Me:
> > I will assume, that since it is posted on this list, I am *allowed*
> > to comment upon and disagree with it.
Don Mikulecky:
> This is the type of sniping that leads us nowhere! I have repeatedly
> asked for criticism of Rosen's ideas AND YOU KNOW IT.
Well, I am afraid I don't, otherwise I would not have brought this
up. You had just posted an e-mail ("An attempt to get back on track
:complexity ala Rosen"), which seemed to basically say that the way
forward was not to argue about Rosen's view (as you express it) but
to jointly study his view more. It implied that criticism was
misplaced due to the fact that our scholarship was "sloppy" (which
seemd to mean that all we needed to do was to study Rosen more.
(please correect me if this is a mis-reading). This is very
frustrating for me, as I find his view brilliant but not perfect and
hence I want to argue about it. The way forward you were suggesting
seemed inimicable to my needs.
> The thing I object to is what happens in the next paragraph.
> Follow down and I'll explain. I think my concern is a valid one.
> If it isn't just say so, please, rather than this kind of thing.
There is a difficulty in criticising a holistic position, (and
especially by e-mail. Whenever I object to anything written from you
(which is all I have of your views on this) you seem to say that I
have not taken into account some context, which is part of what you
intend but which I have not seen yet. If I did not criticise exept
where I knew the full context - this would effectively rule out
criticism - hence my first comment above. It is not meant to be
sarcastic but literal (within some presumably common framework in
which we are trying to communicate).
> >> Don Mikulecky,MCV/VCU, Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu
> >> As I promised, here's a section from "Anticipatory Systems" by Robert
Rosen,
> >> Pergamon, 1985..pp83...
> >> "One further aspect of [the modeling relation] may be mentioned briefly
here.
> >> We are subsequently going to relate our capacity to produce independent
> >> encodings of a given natural system N with the COMPLEXITY of N. Roughly
> >> speaking, the more such encoding we can produce, the more complex we will
> >> regard the system N.
> >
> > "Roughly speaking" is right here. I will argue that this is related
> > to complexity but does not qualify as a definition.
> Yes it is right. This is not where the definition appears. In the
> context of MY statements surrounding the posting of this quote, the
> actual definition is elsewhere and has been posted in this forum
> many, many, many times.
The actual definition suffers from the same criticisms (as I have
enumerated many times, so the fact that I argue here rather than
elsewhere is not of evil intent.
> I also plead guilty to doing what you
> are here. Onar was kind enough to call me on it and I've tried to be
> more careful. I will certainly sin again, but that does not change the
> fact that when we do this we contribute little or nothing but a
> distraction from the real point.
That depends what the "real point" is - to learn more about Rosen's
view or generally seek for truth(s). We will have an inevitable
difference of view here. Rosen's views will probably never be as
important to me as they obviously are for you. You seem not to
accept this in dialogue with me.
> >> Thus, contrary to the traditional views regarding system
> >> complexity, we do not treat complexity as the property of some particular
> >> encoding [note..here's where I am afraid Jeff has led us off the path a
bit]
> ,
> >> and hence indentifiable with the mathematical property of a formal system
> >> (such as dimensionality, number of generators,or the like). Nor is
complexit
> y
> >> entirely an objective property of N, in the sense of being itself a
directly
> >> perceptible quality, which can be measured by a meter. Rather, complexity
> >> pertains as much to US AS OBSERVERS as it does to N; it reflects OUR
ABILITY
> >> TO INTERACT WITH N in such a way as to make its qualities visible to us.
> >
> > This is (now) a view well accepted, and repeated by many thinkers
> > about complexity. I agree with it but do not think it goes quite
> > far enough. I propose that complexity is not only relative to the
> > OBSERVER but relative to the many languages within which that single
> > observer might seek to construct the model. This is implicit in the
> > top section of the quote from Roasen, but not so evident here.
>
> That is perfectly consistent with the quote when taken in context.
Well, not quite. Rosen as a scientist, takes a philosphical
viewpoint of the "reality" of direct interaction with natural systems
that I see as more problematic. Thus he does not emphasise the
difficulties implicit in the assumption of a single observer making
different models (as opposed to many observers making different
models). This is a difference of empahsis between scientist and
philosopher - we see difficulties at different stages.
> >> Intuitively speaking, if N is such that we can interact with it in only a
few
> >> ways, there will be a correspondingly few distinct encodings we can make of
> >> the qualities we percieve thereby, and N will appear to us as a SIMPLE
system
> ;
> >> if N is such that we can interact with it in many ways, we will be able to
> >> produce many distinct encodings, and will correspondingly regard N as
complex
> .
> >
> > These last two phrases, show the weakness of this
> > definition/approach to 'complexity'. The sheer numerosity of the
> > encodings (or corresponding ways of interaction) is insufficient to
> > imply 'complexity' (depending a bit on what we mean by 'distinct'),
> > because (although they are formally essentially distinct) on a
> > meta-level they may be but trivial extensions of each other.
> > Numerosity of distinct encodings is a necessary condition for
> > 'complexity' but not sufficient. It is unfortunate that Rosen
> > blurred what was a basically good insight by prematurely applying the
> > terms of 'simple' 'and 'complex' here.
> Again correct if you ignore the context. In context you miss the
> point. That point is that "complexity" as the word is being used
> here (which is distinct from your usage) is a by- product of our
> history. We have chosen to interact with systems in a limited
> number of ways and then seen "errors" in our descriptions. We
> begin to speak of "complexity" and "emergence" and
> "self-organization" as if they were new events. THEY were always
> there, we chose to posit them out of the discussion. Now we are
> struggling to free ourselves from the paradigm that brought this
> upon us and seek a new one. Defining "degrees of complexity" seems
> to be of little relevance to finding that new approach, even though
> it has its own desireability and intrinsic value. In this context,
> however, it is somewhat irrelevant.
This is correct, within the limited history of biology (and the like)
trying to work within a reductionist science. I, as you know, am
seeking a broader perspective than this. Hence, my search for a
definition of 'complexity' that matches the common intuitive version
more, but without losing its analytic and philosophical value. Which
is "better" must depend on context. So what I am implicitly arguing
is that Rosen's use of 'complexity' is limited (i.e. will only be
directly useful) in the context of the holist/reductionist debate.
> > (Note that here (at least) Rosen is definitely allowing for more than
> > a simple complex-simple dicotomy).
>
> Again, apparantly by choice, you totally miss the point and focus on
> your own needs.
Everybody in this discussion is focussing on their own needs -
hopefully these are general enough in the pursuit of some form of
truth so we can have a worthwhile discussion - one that may be
helpful beyond the _immediate_ politics of each.
> >> It must be recognized that we are speaking here complexity as an attribute
of
> >> NATURAL systems; the same word (complexity) may, and often is, used to
> >> describe some attributes of a FORMAL system. But this involves quite a
> >> different concept, with which we are not presently concerned."
> >
> > This is a useful point. Here Rosen does not ascribe complexity to
> > the whole modelling realtion but clearly to the "NATURAL systems".
> > This is beacuse he is implicitly quatifying over possible encodings
> > in his definition (that this is utterly impractical - even
> > theoretically - is passed over in this quote).
> Yes and one which I have made over and over again. However your
> interpretation differs radically from mine. The modeling relation is
> our only access to the natural system. Put things back into context and
> what rosen is saying is that we SUBJECTIVELY now call the natural
> system "complex" because of what has happened in the modeling relation
> and our uses of it to describe our interactions with the system. To me
> this is a clear example of how fragmenting an idea can totally change
> parts of it. Often to the point that a fragment can be then
> manipulated to mean what we want it to.
Now I think I am going to have to disagree with you here. Rosen does
not make it clear that he considers this as the derivation of a
subjective idea of complexity, if it is, it is only implicit. He
states that objective knowledge is possible - a direct relation
through measurement to the real world happens (effectively).
> > Here Rosen is being clear as to his application of the concept -
> > this > is good. We get a different use of the word if we apply
> it > to the > whole "modelling relation" - it is in this context
> that I > find it > difficult to totally exclude the effect of the >
> complexity of the > "FORMAL" system on the whole.
> Once again, if you fragment his idea to apply to this or that piece
> of a whole process, we loose the essence. He clearly made a
> distinction between looking at a fragment...the formal system...and
> the whole process in his use of the notion of complexity. He also
> makes it clear that the subjective notion of "complexity" as used
> in the holistic sense, is something WE ASSIGN to the natural
> system. My own interpretation of this and other statements of his
> is that the notion of complexity becomes less useful as we
> understand its evolution in language. This is due to the fact
> that, as you say, we can, unless there are technical limitations,
> find an infinite number of ways to interact with a system and
> therefore there are not any simple systems out there...we just made
> it look that way over all those years! However, we live in a world
> where most systems are still seen as simple in this sense and
> "complexity", "emergence" and "self-organization" have become very
> fashonable buzz words. Rosen has indeed seen a legitimate OTHER use
> of the word as applied to formalisms. This seems to be your
> interest, and I see little difference in your views here, except
> where you seem to want to call the same system mechanistic and
> complex at the same time. That I find mind-boggling, but I've
> tried at great length to explain why.
1, You must remember that I have what is, from my (and other's)
point of view, a wider concern than just the holistic/reductionist
battle ground in science (and society). Most people will, after all,
agree that there are complex machines, if you go out in the street
and ask them (to take a very trivial example of a differnt context).
2. The fact that complexity is defined involving the number of
disctinct systems that ... and that in language (whic is all we have
got) there are distinct practical (you call them technical)
difficulties to this *are* problems with this approach (i.e. they
may further retrict the contexts in which this definition/approach
is useful).
3. You seem very frustrated with what you see as your inablility to
sufficiently articulate Rosen(et al.)'s ideas. You seem to artibute
a large part of other's disagreement with your expression of these
ideas to this (and the fact it is holistic). Thus you are
particularly sensitive to what you see as (willful) misunderstanding
and nit-picking and react by re-stressing what you see as the
inappropriateness of the form of the criticism and urge people to
study Rosen(et al.) more. I ask you to consider the possibility
that some of us DO understand enough of Rosen's intention but just
disagree with some aspects of his thoughts. This is my situation. I
find that while I greatly appreciate his direction and substantially
agree with a lot of what he has to say, I think some aspects of his
though are lacking. If you always react to this in what *seems* a
very patronising way (something on the lines of "you have just
misunderstood me/Rosen again") this will not help for a constructive
dialogue.
> >> This seems to be as near self contained as possible, but in fact is very
> >> context dependent still. Chapters are devoted to preparig us for this.
The
> >> book "Fundamentals of Measurement" lays the grounwork to understanding the
> >> modeling relation in terms of measurement. Others have written lots on the
> >> problem of measurement. And, most clearly, Rosen is challenging our notion
o
> f
> >> SCIENTIFIC objectivity without delving into the deeper questions of
> >> subjective/objective human perception at this time. We seem to be going
> >> afield here too.
> >
> > I have read these. Please do not merely try and "immunise" Rosen
> > from criticism by saying I have to study him more. If you think
> > previous context is releveant - quote it.
>
> I resent the implication. I refered as here to a habit which I find
> counterproductive. The context for the statements is as important as
> the statement if not more. The ignoring of the context is
> indistinguishable from the lack of knowledge of the context in a forum
> like this.
Maybe so. Can you please do me the honour of assuming (unless there
is direct evidence to the contary) that I am not ignorant - otherwise
it is difficult to have any debate (A - "I disagree", B- "therefore
you need to study more"). Even if it was due to ignorance, this
approach does not help (me).
> You know full well you are not being censored. This is a misuse
> of language and you know it! I speak of the manner in which I perceive
> you to be so willing to make your point that the topic you attack is
> not the one intended. If you disagree about that so be it. But if the
> shoe fits....maybe we all can improve our style here. I certainly have
> an advantage there since I clearly have had the most room for improvement!
I can certainly learn to imporve my style. I know that I am not
censored, but when people communicate they do mutually define the
rules of that communication. If one person seems to unilaterally
apply their own rules of interpretation on the exchange then this
will effectively prevent communication to that person. Thus to a
large extent we DO need permission to communicate with others. I
want (more of) an agreement of the framework of communication with
you (the media militates against this).
> >> Any attempt to "sterilize" this is a reduction of the worst kind and misses
> >> the point entirely.
> >
> > If by this you wish to _effectively_ judge any criticism as mere
> > sterlization, then what we say won't matter - you will have done the
> > job already.
> no...sterilization means stripping something out of semantic
> context in order to create a straw man. You must chose which you
> are going to crticise. When it seems like you are attacking a straw
> man, I percieve it as counterproductive and potentially misleading
> to others. For a variety of reasons, this discussion has focused
> on things out of context and often, in my opinion, misrepresented.
> That is more a fault of Jeff and I than anyone else. However, I do
> feel a responsibility for any misrepresentati on we have spawned and
> therefore keep trying to clarify. The process gets repititious and
> frustrating at times. Hence my plea to go to the source.
1. Yes you can sterilize in many ways.
2. The source of your views is you. I want to talk about YOUR views
(however based on Rosen's).
> I must admit, if your account of the purpose for what we are doing
> is simply to air our own ideas, as far from any source material
> they may be, then I have clearly erred.
Surely we do only have our own views - even if based on others, even
it is a view of what someome else's view is. I can't have a dialogue
with Rosen on this list - if I wnt his views I'll read him (as I do).
I want to work out ideas with you and others.
> I am very concerned that having used Rosen's name far too many
> times I am obligated to steer us back to what he is actually
> saying. I will do a posting in which I try to state my views in an
> independent way and thereby free myself from that sense of
> obligation. Maybe it has been misguided from the start.
I would greatly appreciate this. This seems linked to what I said
above. Maybe we do need to establish more of a methodology of
dialogue here.
> >> In this sense, Rosen is the ULTIMATE pragmatist as well
> >> as an exquisite theoretician.
> >
> > This seems to be yet another attempt to put Rosen's views beyond
> > argument and criticism? I hope not. To me having a high regard for
> > someone's viewpoint is closely tied up with it being able to stand
> > its own ground against criticism. I regard Rosen's views highly -
> > they are worth criticising and impoving. This can be furthered by
> > intelligent dialogue which, alas, will not be possible if we have to
> > take it as read that he is already CORRECT.
> Once again, I find the last paragraph distasteful.
It is an expression of my frustration. I wrote what *seems* to be.
I explicitly hoped it was not the case. I am more concerned with the
dynamics of the communication.
> T here is no need to > imply something that is not even possible.
> No one can censor anyone > else here.
No but you can prevent me communicating with you by your choice of
the framework in which you consider my communications.
> I seek criticism of Rosen and of my understanding of Rosen because
> > I seek a new approach and find that a big challenge. When the
> things > offered have little to do with these issues, I try to
> direct things > back there. Is Rosen correct? Reading him says
> that he is his own > worst critic. No, that's not the issue.
OK, you sense of responsibilty you feel when expressing your views
gives the impression that you do think he is CORRECT.
> The issue, as I see it, is > where do we go from here? Rosen only
> provides clues. I see him as a > prophet. However, the rest of
> the community seems to fall short of > even that by comparison. If
> I am shown other ways to start out in this search for a new
> approach, I'll gladly consider them. At this point, Rosen > has
> provided a measuring stick which I find very useful.
OK, it can be very frustrating for others trying to communicate with
you if you always use that measuring stick as a framework.
> Not that he > is right and others wrong, he is saying the same
> thing as so many others, > but that he has said it in a way which
> uses mathematical rigor and semantic > overtones simultaneously.
> He practices what he preaches. I am struggling > with the semantic
> part, and hope to focus on it in the furure. These > seem like
> uncharted waters to me. It is both fun and scary! I wish I > were
> younger.
OK, can you (this is a request- please feel free to decline) speak
only for your views, Rosen can well stand up for himself in his
writings. Also can you suggest a way of approaching debates
(including criticism) about holistic issues that you would find
acceptable/helpful/...
Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Edmonds
Centre for Policy Modelling,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Building,
Aytoun Street, Manchester, M1 3GH. UK.
Tel: +44 161 247 6479 Fax: +44 161 247 6802
http://bruce.edmonds.name/bme_home.html