Re: Judith's challenge #1

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Tim,
Let me clear up a few of your initial points. I think the rest of your posting is very 
valuable for the discussion.

TIM: I consider your charge that Rosen "falsely accused von Neumann" and insinuating that 
he was acting unethically a grotesque and absurd personal attack.

HP: My statement the Bob ?falsely accused von Neumann? can indeed imply an intentional 
act that it obviously was not. I apologize for the implication. "Incorrect" is better.

TIM: You say that "the science of the matter is not the issue", but for an accusation to 
be false it must be that it indeed claims something that is not the case. You cannot 
divorce the scientific truth or falsity of his ideas from the ethics charge.

HP: That is definitely not the case here. It is not a matter of science if you say, 
?Howard confounds matter and symbols? when in fact I have written extensively showing how 
they must be distinguished. This is not a matter of science; it is just a matter of not 
reading or comprehending what I wrote. This is all I am saying about Bob?s statements 
like, ?Von Neumann confounds simulation (computation) with construction.? Von Neumann was 
known for clearly formulating this and similar epistemic distinctions and there is no 
evidence that he ever confounded them.

TIM: There are several specific and distinct topics that I am aware of where Rosen makes 
claims about concepts that were related to ideas generated by von Neumann.  However, 
these topics do not affect only ideas emanating from von Neumann, as though he we were a 
singular target. You seem to be conflating these topics such that it appears that Rosen 
made a "repetition of essentially the same charge for over 40 years."

HP: Here are only three of Bob?s many quotes over the years. You may judge if the charge 
is repetitive or not.

?Indeed, in addition to invalidating von Neumann?s specific argument, we learn that great 
care must be exercised in general when arguing from purely logical models (i.e., from 
models pertaining to efficient cause) to any kind of physical realization, such as 
developmental or evolutionary biology (which, as noted, pertain to material cause.)? 
(Anticipatory Systems, p. 419).

?John von Neumann?s well-known discussion of the self reproducing automaton is based on a 
similar equivocation. Specifically, he argued that Turing?s demonstration of the 
existence of a universal computer (a mathematical machine) implied the existence of a 
?universal constructor.? He thought of the latter, apparently, as a material device; his 
argument was that construction (i.e., the execution of a blueprint) was no less an 
algorithmic process than computation (i.e., the execution of a program); hence whatever 
was true of the latter was equally true of the former.? (Causal structures in brains and 
machines, Int. J. General Systems, 12, 107-126, 1986)

?I remark parenthetically that the confounding of simulation (computation) with 
construction, which lies at the heart of, e.g., von Neumann?s well-known discussion of 
?self-reproducing automata? arises precisely here and rests entirely on the equivocal and 
inconsistent harware/software distinctions to which I have just called attention.? (Life 
Itself,  p. 234)

All I am claiming, and what I will show by direct quotes, is that Bob?s statements about 
von Neumann?s not distinguishing simulation and construction (or software and hardware, 
physical laws and syntactic rules, matter and symbols, the two sides of the epistemic 
cut, etc.)  were not fair. I repeat, this is not a judgment about von Neumann?s models, 
it is about correctly reporting what a man says.

Misinterpretation is a common mistake. What makes it worse than a mistake is repeating 
the charge indefinitely without at least acknowledging evidence to the contrary or even 
responding to friendly critics.

It is clear from Judith?s and your responses that any perceived misinterpretation of 
Bob?s work requires an immediate and vehement attempt at correction. Why do you so 
strongly deny von Neumann the same attempt?

Howard