[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: about Robert Rosen's work

Dear John M,

I agree with you, in particular with your last para. as a practical thing to do. I have for example included RR's Essays on Life as a reference and reading material in one of my papers these days I am preparing. I intend to do the same in the paper I am now formulating on a broadened science for a conference. With my still shaky understanding but clear intuition of RR's theory and its hidden rich truth I cannot yet do more in terms of its application. I personally need to read his books and spend time on them etc. before something relatively concrete appears in my mind. All these suggest that all his books, papers etc. should be available to whoever would like to consult/study.

Could this bottleneck be removed?

It is also a question of demand/supply balance. I've been waiting for the Life Itself for months now with vain. How can we promote the RR thinking better than his own writings. Always something remain vague or misinterpreted by our not so settled understanding. On the other hand I agree that we continue propagating it within our capacity. Every person in this list can give their own gist of RR's ideas in terms of their own areas of interest. A collection of these inputs may open new avenues for spreading the word and its worth.

Am I too optimistic? (usually I am).
My best,
Ayten


On May 14, 2005, at 9:38 PM, John M wrote:

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) ---------
*
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)
*
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)
*
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