Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> Don Mikulecky wrote:
>
> >
> > I thought this kind of distortion was the property of the press, but it
> > appears not.What I have been writing about here and elsewhere is the life
work
> > of Robert Rosen. I resent a brilliant scholar's work being thrown into a
> > hopper as a wild assed guess.
> >
>
> Don: I tried to suggest that you give us an outline, as you seem to have
> done below, and then facilitate the discussion along the lines that
> might be the most interesting and constructive. Unfortunately, because
> of your knee problems, you were apparently not able respond. But we had
> no idea what had happened to you. All I knew was that you did not
> respond to my suggestion that you "take it from here."
>
> So I did my best to set up a framework that I thought might yield some
> collaborative insights and fresh understandings of the areas we all seem
> to be focusing on. I'm sure we all welcome your participation on what
> ever level you feel comfortable with. I, for one, think it is important
> to respect and honor the ideas of each participant. Still, I'm not at
> all certain that we ought to place the views of one person (Rosen), no
> matter how brilliant, above all the rest simply on one person's say so.
>
> > Rosen saw in the 1950's that traditional science had put on blinders when it
> > came to the issue of the complexity of real systems. He then established
the
> > following:
> > 1.There is a clear, unambiguous distinction between our perception of
systems
> > as simple mechanisms or as complex systems.
>
> I am very skeptical of how useful complexity theory is in helping us to
> better understand our selves, each other and the universe we live in.
Both Rosen and I agree. what is popularly callwd complexity theory is simply a
last
ditch attempt to save the reductionist/mechanist approach. The word
"complexity" is
and unfortunate choice, but I don't know what to substitute. When I speak of
complexity, it is in an entirely different context. It refers to the failure of
the
Newtonian paradigm to give one final way for understanding our world. Rosen's
definition is both unique and ignored by the others. Sorry for the confusion.
>
>
> > 2.Dealing with complex systems NECESSARILY means dealing with more than the
> > physical constituents since complex systems are irreducible.
>
> I am not convinced that we don't need to deal more than the physical
> constutuents regardless of the complexity of a system.
Here again the context is all important. It is not the complexity of the system
that we refer to. All real systems are complex. It is the complexity of the
formalsisms with which we try to understand the system that have varying
degrees.
>
>
> > 3.Relationships between functional components are far more important than
how
> > the pieces fit together and these two aspects do not map into each other in
> > any 1:1 manner.
>
> The relational aspects of the functional components of a system are, in
> my opinion, just one of many perspectives we need to assimilate in order
> to better understand the whole systemic process.
That's exactly what I've been saying. However you don't get far without them.
This
is especially true when it comes to the physical/non-physical issue. There has
been
so much done in this area which has been ignored. It is almost as if you feel
better continuing to ignore it?
>
>
> > 4.Complex systems have more than one way with which they can be interacted.
>
> Simple systems can also interact in several ways too.
No......here you lost my meaning. It is not how the systems interact. It is
how we
interact with the system. Science (so far) has given us only one way through
empiricism.....the reductionist/mechanist approach.
>
>
> > These are distinct(not derivable from each other).
> > This is just a glimpse of what is at stake here. It's substance requires
hard
> > work and study to master. I don't think you will get very far by making fun
> > of it or by ignoring it.
>
> So far as I know, no one is ignoring your suggestions and no one is
> making fun of them. So, unless you want to keep complaining about being
> ignored and made fun of, lets move on.
OK..show me that you are taking them seriously........comment on their
content...and
stop refering to Rosen's work as a you have.
>
>
> Norm
respectfully,
Don