Re: models, sensory perception

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Tim,
I agree, partly. Complexity is everywhere. But one of Rosen's indication of complexity is 
the necessity for complementary models. The concept of complexity itself also requires 
complementary concepts. There is a large active field of complexity theorists. Physicists 
have their definitions too. What I meant was that Rosen's concept of complexity need not 
be considered as antithetical to these other views. In my view, arguing agaist 
complementary views is an unnecessary waste of effort.

Howard

Howard


 > As I
> > said earlier, introducing relational concepts into the biological
> > community is enough of a problem without antagonizing physicists.
> > Leave out the umbrella complaints about physics. What Rosen
> > modelers should work on are biological models based on his
> > relational principles that have good observables that can define states.
>
> Rosennean complexity may appear most prominently in biological systems, but
> it is certainly not limited to the living. This complexity is pervasive
> among systems generally. So, I strongly disagree with the suggestion that
> modeling activities based around Rosennean complexity "should" be somehow
> confined to making only biological models, and leaving physics alone. That,
> to me, is antithetical to the entire notion of Rosennean complexity.
>
> Tim
>