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".
I thought a little bit of humor will help to tackle my arduous work
at home.--
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....