-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Nicholas Thompson on 12/28/2007 07:41 PM: > On the recommendation of somebody on this list, I started reading > Rosen's Life Itself.
I don't know who recommended Life Itself; but, you should have started with "Fundamentals of Measurement and Representation of Natural Systems". It's a much better book. > 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. Well, Rosen only _proposed_ using category theory to capture the relationships he wanted to capture. He wasn't fixated on it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that category theory is fundamental to his work. It's only incidental. Also, category theory is a perfectly respectable type of mathematics. So, whoever suggested that it's "somewhat to the left of astrology" is way off base. [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 12/30/2007 10:23 AM: > I missed the implication people are finding in Rosen's idea of > "non-computable models". Can someone offer some examples of instances > where that matters. It sounds like it means something other than > 'insoluable'. Could it perhaps include 'internalized' & so therefore > not accessible? Steve Kercel has some interesting comments on that. But, in a nutshell, Rosen's position is that living systems are examples of supra-computation. I.e. they "compute" the non-computable. Hence, the only way we'll ever capture the essence of life itself is to develop some mathematics that captures a particular type of non-computability. The essence of the non-computability is, as Russell pointed out, the causal cycle. E.g. A causes B causes A. Kercel whittles this down to ambiguity, however, which comes closer to Penrose's argument that the brain doesn't implement an algorithm. So, if you really want to understand the non-computability aspect of cyclic inference, then look to Kercel, not Rosen. (You might also check out non-well-founded set theory, too.... though some people -- not Rosenites by the way -- claim that I'm off the mark on the relevance of that.) Kercel's got a recent article here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/116833300/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 BTW, Louie does NOT demonstrate that "A Living System Must Have Noncomputable Models". That paper merely makes an assertion without proving anything. I'd advise you to read it rather than just assuming it demonstrates the assertion. Nicholas Thompson on 12/30/2007 10:32 AM: > In fact, could somebody clarify, in terms that a former english major > would understand, what it means to say, > > "organisms are closed to efficient causation." I read it and I read > it and I READ it and it just doesnt STICK! It doesn't stick because it's a philosophical red herring. It's a meaningless phrase. The fact that it doesn't stick means that you're a clear thinker and aren't bamboozled by aristotelian nonsense. [grin] Having said that, efficient cause is the "agency" that brings something about. For example, the efficient cause of a house would include the carpenters, masons, plumbers, and other workers who used these materials to build the house in accordance with the blueprint for its construction. Something that was closed to efficient cause would be capable of not only _assembling_ all the agents that cause the thing to exist but also maintaining the organization of all those agents. And such a concept is clearly silly. Nothing is closed to efficient cause... except, perhaps, the universe. Also, note that closure to efficient cause is distinct from causal closure in general. > For the new year, I dream of a world in which no two people are > allowed to argue in my electronic presence until the key AGREEMENTS > that make their argument possible are made explicit. That is probably > amounts to asking you all to be as dumb as I am. Hey! I can ask! Well, you may as well abandon Rosen now! He used a very perverse lexicon in a well intentioned attempt to use words appropriately, rather than using them the way the rest of the world used them. His text and his followers are very hermeneutic, which is one of the reasons you'll find that it turns on lots of very different people with very different backgrounds.... his text is open to interpretation.... which is, of course, why he was looking for something like category theory to help him be clear and unambiguous. I'm not a betting man; but I'd bet that the Rosenites will _never_ come to any key AGREEMENTS. And if they do, it'll only be after a complete overhaul of his work. - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful. -- Anton LaVey -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHeacpZeB+vOTnLkoRArxxAJ9cSnGm4AtSl3FSlS8MOqENK51PoQCfVw+C 0WlyyB1b+sKNYygy378Qo8k= =EYrt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ============================================================ 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
