Re: Rosen cf. Kauffman

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Judith,
See comments below.
 
> HP: Rosen began studying wet
> biology in high school, 
>  
> Judith: What is "wet biology"? 

HP: That means experimenting with real live "wet" animals as
opposed to just reading dry biology texts and looking at the
pictures.

> Judith: He had been doing
> experimental biology for almost a decade by the time he was in high
> school!

HP: I meant study in school. Biology was his major subject in high
school. Of course his interest started in early childhood. I'm sure he
told you how he carried around black widow spiders in a little box in
grammar school to deter the bullies.

> Judith: Regarding the second part
> of that... how do you conclude that he suggested no biological
> observables that could allow a verifiable model? In my experience, his
> books are peppered with examples-- all of which are verifiable.

HP: I had in mind the famous Fig. 10C.6 (LI, p. 251) that is a crucial
representation of his argument. I take this as an epistemic principle
that needs no specific observables or direct experimental test. But to be
useful scientifically it must lead to explicit models that do have
testable observables. What examples did you have in mind?

> Judith: How would Stephen Wolfram's
> computer simulations compare with Kauffman's?

HP: I have not read much of Wolfram, but I think he should be contrasted
with Rosen. Kauffman claims much less than either Wolfram or Rosen for
his network models. Wolfram's New Kind of Science  claims to
model all of physics, complexity theory, biology, and even intelligence.
In contrast to Rosen, he says you can do all this with simple computer
programs in the form of cellular automata. This book is available at
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/
I suggest you read the introduction to get an idea of his
claims.

Howard