There is one saying in my native language (turkish) which expresses
well his/yours particular ability/talent/curse, I would say it is used for very
intelligent/sharp, therefore so called complicated persons, perhaps like many of
us, still surviving, in this list, that is: " forty foxes continously
and smoothly travel within his/her mind never tangling their
tails".
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 5:14
PM
Subject: On Robert Rosen's
travels...
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....