|
Steve Johnson wrote: Rosen is an incomparably more profound thinker
compared to most research at Santa Fe. The question that I have is why did he
never use his writing talent to write a popular exposition of his
ideas? His
writing is beautiful compared to any genre but for a scientist writing a science
book it's quite unparalleled.
Believe me, this lack of ambition to become famous used to
frustrate several members of my family-- a LOT. "Why don't you write a book for
the masses???" "Why don't you send copies of your books to the Nobel Committee
members???" Why don't you patent more of your application ideas???" There are
many reasons why he didn't. In order to understand them, you had to understand
HIM. David used to argue Dad's answers to the questions above, which
generally came out as some variation on "Because I have better things to do with
my time." In contrast, my question to Dad was; "Why don't you want
to?"
I don't know if he ever, as a very young man, had any desire
to become famous but he jettisoned that idea very quickly. By the time I began
asking my questions (sometime around the late-1960's), he had come to view fame
as a prison and an extreme loss of privacy. Vast wealth makes you and your
family a target. He mentioned the Lindbergh baby and J.Paul Getty Jr's
abduction. He also said that in order to achieve that kind of fame
deliberately, one has to engage in all sorts of activity that has nothing
whatsoever to do with the work. He said he knew people who started to care too
much about what other people were thinking about them; there was a tendency for
a priority shift such that the goal wasn't science, anymore. He found that both
sad and kind of pathetic. He used to advise me to do whatever I was going to do
for my own reasons and according to my own standards. That way lies
freedom and sanity. It also tends to preserve one's integrity, too. Fame can
become addictive, such that if you begin to feel that you're losing your "market
share" in some way, it can make you feel like a failure.
As he said in his autobiographical paper, he
also developed almost a superstitious reluctance to use his "gifts" for
personal gain. The few times he did, it led to such unpleasant politics
and upheaval with other people that he swore he wouldn't do THAT again.
But, ultimately, I think he was just doing what he had advised me to do: Setting
his own goals according to his own standard and concentrating on the work. That
way, his reward was more in the line of freedom to do as he needed and deep
personal satisfaction at achieving his own goals.
You have to bear in mind that his focus was set incredibly early in
life: he told me his earliest memory was of watching all the stubborn plants and
bugs that were making lives for themselves in Brownsville, Brooklyn, using every
opportunity to take root and grow, reclaiming empty lots, etc. He was
fascinated. So his interest and his pursuit of science began much earlier than
Howard's estimate. Dad had his own science laboratory while he was still in
elementary school. He told me he used to go wandering around Brooklyn on
"expeditions" to collect samples and specimens. I asked him why his mother would
let him do that all by himself. He said he didn't tell her what he was doing and
he didn't ask permission, he just did it. He was inordinately self-directed,
even then. He lived his life inside his mind.
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 2:34
AM
Subject: [ROSEN] Why did Rosen not
popularize?
As I was reading Howard's post about S. Kauffman's
having
more ambition than Rosen I remembered reading
his (SK's) "At Home in the
Universe". Rosen is an
incomparably more profound thinker compared to
most
research at Santa Fe.
The question that I have is why did he
never use his
writing talent to write a popular exposition of his
ideas?
His writing is beautiful compared to any genre
but for a scientist writing
a science book it's quite
unparalleled. Given that wrting came so easy to
him
why did he not follow Dawkings, Kaufman, and Gould to
write a
version accessible not only to a biologist but
to general public?
-
Steve
--- Howard Pattee <***>
wrote:
> At 11:23 AM 1/24/05 +0200, Ayten wrote:
>
[snip]
> >After having written these passages, I asked myself
>
the question of how
> >close Kauffmann and Rosen in their views on
this
> question of What is Life? I
> >also further asked myself
if the main actors of
> this list as Tim, John K,
> >and Judith
consider making a comparison of these
> two minds and show for
us
> >similarities and dissimilarities . . .
>
> HP: Here are some of my own comparisons between the
> minds of
Rosen and
> Stuart Kauffman. I have known them both personally
>
and professionally for
> many years. But first, since in the past Tim
and
> Judith have misinterpreted
> some of my critical opinions
as a personal attack, I
> must emphasize that
> any critical
comments are only my academic opinion
> and do not in any way
>
detract from my close personal friendship and high
> regard for them
both.
>
> John M's intuition is correct. Here are two
>
different types of scientific
> minds that start from different
backgrounds and work
> from divergent points
> of view, ending up
with completely different types
> of models. Kauffman
> began as
an MD but was attracted to experimental
> developmental biology.
> Then, largely because of a single computer program,
> and with
no significant
> mathematical background, he morphed into a
>
theoretical biologist focusing
> on self-organization, origin of life,
non-Darwinian
> evolution, and
> development.
>
>
Rosen began studying wet biology in high school, but
> his instincts and
> abilities were for mathematics rather than
> experimental
biology. After
> studying math and physics, it was largely because
of
> the influence of
> Rashevsky's relational models that he
finally found
> that his deepest
> interest was in how our
epistemology and our
> assumptions about scientific
> models
influence our concept of life. As members of
> this list know, his
> basic conclusion, developed as an analogy with the
> creative
open-ended
> "corpus of mathematics," was that (as in
>
mathematics) formal (computable,
> purely syntactic) models are too
"impoverished" to
> capture the creative
> open-ended novelties
of life.
>
> Kauffman's basic computer program (an elaboration
of
> previous work by Ashby
> and Walker in England) is
remarkable for three
> things, its simplicity, its
> initial
randomness, and the richness of the
> interpretations he gives its
> results. Kauffman originally discovered these
> computed
results entirely
> empirically and largely unexpectedly. The
basic
> model is a randomly
> connected network of random
(boolean function) nodes
> started with random
> initial
conditions -- i.e., maximum disorder. The
> discrete states of the
> network are just the current values of the nodes,
> and the
next state is
> completely deterministic (unless externally
>
mutated). The well-known (and
> now mathematically understood) result
for low
> connectivity is that the
> paths in the exponentially
enormous state-space
> follow transient paths
> collapsing into
relatively few, short, stable limit
> cycles. Higher
>
connectivities lead to a finite analog of chaotic
> dynamics.
>
> This behavior with various elaborations has been
> interpreted
by Kauffman in
> many ways: 1) as self-organization from
complete
> disorder, 2) as a first
> step in the origin of life,
3) as epigenetic
> canalization in development,
> 4) as the
self-organizing structures on which
> Darwinian natural selection
> can operate, but cannot override, and 5) by allowing
>
variation in
> connectivities and by coupling nets, a model of
>
meta-evolution where
> natural selection (coevolution) chooses the
"edge of
> chaos" as the most
> adaptive condition.
>
> It is fair to say that Rosen and Kauffman never
> formed more
than a civil
> relationship that is usual at professional
meetings.
> Kauffman has much more
> personal ambition than did
Rosen and achieved a
> notoriety that in my
> opinion (and
Rosen's and many others) is not
> justified by hard evidence
>
supporting his imposing claims for his models. Rosen
> saw the behavior
of
> random nets as an obvious example of the generic
> behavior
of discrete
> dynamical systems. He saw Kauffman's many
>
interpretations as simply
> illustrating that the same formalism can be
encoded
> any way you like.
>
> On the other hand, Kauffman
has suggested biological
> observables that would
> allow
empirical tests of his models. His books
> include biological evidence,
> and are written with conventional language that
> biologists
understand well
> enough to critically discuss. Kauffman
criticizes
> Rosen (as have I and
> others) for his imposing
claims written in a
> language that few biologists
> understand,
and that have as yet suggested no
> biological observables that
>
could allow a verifiable model.
>
> I don't think any of these
criticisms, while
> probably true, are
> scientifically relevant.
My current view is that
> Rosen and Kauffman are
> thinking on
different levels. Rosen's thinking is
> primarily on an epistemic
> model. One might call it a general principle that
> any
biological model must
> satisfy to answer a "Why?" type of question.
After
> all, the modeling
> relation itself is a model. It is
based on the Hertz
> condition that is not
> itself empirically
verified except that a model must
> satisfy it to give us
> the
answers we want. An analogy is the symmetry
> principles of
physical
> models. These principles are not empirically
>
testable. They are epistemic
> conditions we discover we must place on
empirical
> models to give us the
> types of explanation or
answer to the questions we
> ask.
>
> Kauffman, on the
other hand, has a simple computer
> simulation that behaves
> by
various interpretations like developing organisms
> and like an evolving
> population. If I had to say it in < 20 words,
> Kauffman has
empirical models
> without a specific epistemology; Rosen has
an
> epistemology without (as yet)
> specific empirical
models.
>
> Howard
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
|