Re: Description of evolution

[James N Rose <***>]

Dan,

thanks for the url.

The urobos was an image deviceof the ancients of a snake
essentially looking like its eating its own body, tail in its
mouth.  It was an inventive way to get across the idea of 
a limited closed system having the quality of endlessness.
Although I like to think of the image as the snake -emerging-
from its own mouth. :-) 

Anyway, it embodies a limited sense of 'entailment'.
And I stress 'limited'.  Inter-tier entailments require
a different imagery.

Jamie

 

Dan Fiscus wrote:
> 
> Jamie,
> 
> By public url for the Rosen list, do you mean the
> archives? I think this page of Tim's is public and
> gets to the list archives as well as list main page
> and search option.
> 
> http://www.panmere.com/rosen/mlist_archives.htm
> 
> As for your comments...one question. What does
> "urobos" mean, where you say:
> 
> "Robt Rosen had a thesis about life dynamics and all
> the different layers of organization inter-involved, that
> essentially is the urobos, applied everywhere without
> exception, including events and process-relations that
> are/were present but just not yet discovered through
> inquiry."
> 
> Dan
> 
> James N Rose wrote:
> > I was trying to explain to a friend of mine
> > this recent conversation on the list. the result was
> > the following, which I want to share with all of you,
> > to get your feedback.  please focus on my remarks
> > about RR and the science community at large; I want
> > to know if I captured the essence of the situation
> > accurately or well or not.
> >
> > thank you  ... Jamie.  July 3, 2005
> >
> > =======================================
> >
> > there's no public url for the Rosen list I know of and I tried but
> > couldn't forward recent postings without losing html highlights
> > that separated the conversants properly.  but I did cc you my
> > last night's reply, which I think cut-to-the-chase explanation
> > wise.  Robt Rosen had a thesis about life dynamics and all
> > the different layers of organization inter-involved, that
> > essentially is the urobos, applied everywhere without
> > exception, including events and process-relations that
> > are/were present but just not yet discovered through
> > inquiry.  And its those missing 'specifics' that make the
> > difference between his theory and other theories explaining
> > how/why things happen.  He set the standard that the only best
> > depiction of existence -must- include those unknowns .. which
> > any tried models would necessarily miss and exclude, and therefore
> > make the models incomplete and inaccurate.
> >
> > ['no matter how good, you'll never be right'] .. which infuriated
> > and continues to infuriate every scientist and researcher who ever
> > gives/gave over their life - committed to conventional inquiry practices;
> > both them and their ideas.
> >
> > Rosen was the ultimate Godel-ist .. applying Godel's Incompleteness
> > Theorems to the topic:  real world processes.  [whether he consciously
> > did that or not].   And what's strange, is that Godel's notions
> > are universally revered as high and infallible; but Rosen's extension
> > of them, application of them, are rejected with a venom.
> >
> >>From my own viewpoint, I - in a way - take Rosen's side and flip
> > it back to evaluate Godel, instead of the other way 'round.
> > When the criteria is 'all inclusiveness', then a new standard
> > of modeling is required, one which satisfies the goal of making
> > and having as valid .. 'a' model, some model (concise explanatory
> > depiction) .. and yet allowing such a depiction to be resilient enough
> > to accomodate [without falling apart when results don't match
> > some initial projections or expectations] .. variations and
> > flow-throughs not expected/considered.
> >
> > Godel intimates -- from extention of his math-only
> > applications/reasonings -- that life is a knowledge bubble
> > inside a never-get-outside-of domain of information
> > yet-to-be known .. that we can't evaulate from this
> > stuck-inside place.  We can, over time, enlarge the bubble and
> > bring inside more knowledge ... which will cause us to adjust
> > and make new models to evaluate what we did before with prior
> > more-limited information .. but it will always be a carrot
> > on a stick dangling in front of us.  The imagined goal
> > moves away with every step towards it.  It can-never and
> > will-never be reached.
> >
> > Rosen says the same thing, but!, he ventures that there -are
> > processes- present even in that un-illuminated darkness,
> > and that they really need to be consciously accounted for ..
> > at the very least, the potential of their being their given
> > a seat at the table of idea-information we cope with right now.
> > And he attempts/ed to describe the nature and relationships
> > involved altogether .. regardless of known/unknown.
> >
> > My work zeroes in on accomplishing the same thing, with the added
> > goal of stating a formulaic depiction of Rosen's tag relation
> > called "entailment".  My situation being that, RR and my paths
> > never intersected, and we arrived at the same plateau from
> > separate routes, bringing different specific notions and verbage
> > with us; different focusses and ways of speaking, even though
> > sympatico in core visions and a singular appreciation for the
> > nature and qualia of existence.
> >
> > So, while considering the same relation structures that Godel did,
> > RR and separately myself are actually leapfrogging Godel.  Trying
> > to not just make a new science-policy or science-philosophy statement
> > about being and existence and our capacity to engage existence wholly,
> > but to make that capacity tangible in new and creative ways; establish
> > new level or levels of comprehensions/appreciations.
> >
> > Resistence is fierce however, people committed to conventional
> > thoughtlines can't/won't disavow their own lives and time
> > spent, now irretrievable, on smaller-scoped ideas.
> >
> > Plus, they can't see how to pragmaticaly apply RR's ideas;
> > he talks about their inadequacies but offers no immediate
> > remedies; that leads to frustrations and to rejecting him,
> > at least in the current millieu of an: 'identify and repair'
> > efficiency mindset .. which is what modern science is
> > currently all about.   ['no solutions ... no 'use'.']
> >
> > Anyway, that's it from this Nevada plateau ... :-)