|
Well, I found another one, and it is just too intriguing to not
share with the group, especially after Jamie's gorgeous post...
I'm not sure what paper my father was working on, with this
set of thoughts. It sounds very specific, as if he was assigned a topic and
had found an avenue that made it interesting to HIM... It might have been "The
Limits of the Limits of Science".
Robert Rosen wrote:
"I wanted complex systems to be the panacea. Between
science and the Good, the True, and the beautiful. I therefore wanted biology to
be the linchpin. ISN'T IT? Then just say so.
In particular, I want to get in two things: (a) the site
(nonfractionable activities, which carry out functions) and (b) surrogacy.
Complex systems do both. ISN'T THAT ENOUGH TO GIVE THEM SOUL? At the moment,
though, all I can do is (enormously) extend science. BUT FROM THIS, I SOMEHOW
CANNOT YET ARGUE SOUL; I have extended science, but not yet made science
necessarily deal with soul; NOT YET.
And so far, I've completely failed to mention the
non-transitivity of surrogacy (i.e. if A models B, and B models C, then A
doesn't generally model C ). THIS IS AN ASTOUNDING RESULT, BUT IS IT RELEVANT
HERE??
Well, beauty is nonfractionable from a SPECIMEN of beauty. ON THE OTHER HAND, IS IT THEREFORE A SITE?? OR ARE THERE OTHER KINDS OF NONFRACTIONABILITY BESIDES SITES??? Sites are not subjective; what they act on sees them.
Complex systems are not subjective. [It's clear that
in this usage, he means "subjective" in the way physics uses the term;
"non-scientific" or "an artifact of human observation and therefore not real".]
How about, e.g. beauty? An adjective, which seems
subjective... whereas a site connotes an adjective which seems
objective?!
ALSO: Subjective doesn't mean without existence.
CONTEXT-DEPENDENT DOESN'T MEAN WITHOUT EXISTENCE. Not in a world of complex
systems. NON-SYNTACTICAL DOESN'T MEAN WITHOUT EXISTENCE. It just means "not made
of given or prescribed syntactic particles".
Like the measure of an arbitrary set? Or the sum of a
divergent sequence? You have to stipulate a context. AHA. TRYING TO SUM A
DIVERGENT SEQUENCE, AS IF THE SUM WERE IMMANENT IN THE SEQUENCE ALONE, SEEMS TO
MAKE THAT SUM SUBJECTIVE.
And, even if it were immanent (e.g. the sequence
converges) THE SUM IS STILL NONFRACTIONABLE, THOUGH PRESUMABLY PERFECTLY
OBJECTIVE AND CONTEXT-INDEPENDENT.
WHY ISN'T CONTEXT-DEPENDENCE JUST A CASE OF HIDDEN
VARIABLES?? FOR INSTANCE; TO SUM A "DIVERGENT" SEQUENCE JUST MEANS ADDING MORE
INFORMATION, ABOUT HOW YOU'RE SUMMING THE SEQUENCE. "SUM" ISN'T IMMANENT IN THE
SEQUENCE ALONE; IT'S IMMANENT IN (SEQUENCE + CONTEXT). LIKEWISE, ISN'T (SITE +
SCAFFOLD) JUST SITE + HIDDEN VARIABLES (SCAFFOLD)???
Okay, these are important insights pertaining to
complexity vs. simplicity. BUT EXACTLY HOW DO THEY PERTAIN TO, e.g. BEAUTY OR
SOUL?? So far, all I'm asserting is an analogy; something which says that
complexity allows you to deal with at least some context-dependent (i.e.
subjective) things, mainly by permitting "enough" hidden variables (which are
available via complexity). I'M ONLY ARGUING, INDIRECTLY THAT IF THESE
("SUBJECTIVE") THINGS ARE ALLOWABLE, THEN MAYBE SOUL AND BEAUTY
ARE TOO.
This is already quite a lot, when stated in these terms.
But I want to do MORE than this. I want to show SPECIFICALLY how ethical,
aesthetic, and generally soul-ful terms get included in, or at least accessible
to science when science is enlarged enough to comprehend
complexity.
And that's where I remain hung up.
I can, for instance, argue that things like placebo
effect, or conditioned reflexes, are instances of "downward causation". I can
also "predict" that downward causation can occur in complex systems and never in
simple ones. But it seems I CANNOT predict that a particular complex
system can be conditioned. Or will manifest "soul".
BUT THEN, I CANNOT PREDICT THAT A PARTICULAR CONTEXT WILL
SUM A DIVERGENT SEQUENCE EITHER. All I know here is that a simple system or
machine cannot do so.
THIS IS TURNING OUT TO BE A VERY FRUITFUL
DISCUSSION.
SO: I'm not saying that shoulds and oughts are corollaries
of complexity per se. 'I'm only saying that complexity does not exclude them,
the way simplicity does.
THIS IS WEAKER THAN I MIGHT LIKE. For instance, on the
same grounds, I could say that open-ness does not exclude them, the way
closedness does. Or that "nonlinearity" does not exclude them, though linearity
does. WHAT I'M SAYING IS STRONGER, because the open, nonlinear systems generally
considered are still simple. But perhaps not yet strong
enough.
STILL, COMPLEXITY ITSELF IS A PERFECTLY "OBJECTIVE"
NOTION, BECAUSE "SIMPLICITY" IS. Just as nonlinearity (negation of linearity)
is, or as open-ness (negation of closure) is. "LIFE", HOWEVER, IS NOT DEFINABLE
THIS WAY; IT ISN'T JUST NEGATION OF "DEATH"; "BEAUTY" IS NOT NEGATION OF "UGLY";
SHOULD ISN'T A NEGATION OF SHOULDN'T, etc.
I also want to get "innate vs. acquired" into the act
somehow. It is, for instance, innate to linear systems that they will respond to
forcings (i.e. "behave") in certain limited ways; to closed systems likewise; to
simple systems likewise. Hence, if we have (forced) behaviors that fall outside
these limited ways, it is innate to nonlinear, or open, or complex systems that
they can acquire behaviors of a different character. THUS, IN A SENSE, THE
ABILITY TO BE FORCED IN OTHER WAYS (e.g. to be conditioned) IS A DIAGNOSTIC OF
THIS INNATENESS.
The ability to act off predictive models, and indeed to
generate predictive models, is an innate property of complex, living systems.
WHEREAS ANY PARTICULAR MODEL IN SUCH A SYSTEM IS ACQUIRED SOMEHOW. It is
"learned", and involves particular contexts. It is in some sense "adaptive", or
selected for.
EVOCATION AND COMPETENCE in embryology are presumably
innate. Although "competence" is an immanent property, while an evocator
presumes a context external to the competent system; hence a forcing of its
behavior in a particular way.
AND DON'T FORGET PHENOCOPY AND
GENOCOPY."
***
|