I really like the array of issues raised by Tim Gwynn in quoting
Dominique Chu and Wen Kin Ho's statement about Rosen's central
conclusion:
"Robert Rosens central theorem states that organisms are
fundamentally different from machines, mainly because they are closed
with respect to efficient causation. The proof for this theorem rests
on two crucial assumptions. The first is that for a certain class of
systems (mechanisms) analytic modeling is the inverse of synthetic
modeling. The second is that aspects of machines can be modeled using
relational models and that these relational models are themselves
refined by at least one analytic model. We show that both assumptions
are unjustified. We conclude that these results cast serious doubts on
the validity of Rosens proof." (from http://www.panmere.com/?cat=18)
The interesting question is if there might reasonably be no means of
proving a theorem about things you can't observe as that puts them
beyond your 'box' of definitions for proof... I think Rosen's
conclusion that organisms are "closed with respect to efficient
causation" is decidedly true, but unprovable because it's true. It's
implied by observing inaccessible organizational development, missing
content on nature 'between our models', but proof rests on things within
a model.
Phil Henshaw ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
explorations: www.synapse9.com
-- "it's not finding what people say interesting, but finding what's
interesting in what they say" --
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joost Rekveld
> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 8:34 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen
>
>
> Hi,
>
> apparently these articles have given rise to rebuttals, see http://
> www.panmere.com/?cat=18 for a survey of this discussion.
>
> I read 'Life Itself' a while ago, found it extremely interesting but
> not an easy read either. Later I read some of the essays from
> 'Essays
> on Life Itself", which helped. The biggest problem with Rosen's
> writing was for me that it is very concise; for a layman
> (like me) it
> would have been good to have a bit more flesh around his central
> argument, in the form of historical references and examples.
>
> Later I discovered the writings of Howard Pattee (an essay in the
> first Artificial Life proceedings) and Peter Cariani (his
> thesis from
> 1989 <http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/CarianiWebsite/Cariani89.pdf>
> and a later article for example <http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/
> CarianiWebsite/Cariani98.pdf>.
> I found both their writings more digestible.
>
> hope this helps,
>
> Joost.
>
> On Dec 29, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > By all means have a discussion. Rosen is not an easy read,
> nor easy to
> > talk about even. I have some grumbles with Rosen, which I
> mention in
> > my paper "On Complexity and Emergence", but these are fairly muted.
> > There've been some interesting articles recently in
> Artificial Life by
> > Chu & Ho that appear to disprove Rosen's central theorem. I suspect
> > their rather more rigourous approach crystalises some of my
> grumbles,
> > but I haven't found the time yet to try out the analysis
> > more
> > formally myself.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 08:41:43PM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> >> All,
> >>
> >> On the recommendation of somebody on this list, I started reading
> >> Rosen's Life Itself. It does indeed, as the recommender
> >> suggested, seem to relate to my peculiar way of looking at such
> >> things as adaptation, motivation, etc. The book is both
> >> intriguing and somewhat over my head. Pied Piperish in that
> >> regard. So I am wondering if there are folks on the list
> who wold
> >> like to talk about it. By the way, does the fact that I am
> >> attracted to Rosen make me a category theorist? I am told that
> >> that is somewhat to the left of being an astrologer.
> >>
> >> Nick
> >>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Joost Rekveld
> ----------- http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> This alone I ask you, O reader, that when you peruse the
> account of these marvels that you do not set up for yourself
> as a standard human intellectual pride, but rather the great
> size and vastness of earth and sky; and, comparing with that
> Infinity these slender shadows in which miserably and
> anxiously we are enveloped, you will easily know that I have
> related nothing which is beyond belief. (Girolamo Cardano)
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
