Re: Rosen, again!
DON MIKULECKY (MIKULECKY@VCUVAX.BITNET)
Mon, 13 Feb 1995 15:07:58 -0400
Don Mikulecky, MCV/VCU, Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
Reply to Cliff:
I'll answer yor last point first. You ask how the infinite regress can be broke
n. you also confess to incomplete understanding. However, you are willing
to cite an authority who we now find out spent a few hours with you, as
evidence for the fact that Rosens LIFE WORK is "uninteresting"! Then you
ask me to justify calling you irresponsible and for me to justify accusing
you of deflecting people from an import attempt to define what we mean
by "living" and "complex". I am not alone in my reaction to these
acts. It also seems ridiculous to ask me to refute this guy's
pronouncement that it is "uninteresting" Seems that it fits at least
some of the things you accuse me of, even tho I know I am guilty
of them quite often.
Now to the Newtonian ploy- cutting the cycle of infinite
recursion, but this time in a relational context:
The recursion comes from trying to answer the question why f?
in a mapping f:a-->b. In a machine or simple mechanism the
answer is always one step away, and generates the same question, hence
recursion. In a complex system, final cause is invioked and lo and
behold, the recursion is broken, due to the peculiar nature of
final causality (final cause for the house points from the future
to the present...Rosen wrote an ENTIRE OTHER BOOK on this point
alone: ANTICIPATORY SYSTEMS) Here is why I say you keep missing
the point, including this last time. The issue is not whether accepting
final cause stops the recursion, it CLEARLY DOES, with or without
category theory. What should be bugging you is that Rosen insists
that without final cause EVERYTHING is a simple mechanism! This is
a revolutionary finding! I hope Jeff's revision of his little paper
helps bring this home. HOW CAN THIS BE UNINTERESTING???? Find
it wrong and that in itself will be of great interest, because
we will be back to square one in trying to figure out what makes
things complex and further, what makes them living. Certainly
what I have just described is not trivial, and, if as I see it,
correct, the implications for all of science and cybernetics
in particular, are immense. There's still abother attempt to
say it. I apologize for the brevity, but am anticipating (no pun indended)
Jeff's contribution, now that I put him on the spot. Forgive me,
also, if you will for letting my worst side show, but it seems so
important and it's been dealt with in a less than satisfactory manner.
Best wishes, Don Mikulecky