Re: Complexity seems complicated!
Don Mikulecky (mikulecky@VCUVAX.BITNET)
Thu, 13 Jul 1995 09:00:25 -0400
Don Mikulecky, MCV/VCU, Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
Reply to Luc Claeys
>Dear Don,
>
>Don Mikulecky, MCV/VCU,Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu wrote:
>
>>I see we are starting anew with the discussion of complexity and its
>>meaning. I wonder why this happens? Is it productive to have these disjoint
>>discussions, each in his own world? I tried to bring together a large
>>spectrum of views when I gave my paper at the French Society for Theoretical
>>Biology meeting last month. I did focus on Rosen and Casti's elaborations
>>on Rosen's approach. I wonder if it is prudent to simply ignore everyone
>>elde's work and simply start anew? Surely there is something of value in what
>>has gone before? I was taught that good scholarship (if not common
>>courtesy) required some attempt3 to tie one's work to that of those who
>>paved the way. Is this no longer true?
>>Hoping to see some thorough scholarship on complexity, Don Mikulecky
>
>Yes, I think these disjoint discussions are useful.
>
>Science assimilates new ideas by slowly integrating then in a set of
>stable abstractions.
>This integration can be depicted as a slow burning flame which decomposes
>raw ideas into its abstract components and uses the resulting abstract
>elements to refine the (abstract) scientific base (inheritance).
>The flame of science is feed by new ideas generated in the scientific
>environment and by ideas generated by non-scientific persons
>(more like artists).
>
>One cannot expect that every artist or philosopher reads all what exists
>on the subject before he or she attepts to express hirself.
>Besides, a person who has read a lot about a subject is in a sense
>restricted in what he/she can generate as new ideas,
>just because of the "paved ways" of thinking.
>Therefore, it is important for science to accept this "new blood",
>even when the terminology is different and scientists find it "confusing".
>
>P.S.
>Please don't shoot me if my 'definition' of 'science' is so called 'wrong'.
>I am not a scientist.
>
>I hope this sheds new light on many recent discussions on PCP.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>Luc Claeys claeys@innet.be
>Antwerpen (Wilrijk) Belgium.
>
>In search of new points of view
> for better understanding of Nature.
>-------------------------------------------------------
Luc, Believe it or not, I am also an artist. I have a show of my watercolors
(nudes, nature mort, landscapes) up right now. not only that, but Rosen
(ah yes, again!) makes a point of this idea in his approach. He points
out that we percieve nature through a "modeling relation" which uses a
formal system to deduce the attributes of a natural system. This involves an
encoding and decoding between them. The encoding and decoding are not
obtainable from either the natural or the formal system. For this reason,
he sees science as an art form as well!!!
In fact, if by "scientist" you mean the stereotypical
reductionist who believes in the myth of objectivity, then I surely
am not one either. I look forward to painting tonight. A group of
us get together and hire a model. My soul needs it!
The paradox about Rosen is his ability to use the reductionist
approach and the myth of objectivity at least as well as the true
believers and then turn it all around to show how limited that approach is.
It in itself is an art form!
Thanks for the breath of fresh air!
Don Mikulecky
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! Don Mikulecky, First International Laboratory for the Application of !
! Analysis Situs to Physiology (FILASAP) !
! Medical College of Virginia Commonwealth University !
! Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu !
!**********************************************************************!
! An idea is not responsible for who happens to be carrying it !
! at the moment. It must stand or fall on its own merits. !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!