|
But wouldn't it bother you that these two sets of ideas are coming
from entirely different, incompatible explanatory directions? Rosennean
Complexity Theory negates the basis on which Kauffman builds his theoretical
structure. The logic underneath one of them is, therefore, suspect. But to try
to merge them would actually wind up making them cancel each other
out, in effect. If I was coming to these ideas with skepticism and ran into a
situation like that, where the logic in the foundations of some Rosen/Kauffman
hybrid theory were inconsistent... I'd walk away. Nature is not
inconsistent.
Frankly, while I'm admittedly biased, I do think to try to merge
these two theories would weaken Rosennean Complexity. I won't do
it.
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 3:22
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Rosen, Kauffman and
compatibility
Judith,
I am not sure that there is no way to merge
them. The
big, general, synthetic ideas I have gleaned from
Kauffman's
work seem very compatible with Rosen, and
even if the foundations differ
the results are more alike
than different and together perhaps stronger to
help
challenge and overthrow the "entrenched orthodoxy" of
mechanistic
reductionist objectivist universalizing science.
Kauffman talks
about:
1. Life is not miraculous or a "long shot" with very low
odds
of emerging but is to be expected. This to me is
akin to Rosen saying 1)
complexity is general and 2) life
and complexity are closely
related.
2. The central organization of life is
"collective
autocatalysis". This to me is akin to Rosen saying
that
organization is key, life is closed to efficience cause (it
is its
own self-making active agent) and unfractionability
is key - remove an
integral part of the "collective" and
you no longer get the autocatalysis
of life.
3. "Order for free" comes from getting past a threshold
in
"complexity". Granted that maybe Kauffman's
complexity is more akin to
complicatedness or
combinatorics, but the "order for free" part I think
will
someday be seen to be compatible with the role of
organization or
topology and both of these linked to
Fantappie's syntropy which we need to
balance the
current over-emphasis on entropy being the only
tendency or
natural direction to change.
These concepts are also compatible with
work coming
out of ecological network analysis by Bob Ulanowicz
and
Bernie Patten. They have found importance in
network properties such as
indirect mutualism, which
Bob U. links to autocatalysis - loops within
ecological
trophic webs. Bernie Patten and colleagues have
developed an
idea of "network synergism" that shows
how locally seemingly negative
interactions -like
predation by alligators on frogs - almost always
turn
out to be beneficial even to the prey when all
links,
transformations and flows are analyzed and
integrated. It is like
syntropy or order for free in
ecological networks, also like collective
autocatalysis,
also like the networks are closed to efficient
cause,
unfractionable, topologically and organizationally
different than
machines, etc. Still Ulanowicz and
Patten don't share all of Rosen's
foundations. These
two from ecosystem ecology even differ on
very
fundamental opinions. Yet I see their work as having
more power in
concert than alone. Like having and
using two distinct, incommensurable
models for
ecosystem networks instead of just one.
Some ideas on
trying to find the common ground and
compatibilities, partly so as to build
and add allies even
if not perfect matches in all
respects.
Dan
Judith Rosen wrote:
> *From the
various summaries and quotes so far, my intuition is that
> while both
sets of ideas talk about organization, Kauffman tacks the
> concept of
organization onto the current scientific foundations, which
> is where
his inconsistency comes from, I suspect. In contrast, Robert
> Rosen
concluded the foundations were at fault in the inapplicability of
>
models from physics to answer questions in biology, and he basically
>
re-imagined the foundations-- /around /matters of organization. So, he
> would say that Kauffman's notion of organizational principles does
not
> have a sound foundational basis to explain those principles.
*
> **
> *Because of that, their work is actually incompatible
even though they
> are both talking about the importance of
organization. There is no way
> to "merge" them.*
> **
>
*Judith*
>
|