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....