|
Tim is correct in his analysis, however there is one language issue
that always confuses me, so I thought perhaps I'd point it out. The word
"physical" has two equally logical potential meanings in this
sentence:
Tim Gwinn wrote: I don't think of Rosen as "more of a Platonist" because he
focused on system
organization. I think his argument was quite the opposite:
that organization
was as physical as anything else, and therefore models of
organization were
valid models, and belonged to an expanded view of
physics.
Except one of them would be wrong. Time clearly meant the other
one, which makes his statement consistent with my father's view. One synonym of
"physical" is "material". The other is an extension of the word "physics" and
the synonym is "physics-based".
It would be more accurate to say that my father's contention was
that organization is as scientific a concept as those that physics embraces, and
ought to be part of physics.
Judith
PS: The term PhD stands for Physical Doctor, whereas MD stands for
Medical Doctor. When I first learned that, my response was "What's the
difference? Medical doctors do physicals..."
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:46
AM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Operational
Closure
Howard,
I don't think of Rosen as "more of a Platonist"
because he focused on system
organization. I think his argument was quite
the opposite: that organization
was as physical as anything else, and
therefore models of organization were
valid models, and belonged to an
expanded view of physics.
I agree that Rosen's relational models of
organisms (e.g., the (M,R)-system
models), which represent but one possible
application of relational
modeling, do not address individuation,
populations, or evolution. That is
not the intent of those specific models.
They are intended to answer a
primarily taxonomic question: why is one
system X alive (i.e., a living
organism) while another system Y is
non-living? Things like evolution,
individuation, populations all
presuppose the life/non-life distinction has
already been made and are
therefore not answers to that question.
Regards,
Tim
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum
[mailto:*** Behalf Of Howard
> Pattee
>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:11 PM
> To: ***
>
Subject: Re: Operational Closure
>
>
> Steve, Tim, and
Judith,
>
> In my opinion, Rosen’s “closed to
efficient
> causation” and Varela’s
“operational
> closure” refer to different models of
life. As I have
> pointed before, Rosen’s relational view of
life was
> essentially timeless or synchronic. Relational biology
models
> focus on abstract forms, not molecular structures. In this
sense,
> Rosen was more of a Platonist than a Materialist. That is why
at
> a basic conceptual level he did not see physics as the best
>
language to talk about life. That is also why Rosen’s
> models
did not address the problem of individuation or how
> populations of
individual organisms behave, as Tim pointed out.
> Relational models do
not view creative evolution as central to
> life, because evolution
depends on the statistics of populations,
> and neither statistics nor
populations are addressed in
> relational
models.
>
--snip--
>
>
Howard
>
>
>
>
|