Re: goals and language?

[John M <***>]

Dear Judith, 
it is good that we started a meaningful discussion in
a friendly understanding with not too much
controversy. I try to respond your question and will
include some remarks after passages I paste here as
quoted from your post.
(Easing Tim's generosity for the list-expenses, I also
resist to refer to your post to Jerry to some (lay?)
points I may have - no matter how hard that may
be<G>.)
*
Your Q:
> PS: John, why do you say that you "cannot read the
> books"?<
It is senescence. I resented the style with lots of
math and written palatably for the reductionist reader
what I am not. So I - while reading - had countering
remarks, in understanding his 'words' in my wholistic
sense (call it RR-complexity?). I developed this
rather distracting weakness for authors who do not
respond (<G>) and into my 80s I stopped reading books 
unless totally new or entertaining. This is why I am
grateful for the list with info I would miss
otherwise.
I accept RR's reasoning (and your explanations) for
his 'publishing' style, I cannot take the 'undergrad'.

(> I guess you may have a point that the way he wrote
> the books and the way he encoded the information are
> definitely going to ensure that someone who still 
> thinks in too much of a reductionist framework or 
> modality won't be able to put the pieces together.)
<
As you said: it takes a re-re-re...rereading to get to
the 'real RR' and I have in the short time left (as I
guess) discussions about e.g. computability of the
Multiverse, objective/subjective realism in the sense
of psych and physix, polit-econ discussions, cosmology
and music (what did I miss?) All that with humor. 
Besides after our 'golden 50th' we pledged with my
bride not to buy any new books, only discard as many
as we can (from 2-3000) as caring love for our heirs.
Counting 20 years needed study per each of the above
topics, it would exceed my next (reincarnational) life
what I do not believe in to begin with. 
Now for your "affronting" remark:
[JR]:
> And I also believe you would have to read what he
> wrote before you could say there is no "real" RR in
> the published work; what he said to me was (and this
> is a direct quote): "It's all in there."
[JM]:
and then explain in considerable length how right I
was. Thanks. I never 'labeled' his oeuvre as such.
I did not refer to a "real RR" rather the "real"
sentiments (proper words) concerning descriptions of
the "real RR-complexity". Maybe I missed them, or it
came camouflaged into reductionist-palatable stuff. 
(>It's not written in code, either-- Although it's
>true that he didn't want to make it "complexity for
>dummies"...)- I may be the dummy.

[JR]:
> I will say that Robert Rosen was of the belief it
> doesn't have to be 
> an "all or nothing" situation in science (with
> reductionist 
> techniques), which is sort of what I get from your
> post. He honestly 
> didn't see reductionist techniques as intrinsically
> bad or unhelpful; 
> it is always the inappropriate application of them
> that have created 
> the bad. Reductionist techniques and approaches ARE,
> he felt, 
> intrinsically limited-- and when science only has
> that one modality to 
> "do science" with, it is extremely limiting.

[JM]:
I said it several times even on this list that I find
'reductionist' thinking the only way our feeble mind
CAN follow and it is VERY useful: it facilitated the
development of our technology (in a broader sense).
 Also I emphasized that the mistake reduct. science is
committing is to draw FINAL conclusions from model-way
thinking - irrespective of the 'beyond boundary' facts
that a/effect the model conclusions as well. It may be
a different wording, I did not say "better"...
I achieved theoretical (sci) and practical
(techn)results galore in my own work in a 1/2 c.(by
reductionistic) research before I started 'thinking'.
You should not get differently from my posts. 

I never equated the automaton with a natural system. 
In the contrary I fight AI's pretension of a conscious
machine. It may simulate certain aspects only. I
learned the 'machine' metaphor from Rosen-quotes.

Peace? I hope so
John M


 Judith Rosen <***> wrote:

(SNIP the text, with some passages quoted above)
> 
> Judith

>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: John M
>   To: ***
>   Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 5:09 PM
>   Subject: Re: [ROSEN] goals and language?
> SNIP