Re: [ROSEN Ways of defining Rosennean Complexity

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Howard,

1) Since I created this list to be about Rosen's writings and ideas, this list will not be one that shrinks from the tenor of language that Rosen himself used. We can certainly discuss ways to present those ideas to others beyond this list in a way that would be more palatable and persuasive to them, but discourse within this list will not and cannot be so limited if it is to discuss these ideas fully.

2) I strongly feel you have engaged in willful mischaracterization of other listmember's posts in your accusation:

> "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."

In searching back over the recent posts, I find the following:

• "Not legitimate" as a phrase does not appear in any posts I can find. Instead, the terms "legitimate" and "right" occur in a post on 3/23 by JohnK in response to you. He says:
• "So, Howard, please don't get the idea that I'm on a campaign here against the Von Neumann view, but I think there is a legitimate question as to whether the assumptions involved in that view are the right ones for understanding life."

• The term "improper" I used in a post on 3/24:
• "Judith's and JohnK's comments reminded me of another central reason that
  "threshold" is an improper term to apply to the distinction between 'simple'
  and 'complex'. It is that 'threshold' implies an intrinsic objective
  property of material reality, whereas Rosennean complexity involves the
  irreducible interaction between subjective and objective"

•  As for "correct", I cannot find a post that uses the word "correct" in any connection with concepts of von Neumann's, including his definition of complexity.

JohnK was posing a question and I was discussing Rosennean complexity. None of these constitute name-calling of "von Neumann's model", and I find it very hard to believe that you simply misunderstood the posts. I understand the general tone of what you were saying, but I find your specific accusation to be highly inappropriate.

 

 

3) Either von Neumann's work (which, as Judith pointed out, you originally brought up) has some relevancy to Rosennean concepts or it does not.  You make some assertions in your comments below and previous posts that it does. Then those aspects are certainly worth exploring and questioning. 

But you cannot have it both ways: you cannot simply assert on the list that von Neumann's ideas are relevant and even complementary to Rosen's, and at the same time argue that that we should not "find fault" with von Neumann because it is bad for Rosen's legacy. Either von Neumann's work have some value to us can be discussed critically (including Rosen's criticisms of von Neumann) here or assertions about his work have no place here. 

 

Regards,

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:***]On Behalf Of Howard
> Pattee
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:50 AM
> To: ***
> 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.)