agree
that there is nothing inherently wrong with a reductionistic model IF one is
using it to model a simple system, or IF one is not needing much accuracy in
modelling a complex system, or IF one is not doing science. Otherwise, in
any other situation there really IS something inherently wrong with a
reductionistic model-- It is incomplete, and is derived from an incomplete
explanation of reality. Therefore, it doesn't reflect reality; only a tiny
piece of reality. The information a reductionistic model provides, when used
to model complex systems, will be quite different from what the system
itself is doing or "saying". If you know that going in, and proceed from a
knowledge about how the model is deficient, then all use of the information
the model generates will be tempered with that knowlege and some measure of
safety will be achieved. If, however, you ignore or are ignorant of the
deficiencies of the model, and act based on information the model is
generating, then you are going to have side effects of some sort. This is
exactly what has been happening, and the side effects are way past scary, as
far as I'm concerned.

Ultimately, my father ended up coming to most of the same conclusions that I
was arriving at, although he got there via science and I got there via
common sense.

Judith

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Fiscus" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Howard's challenge


> 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/