|
One of the stories my father had from his travels had to do with
the fallout from Chernobyl. For ten years, my father was invited to a set of
meetings held every year in Abisko Sweden. (I went with him on the final trip in
that span). He loved going to Sweden and had found various hotels he preferred
and even specific things on menus at restaurants he looked forward to all year
until the next trip. On the trip following the Chernobyl nuclear
disaster, his favorite morel mushroom soup at the hotel restaurant in Stockholm
was not available. The reason, when he inquired about it, was that the mushrooms
had absorbed too much radioactivity and were not fit to eat. However, the
following year, the soup was back on the menu again. He asked whether they had
found an alternate source for the mushrooms and was told, No-- these were from
the usual sources. Knowing something about the half-life of the type of
radioactivity that Chernobyl had spilled into the environment, he was curious as
to how the mushrooms were able to be in compliance with the health guidelines
after only one season. The restaurant manager told him, "Oh, we just changed the
levels of radiation that are allowable, and now the mushrooms are perfectly
fine!"
This story came to mind because of a statement by Howard Pattee in
his post:
> Pattee wrote: "I also do not consider different definitions as a basic disagreement. Definitions are assessed by their usefulness in a particular context often by their communication value or in constructing specific models to answer specific questions. I agree that Rosen's definition of complexity is different from von Neumann's as well as Chaitin's and others, but I do not see them as inconsistent with each other. They are all useful for models that answer different questions." I find this statement extremely slippery. You "do not see them as
inconsistent with each other"... ?????????!
Please define "consistent/inconsistent".
In my mental dictionary... When scientific
definitions, which are purportedly describing actual properties
of reality, cannot co-exist IN reality, I define that as
being "inconsistent" and in my opinion, it means that one or both of those
scientific definitions is wrong. There is a danger in ignoring such
inconsistency. Models that are based on premises that are not accurately
reflecting a larger reality will only be useful in extremely marginal ways, and
at great cost over the long term (regardless of whether they have ever been
useful or not): By giving the impression that they "do" reflect reality, they
are then applied in myriad ways that they should not be-- ways outside
the marginal area where the inaccuracy of the premise does no immediate harm.
This is exactly the situation that is happening currently, everywhere I
look at human activities, and was also the situation that my
father was speaking to. This is not some philosophical issue that exists only in
human minds where their opinions are (nominally) located. This is an issue
that is directly affecting every living organism on this planet. Why did
Chernobyl explode? My diagnosis: They were using reductionistic models for a
COMPLEX process. It was a "side effect".
When a physician prescribes a therapy for MY child using
a reductionistic model based on a premise that living systems CAN be reduced to
parts and particles, I have a big problem with that. If the model were based on
a more accurate premise, it will still be incomplete (as all single models or
groups of models of a living system will be), but it will be far less likely to
make the egregious mistakes that come from studying and modeling such
systems (or subsystems, or parts of subsystems...) in a vacuum, divorced
from all organizational contexts. In fact, I think it would be completely
accurate to say that medical reductionism killed my father. It was, by far, the
main culprit.
Everything is connected, in Rosennean Complexity. Even "a vacuum"
(defined here as "a deliberate absence of any immediate context") is connected;
it has a causal "past" and "future" that are, as part of a human "scientific"
exercise, COMPLEX.
I have one or two other comments on H. Pattee's
post:
> H. Pattee wrote: "Rosen's paper, "Causal structures in brains and
machines" in J. General Systems, 12, 107-126, 1986 is the best discussion I know
of the physics of this type of genetic program constraints. The big problem with
the paper is that he again misinterprets von Neumann and claims his model
"fails," "
It is my personal opinion that your word "misinterprets", as
applied here, is inaccurate. I believe that it reflects your personal opinion
rather than "truth". It is my further personal opinion, after doing some
research on this issue, that my father was correct and that you refuse
to see the "truth" about Von Neumann, for your own personal reasons, which I
cannot fathom.
Just thought I'd balance the list a little, since balance is one of
my main preoccupations in life. I suggest we call the Von Neumann issue "a draw"
and I cordially ask that any future statements you make about
Robert Rosen's "misinterpretation" on this subject, be preceded with the words;
"in my personal opinion". Thanks.
> H. Pattee wrote: "I also agree with Rosen that biologists are
the worst case of classical thinking, but with significant exceptions. "
My father never singled out any particular group for derision,
unless it was part of the context of a conversation, or book, or course
lecture, etc. In other words, taken out of context the _expression_ of opinion--
as related above-- appears prejudicial. It reminds me of another story,
related to me by my father:
When he was traveling in Eastern Europe, before the fall of "the
Iron Curtain", My father spent a lot of time in East Germany. Because
he was fluent in the language, he had many deep conversations with people that
would not have been possible otherwise. Bear in mind, he was a Jewish man,
albeit a non-practicing one, and this fact was known to the people he was
conversing with. One fellow asked, "How do they look upon us.... out there?" He
was worried that East Germany was universally hated by the world, because the
USSR deliberately planted that notion and allowed no information to the contrary
to enter the country-- as punishment for Hitler's invasion of Russia. My father
reassured this man that the rest of the world had generally become far more
balanced in both view and attitude towards all of the "axis" countries. This man
thanked him, obviously relieved, and then reciprocated: "Tell Israel... not
to spread itself too thin. That was our mistake." My father found that whole
discussion deeply profound (as well as profoundly amusing), and ended it by
quoting a line from a movie that represented his true feelings: (said with
a thick German accent) "Some of my best friends are Germans." It was quite true.
In fact, on a trip to Tubingen, Germany, with my father I was privileged to get
to know one of his favorites; Otto Rossler, personally. The point of the story
is that there is always another side, another perspective, and another opinion.
In Robert Rosen's case, he could hold them all simultaneously. His was a
very complicated mind, where multiple points of view about the same thing could
be generated and held, even when many of those points of view conflicted with
each other. How do I know? I inherited that particular ability/talent/curse.We
had many a discussion about it.
Judith Rosen
PS: Possible "over-share": The notion of "political correctness",
which has lately been brought up rather frequently in various aspects of my
life, been provoking a truly massive proliferation of mutiple points of
view in this Rosen's mind....
|