Re: Could you give me your analysis of this?

[Judith Rosen <***>]

I think Science ought to be as concerned as Medicine when it comes to
"altering" words, without altering sources. Nobody likes to be
misrepresented and in certain circumstances it can be dangerous. It's one
thing to say "I interpret Rosen this way..." and another to say "Rosen
believed..." If someone writes "Rosen believed..." and expresses ideas that
are not what Rosen actually believed, and that isn't challenged, then people
will assume that the expressed view is accurate. In your situation, you have
a university course going on, where people are trying to learn what "Rosen
believed". I respect Steve K. and I think he's a smart man, but I don't
believe he was accurate in his representation of what "Rosen believed". If
he had phrased it as "I interpret Rosen this way..." I would have no issue
with it. It really does matter that interpretations be labeled as such and
representations be accurate.

On to other questions:

Necessary conditions are much easier to figure out than sufficient ones. How
many of the necessary conditions are sufficient for life? How do we know if
we have figured them all out? The "If and only if" statement is a statement
about one of the necessary conditions he had discerned in order for a system
to be considered alive. But by itself, it's not sufficient-- that was the
refinement.

"Closed to efficient causation" means that everything about the system that
involves "efficient cause" is entailed by something else about the system.
It means that there is no one outside the system actively creating the
"effecient cause" aspects of the system-- the system is self-sustaining.
There are four "categories" of causation. The categories describe different
types of entailment. All complex systems manifest closed loops of
entailment; this is one of the definitions of complex organization. That
doesn't necessarily mean closed to one whole category of entailment, the way
organisms are closed to efficient cause. It certainly doesn't mean "closed"
in general; quite the opposite. With organisms  for example (which are both
complex AND alive) metabolism and repair implies taking in raw material from
the environment and using it for internal processes. Indeed, between
metabolism and repair, organisms replace "the particulate matter" in their
organization at regular cyclical intervals (in the human body, my father
figured it was about every six to eight weeks), yet the organization
remains. We are still ourselves, in spite of this regular "particle change",
with the same memories, etc... So, to clarify: organisms are open systems
which have an organization which is closed to effecient causation.

 Atoms (which are complex but not alive) are not "closed systems", either.
Atoms give and take electrons all the time as they interact with one
another, etc., but still maintain their organizational stability. So closed
systems are very different from systems with closed loops of entailment in
their organization.

I hope that clarifies? Let me know...

Judith
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Kineman" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Could you give me your analysis of this?


> On the sufficient or necessary question regarding efficient causation, I
> personally think too much has been made of it. Politicians are more
> interested in whether someone has altered a view than scientists should
be.
> Indeed it would be suspect as science if there were no evolution of ideas.
> Also, "closed" should be interpreted scientifically too. As such it must
be
> interpreted as meaning "relatively closed." If a biologist says organisms
> can be distinguished from their environments, the statement does not
> necessarily mean they are absolutely distinct. Measurable differences are
> just that, measurable differences, not absolutes. So, organisms have
> efficient closure as one of their defining characteristics, and that is a
> requirement for being an organism (the meaning of if and only if). I
> disagree that "only if" means sufficiency, i.e., nothing else required. I
> believe the phrase "if and only if" only establishes necessity. It says
> that the condition implies organism and not the condition implies not the
> organism. That is necessity, not sufficiency. Nevertheless, the fact that
> this was not clarified until later indicates an evolution of the ideas, to
> me. Beyond that, however, "closure" itself cannot be taken as an absolute.
> There are no absolutely closed systems in nature or else Rosen's entire
> thesis would be falsified.
>
> JK
>
>