|
Dear "Rosen list" and others to whom I send
copies of this writing directly,
I took a look at WEB search engines for "Rosen,
Robert"
(nothing turned out), then for "Robert Rosen"
and I found in MSN etc. search some ridiculously poor
referencing:
-------------------------------------
(book) Available: Life Itself
(Robert Rosen argues that such a
view is neither necessary nor sufficient to answer the question. He asserts ...
(end) ---------
*
Robert
Rosen - Complexity and Life... lesson to be learned from
biology is that there are lessons to be learned from biology." -
(Robert Rosen, Essays on Life Itself "I
do not accept a priori subjective conditions, imposed in ...
(end)------------
*
www.panmere.com/rosen (on the side, no comment)
*
... lesson to be learned from biology is that there are lessons to be
learned from biology." - Robert Rosen,
Essays on Life Itself "I do not accept a priori subjective conditions,
imposed in ... (end)
*
Rosen Enterprises - Juith Rosen,
with article "Biotech..."
*
Tim's list name, plus archives
*
VCU
Complexity Research Group,- The list plus
archives
ROBERT ROSEN: THE WELL POSED QUESTION AND ITS
ANSWER- WHY ARE ORGANISMS DIFFERENT FROM MACHINES? - Donald C.
Mikulecky
*
(and a lot of other unrelated 'Rosens' and 'Roberts').
Another search for refernces brough a mess of
articles, with citation #s of unknown content..
Friends around the world would like to know what
(who) I am talking about and I don't feel competent to 'teach' Rosen, it would
be "Rosen according to Mikes", so those who already heard the name
tried the WEB - not very successfully.
Tim's website seems to be the only
'comprehensive' one - but it is not
comprehensible for people who don't know already what he refers to. Don has some
good articles on select chapters, they did not show up in the
search.
Some time ago I made a rejected appeal for a
renewed composition of a glossary of the Rosen-terms. Now I come with another
idea: somebody well published in the factual scientific literature (which means
the routine, how to write for scientists) should compose an article on RR's
results -
focussed on the "new" (RR-complexity,
impredicativity, non computable totality, etc.) ideas rather than on his
argumentative writinsgs for the conservative scientist auditorium.
Here, on this list, and I think elsewhere as
well, we are bugged down with 'RR arguing with terms of the reductionst
sciences' mostly using those terms. We never get to even 'think' by his thoughts
on - what I call - wholeness aspects. Model biology, model physics, modelled
with mathematical aspects, model-qualia of models, restricted views of topically
boudaried thinking is going on. Of course he spent an overwhelming time of his
efforts in such argumentation, but "Rosenism" in my views (I hope) is "the other
side". Beyond the MR (in both senses).
We have quite a few good heads on this list and
beyond who could be addressed to compose such a work - maybe more than just one
author and not necessarily alone? - and we all could help in finding
an able, willing publishing avenue. One that comes on Google et al.
besides being a reputable - available -
hard-copy sci. magazine.
I am afraid that RR gets lost in the
sidelines-activity presently going on. Those who knew him get old (not me, I was
old before I got to know about him) and young theoreticians ask: Robert who?
We need better scientific PR in understandable terms, followable arguments, clearly
written so as the profanum vulgus
(=scientists) may understand it as well. (Hard job!).
Cordially
John Mikes
|