Alexei Sharov wrote:
> Reply to Don:
>
> > As Rosen said in his discussion of the possibility of fabricating living
> systems,
> >it is almost comforting that most scientists alive understamd at most 30%
> of the
> >story and then it is usually a different 30% in each of them.. He was
> dealing with
> >his own moral dilema and the fact that he is sitting on a pile of unpublished
> > work.
> >There is a very real block involved when one is asked to jump outside the
safe
> >framework science has constructed over the years. It may even be connected
> with
> >human evolution and survival. Do we dare tamper with this? I don't know.
> As my
> >excitement about what I've learned grows, so does my concern.
> >
> >Let me add that I am pushing Rosen's ideas to the point of being obnoxious
> often
> >because I want to see if anyone can find a flaw. So far, those of of doing
> this
> >have not had one significant criticism based on a real understanding of
> what's being
> >said. I did the same thing some years back with network Thermodynamics
> with a VERY
> >different result. We seem to really be at a threshold here!
>
> Don, you always refer to Rosen as if he has all the answers to all our
> problems. But Rosen's writings are often confusing and it is often
> very hard to find the ends.
to quote from "Life Itself" page 15: "Why the problem is hard""As a first step
in
our assault on the problem What is life? it will be well to get some idea of
what
we are up against. Specifically, we will try to understand what it is about the
problem that has rendered it so refactory to the combined resources of our
contemporary scientific wisdom....................though we will not be able to
come to a true answer to this question until we come to the end.
Let us begin by noting the very form of this question; we are asking
WHY...............What is life? .......is really a why question in
disguise.......why a specific material system is an organism, and not something
else....."
I do this to remind you that Rosen has specific answers to questions NO ONE else
has answered, not "all the answers". Also we discuss here material that
overlaps
with none of the more common scientific approaches. This is a radical departure
and can't be lumped among a pile of alternative classical techniques.
>
>
> Let's start with the modeling relation,
> i.e., relation between a natural and formal systems. In "Life itself"
> Rosen first introduced the modeling relationship between 2 formal systems
> and then said that the same thing can exist between a natural and formal
> systems. This transition is not clear at all!
It is a bit of a misrepresentation, but the idea of a commutative map is common
in
set theory. What do you find unclear about it?
> A formal system is a set
> of statements expressed in a formal language which can be combined in
> a number of ways or deducted from each other. We don't see anything
> comparable in a natural system. The natural system may have no
> language and no statements!
You clearly have not read the three chapters in "Anticipatory Systems" which the
sections in "Life Itself" refer to. There he builds up the elements of
correspondence between the symbols in the formal system and the symbols in our
PERCEPTION of the natural system. He does this with the other aspects
too...with
great care and VERY convincingly. What you are forgetting is that our only acess
to
the natural system for manipulations like the modeling relation is after
perception.
> Rosen suggests that
> measurement is a "dictionary" that translates natural statements
> into human language. What Rosen does not seem to see is that the
> measured system is no longer the same after measurement because
> measuring may change it.
This is one of Rosen's main points...please stop misrepresenting him!
>
>
> If 2 formalisms describe the same natural system, there may be
> nothing in common between these 2 formal systems, especially if
> abstraction involves different measuring devices. Sharing measuring
> devices may be difficult or not possible at all. This is very different
> from sharing dictionaries that translate statements from one
> formal system to another.
>
Now we get into his definition of complexity. What is the problem?
> Rosen describes relational biology as "throwing away matter and studying
> organization". In contrast, physics "throws away organization and
> studies matter". My personal impression is that both approaches are
> limited.
Rosen says this....he sees relational biology as just one more DISTINCT way of
interacting with a complex system.
> We need to study both things.
and more....why don't you recognize the fact that you are giving his argument as
a
counter argument of your own?
> "Matter" is a very useful
> label for something unknown or for something that we non't want to
> know (at least for a while). It is like a pointer to an object in
> object-oriented programming. When we talk about matter we use fingers
> to show it. If we throw away matter then we simply go to Platonic ideas
> and there is nothing interesting left to discuss.
>
> Rosen describes a component (p. 122, Life itself) in traditional
> cybernetic terms of input-output relations and black boxes. I wrote
> about limitations of traditional cybernetics in my paper on-line
> http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/biosem/txt/tosemiot.html
> In short, "black boxes" never evolve.
>
what Rosen does is not traditional cybernetics. You keep misrepresenting to
tear
down the straw man. In the paper he refers you to he develops how he goes
beyond
the cybernetic black box in his relational, category theory argument. Please be
more careful!
> Page 141 in "Life itself" is not clear. For example, it is not
> said whether condition [5K.5] should be held for any element a from
> the set A. The problem with entailment is that it is not unique.
> Function phi in [5K.5] may entail SEVERAL functions f. This gives
> the system internal freedom. I did not find the place where Rosen
> discusses this freedom.
> read the references
> But the most confusing are Rosen's writings on replication and
> fabrication. Replication is an odd topic for a relational
> biologist because it is copying of the same organization; nothing
> new happens.
if you understand the context this replication is a natural consequence of
metabolism/repair....it is derivable from it and EMERGES from it. I object to
your
use of judgemental statements to deny things you are merely not willing to
study.
> The fact that Rosen became interested in replication
> sais that he is not very consistent in throwing away matter.
> huh?.......you again understand almost nothing about this argument
> Rosen wrote his equation
> [10C.6] without further explanation. He said "I have since repeated
> this formal argument many times in previous work and not need repeat
> it here" (p. 251). No citations follow. Don, can you help to find the
> reference?
the key work is: Some Relational Cell Models: The Metabolism-Repair System."
Chapter 4 of Foundations ofMathematical Biology Vol. 2, 217-253. N.Y. & London,
Academic Press. 1972
(a fairly complete bibliography of his work is at http://views.vcu.edu/complex/)
> What is most confusing here is that Rosen does not provide
> any mechganisms to COUNT replicating structures.
You totally misunderstand ...how can one use mechanisms in a development
designed
to be non-mechanistic?
> How NEW organisms
> can appear in his category? This is the point where matter becomes
> important and platonic relational biology fails.
you are saying he doesn't answer any question other than the one he asked....why
does that become a problem....find somewhere where he addresses the problem you
are
interested in and critique that...it wasn't bveing addressed here. (again see
references listed in page above)
>
>
> The usual mechanism for counting objects in the category theory is
> creating a functor to the category of sets. I have not seen such
> a functor in Rosen's formalism. May be I am missing something?
yes......they are all over the place....
>
>
> The problem of replication/fabrication is very important because
> it is the only way for a system to become entirely autonomous
> (self-entailed). Did Rosen say anything new about replication
> compared to Von Neumann? Von Neumann actually described a self-replicating
> machine (in Rosen's sence), not an organism.
Read Rosen's paper critiquing von Neuman......he shows why von Neuman was
totally
wrong!
>
>
> These critical comments do not imply that I don't like Rosen's ideas.
> No doubt, he is one of the leaders in theoretical biology.
> But it is hard to follow him in some places... May be somebody
> will explain the other 70% that I have missed.
your comments seem to be mainly about the 70% you missed. Do not interpret this
as
an attempt to be rude as it is not. It is my frank opinion. You need to do
lots
more work before you understand even why you are having difficulty....it is not
in
Rosen's work...but in your own unfamiliarity with it. Only you can deal with
that.
>
>
> -Alexei
> -------------------------------------------------
> Alexei Sharov Research Scientist
> Dept. of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
> Tel. (540) 231-7316; FAX (540) 231-9131; e-mail sharov@vt.edu
> Home page: http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/alexei.html
respectfully,Don Mikulecky