Re: Anyone up to a Rosennean challenge?

[Ayten Aydin <***>]

Dear Jamie,

I find your contribution very mature and constructive in furthering the
natural holistic thinking and in this connection the work of Robert Rosen,
certainly also that of others who made and are still making efforts towards
the common goal.

Inspired by your words below - addressed to judith:

'So the goal's scope of predictiveness needs a re-directed shape, Judith.
You have to think in new directions and new qualia and new criteria.

The nature of prediction has to mature and morph.  If the grand scale of
holism is to be handled -- to the point of being all inclusive even
of old-form models now out of vogue -- then you have to image a whole
different class of predictions.  Ones that fit RR's standards."

and especially the last phrase in mind, I wonder if you could formulate your
ideas and possible key directions in this respect, in the form of a paper to
be included in the Journal programmed to be issued in mid-January, even the
time is too short ? Unless you are short of time now,  I am sure your
baggage of ideas, I believe, already self-organized will not require much
time to help you to produce a paper, to sustain the efforts of all of us
taking the RR's ideas as the springing board to find our ways in effectively
moving within our own complex systems.

If not I would like you to expand on your points on "new directions and new
qualia and new criteria" in this list.

All the best for the new year
Ayten


----- Original Message -----
From: "James N Rose" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: Anyone up to a Rosennean challenge?


> Hi Judith,
>
> I haven't been doing much writing in quite a while but would
> like to step from my hibernation to get in this conversation
> if it's alright.
>
> > Judith Rosen wrote:
> >
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > One of my father's main tenets was that the physics-based models don't
> > accurately describe even the systems they were created to describe.
>
> Sometimes, minds and thoughts are constrained to the experiences
> they have had and the patterns they inure to.  The concept beneath
> your 'challenge' asks the question of whether your father's insights
> are up to the task of besting the existing criteria of science ..
> the capacity to extrapolate and predict .. to specify an example in
> event-space that was unconsidered before .. or not.
>
> He confronted the weaknesses and deficiencies of 'modeling science'
> but can his ideas not just stand as anarchy, but be even-handed
> and even-minded enough to laud and surpass 'modeling science's
> best notable quality: .. the capacity to predict ..?
>
> And then more recently, you ask if its possible to find words within
> the exiting languaging of science, to get the job done.
>
> :-)
>
> Quite an effort .. on all counts.
>
> But what is it you want to achieve?  To find an alternative way to
> phrase entailment and relational causality into conventional vernacular?
> Would that help Rosennean complexity achieve acceptibility? Or do
> you see something that your Dad didn't appreciate about his own work?
>
> To stand on a mountain peak and talk about a far reality that
> friends waiting in the valley beneath can't see, let alone
> verbalize is one thing.  To additionally chart a path through
> the novel territory so that everyone can arrive at that
> far place together and appreciate the wholeness of not
> just the original vision, but to live and know the reality/ies of
> getting around and among the perceptions, back and forth, and
> bathe in the appreciation of all the views and each of their
> respective values and realities .. is something else.
>
> Does a system, any system .. in its most pure nascent stages ..
> 'know' its eventual capacities?  Is a seed privy to the achievement
> 'tree-hood' .. or hold within itself the eventual quality of what
> it is to behave as a tree in a windstorm or within an ecology?
>
> Does a pen .. in the words of a modern songtress from India ..
> 'Know what is exciting, what is writing, on a page?"?
>
> Can a predicative science statement be generated from the
> observed notion of a process at once identifiable as 'entailment'?
>
> :-)
>
> RR took a class-vision, a paradigm of percepts, and identified new
> aspects, alternate aspects.  The importance of those aspects can't
> be diminished because they didn't conform to the testing criteria
> of the previous standards that were/are in use and which remain
> in juxtaposition to his new-thoughts.
>
> But if you want to say he had the seeds of paradigms coordination
> in his writings, and that you will give them voice, then you have
> to show he knew that his system had that eventual/inventive capacity
> and that he was moving there himself.
>
> If you can't then you just might have to admit that a piece
> of the puzzle eluded even RR at his highest genius.  Again, not
> detracting his achievement, but using his very own standards
> to show a country yet awaiting fulfillment.
>
> Any word - voiced - , any notion - expressed - , precludes the scope
> of possibilities that existed in the image of possibilities that
> were/are present in the time -before- instantiation and coming-into-being.
>
> Once you 'prove' and bring into existence a child from noosperm cells
> conjoining, how do you 'predict' all the other lives and personalities
> that were precluded by that one life 'becoming'?
>
> Yet you know - from hard scientific realism - that the scope of that
> option-space, that all those other persons/personalities were/are
> part of the 'natural holistic and vast' system of being that RR
> and others now appreciate as the true 'complexity' of being.
>
> So the goal's scope of predictiveness needs a re-directed shape, Judith.
> You have to think in new directions and new qualia and new criteria.
>
> The nature of prediction has to mature and morph.  If the grand scale of
> holism is to be handled -- to the point of being all inclusive even
> of old-form models now out of vogue -- then you have to image a whole
> different class of predictions.  Ones that fit RR's standards.  :-)
>
> Jamie
>
>