> Friends;
> Is there? ,
> I wonder any likelihood of this list getting beyond rosenolatry now?
> Questions of what it might be impossible to do for quasi-theological reasons,
> are perhaps unlikely to advance cybernetic systems science as a practical
> tool for making high leverage systems to improve the miseries of the world,
> are they?
> Gary Boyd
Dear Gary,
As I was personally cited here, I believe that I have to answer.
The question here is not of a "rosenolatry". I myself know very little about
the work of Rosen. Some participants on the list stressed the opinion that
his work MAY be important to the development of complex systems, which
may have a profound impact in the development of cybernetic (intelligent)
systems. So, if is there this possibility, it is our duty to understand the
claims
that appeared insofar, and put the matter into discussion in order to evaluate
HOW MUCH this work can cause an impact in the construction of cybernetic
systems. To make this evaluation, we have first to UNDERSTAND what
exactly is this theory, derive the implications of accepting it and further try
to incorporate or refutate it in our work. I believe this is what we are doing
right now with this discussion about the work of Rosen. I don't understand
your concern about the directions that these discussions are taking. I would
compare it to the discussions that appeared when science was considering
if "ether" do exist or not. People could not continue developping theories
that includes "ether" as a premise, if the existence of "ether" itself was being
put in check. They had first to discuss about ether, for further going away.
The discussion now is about "complexity", and the name of Rosen was put
on the table. It is not a matter of talking about him like a God, but just
a try in understanding what he said. There is people on this list that have
taken care of studying in depth his work and is now telling us their
evaluation. We are now hearing this evaluation. This is how science goes
on and evolves. I don't see any harm in this procedure.
Unless you have any personal disagreement with the ideas being discussed
here, and in this case we invite you to put your point of view on the round
too. If you don't like the ideas being discussed, for any reason, try to explain
us why ! They are touching issues too esoteric ? Too theological ? Well,
quantum mechanics do the same as well ... I am not defending quantum
mechanics, but we have to make our imagination free in order to expand
beyond some point. If not, we became obsessed by what we already
know and simply ignore what we can not explain, as if they are not there
to defy us.
Best regards,
Ricardo
--
//\\\
(o o)
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-oOO--(_)--OOo-=-=-+
\ Prof. Ricardo Ribeiro Gudwin /
/ Intelligent Systems Development Group \
\ DCA - FEEC - UNICAMP | INTERNET /
/ Caixa Postal 6101 | gudwin@dca.fee.unicamp.br \
\ 13081-970 Campinas, SP | gudwin@fee.unicamp.br /
/ BRAZIL | gudwin@correionet.com.br \
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
\ URL: http://www.dca.fee.unicamp.br/~gudwin/ /
/ Telephones: +55 (19) 788-3819 DCA/Unicamp (University) \
\ +55 (19) 254-0184 Residencia (Home) /
/ FAX: +55 (19) 289-1395 \
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+