Re: Mathematics in biology

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Ayten,

My understanding of what you are describing is that "physical/analytical"
means experimental/reductionistic science and "mental/imaginary,
subtle/intuitional, causal" refers to theoretical science, where mind,
imagination, intuition, and all other human mental talents can be brought to
bear on solving a problem first, before experimental work starts.

If that's what you mean, then that's also exactly how my father believed
science works best. He felt that both the theoretical and the experimental
sides of science were needed to complement one another. However, he felt
that experimental science without good theoretical underpinnings is an
exercise in, at best; trial and error and, at worst; a waste of time, money,
and possibly even life.

Judith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ayten Aydin" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Mathematics in biology


> Judith,
> Further to my previous comment, to avoid misinterpration of my phrase
> "higher level criteria is to be aplied to a higher level field" I would
like
> to clarify that I mean specifically for our case: " the proof for theories
> within the complexity field cannot be looked for within the
> physical/analytical realm but within others commensurate with the
complexity
> field - already one step higher- level or looked for within even higher,
> such as mental/imaginary, subtle/intuitional, causal etc realms.
> Ayten
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 3:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Mathematics in biology
>
>
> > Hi Ayten,
> >  I think the following quote of yours is an amazing one:
> >
> >  "All of the mineral world is in a plant, but not vice-versa and so on."
> >
> > I think that perspective speaks to the notion of Complexity. However,
the
> > following is more confusing to me:
> >
> > > Ayten Aydin wrote: "Based on the above, I am wondering whether some of
> the
> > difficulties in grasping Rosennean ideas have been and may  still be
> arising
> > from a perception and/or a category error emerging from the application
of
> > lower level knowledge/understanding/consciousness to a higher plane, i.e
> > physical/matterialistic/nonliving system principles to those of living
> > systems - while mathematics could help any level with its wide spectrum
> > covering all levels, and the living system experiences may enhance and
> > upgrade the knowledge and perception concerning non-living
world/physical
> > plane,  not vice-versa ??"
> >
> > Here's how I'm reading that paragraph: That the trouble some people are
> > having with understanding Rosennean ideas comes from the application of
a
> > reductionist perspective on things that do not yield to approaches based
> on
> > that perspective because the perspective itself comes from experience
> > dealing with simpler systems. And that mathematics helps in both realms.
> And
> > that a perspective coming from complex systems will "enhance and
upgrade"
> > science dealing with simple systems as well.
> >
> > Does it sound like I'm getting what you mean? If not, could you please
> > elaborate on your ideas for me?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Judith
> >