|
Judith,
I was hoping to read a brief definition of RR's
"complexity" and
"life" - which latter just goes on and on in
both your and RR's texts.
I quote from your: Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 1:08 PM
Subject: Re: machine, organism, life
SNIP... ... ...
Incidentally, it is not accurate to say my father
"rigidly identifies life with cells or organisms" because he was actually
identifying life with complexity (i.e. with the effect that complex organization
has on a system) and the systems which exhibit the type of complexity that cause
life were what he called "organisms".
read: identifying life with
complexity vs. complexity that cause life
and ...effect has on a system ...and the system [itself]...
You rejected such logics in your quote:
To use genetics as any part of origin-of-life arguments
is to take an
incomplete piece of the epistemology of current life and try to understand origin of life from it. The concepts are multimeaningual, depending on one's choice. RR uses
'complex' and
"system" in various contexts and so do we all.
I got a tacit acceptance when I deemed a system a reductionist limited
model, with all its characteristics cut to topic, restricted to the 'purpose'
the system serves. I asked several times whether my use of (RR's) 'natural
system' is acceptable as the (limited) system boundaries extended ad infinitum
with all the connectivities of the wholeness - I did not receive any remark, and
now, in your post, there is a hint of 'natural system' referring to
machines in a broader view.
Before you write "according to Rosennean Complexity Theory" I expect to
know in brief and not in pages and pages in books - what this 'theory' sais as a
definition about the
specific 'complexity' of RR?
Life??? origin of it?? how far would you go not to be exposed to one step
further which is still inseparable from the context? Viruses? Polymer-clay
conglomerates with SOME capability of reproduction? Or include the 'life' of
galaxies? of the universe?
Then there is 'ecosystem'??? restricted to ECOlogy or including ECOnomy?
(physical system of course, when all what physics says about 'least energy
consumption' comes to mind? )
Talk is cheap when one does not define exactly the meanings. Discussion is
only fruitful if
the discutants agree in such meaning in their arguments. Strawmanship is
bad, but a divergent strawmanship is obnoxious.
So I ask again:
what is an acceptable DEFINITION of "Rosennean Complexity" - and such
"theory"?
what is an acceptable DEFINITION of "Rosennean LIFE" - and
"ECOSYSTEM"?
And please, save me the pages-long exhortations. Short, to-the-point
definitions, only -
please - if possible, in plain, common sense language. No formulae. If
somebody understands, then also can define it understandably. (Pedagogical
groundrule).
John Mikes
|