Re: Belated post from Peter Cariani on complexity discussion
Don Mikulecky (mikulecky@VCUVAX.BITNET)
Wed, 19 Jul 1995 09:15:54 -0400
>My apologies: our friend Peter Cariani is one of those lost in
>email-address limbo: they can receive mail at one address, but their
>mailers insist on sending out another when they post, and PRNCYB-L
>gags on them. A few weeks ago he asked me to forward this for him, so
>it's quite late by now, but better than never. . .
>
>------------- Begin Peter --->>>
>
>> Don Mikulecky....MED. Coll. Va. Levins and Lewontin some time ago
>>in their "Dialectic Biologist" chalanged the idea that complexity is
>>not the typical biological hieracrchy with humans on top. The animal
>>rights spokespersons also have a lot to say about this. L. & L. give
>>some nice examples to show how arbitrary putting humans as "most
>>complex" is. E. O. Wilson recently was interviewed on NPR and
>>candidly said that the world could easily do without humans but
>>would be in BIG trouble without ants. Complexity should include
>>the holistic picture of the ecosystem and relative roles. The
>>idea that humans are so special indeed seems naive biologically,
>>allthough
>>has its basis in cybernetic reasoning moreso, I suspect.
>>Rosen spends some time developing with some rigor the subjective
>>aspects if the term "complexity" It can't be made quantitative or
>>reduced to syntax.
>
>One of the great problems with the current discussions of "complexity"
>is that the definitions are completely formal ones, which themselves
>only apply in a straightforward way to formal, mathematically-defined
>entities.
>
>Biologists know that the "complexity" of an organism depends very
>heavily on which complexity criteria (i.e. observables)
>one chooses (e.g. number of cells, number of neurons, number of
>synapses, size of genome, size of perceptual repertoire,
>etc etc etc). See J. T. Bonner's book
>"Evolution of Complexity". Until a fixed observational frame
>(fixed criteria for operationally determining the 'complexity' of
>a material system) is agreed upon, no comparisons can be made.
>
>This is why the formal definitions of complexity are so useless in
>assessing the complexity of material systems such as biological
>organisms -- nobody using the formal definitions ever specifies
>what the criteria should be for a material system.
>
>"Complexity" can be made rigorous if the conditions for its
>measurement can be specified so that you and I when confronted by
>the same animal or material system can both agree on its measure
>(operational definition). It is not purely syntactic because it
>depends upon how we observe the material system (the semantics
>implemented by our measuring devices).
That's what Rosen has said, exactly. I gave a summarry of that
idea a few days ago.
>
>Such a measure is not "absolute" or "universal" in any Platonic sense,
>but it has the merit of being applicable to the world outside of
>our mathematical notations, a property which the measures currently in
>vogue do not share.
>
>Peter Cariani
>eplunix!peter@eddie.mit.edu
>
>
>------- End of Forwarded Message
>
I don't see any real difference of opinion here!
Best wishes, 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. !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!