Well said Ricardo! I am personally shy about mentioning the more deeply
philosophical or theological issues here because of these sensitivities,
but it is very hard to avoid when one is asking about the nature of
reality. Also, I think there are some basic worldview issues that may
always be a matter of faith (religious or scientific equally). Also, from
what I DO understand of Rosen, and what Penrose seems to agree with, they
are saying that all our knowledge can't come from an objective,
computational scientific view, unless science is somehow expanded to
include the kind of knowledge one can obtain from art, contemplation, and
other forms of subjective experience. This is very threatening to
traditional views of science, and I am not convinced that it is possible
for science ever to include this perspective. They are likely to be
eternally separate views. But I believe they have very significant areas of
overlap and relationship, and it is quite valuable to look at those areas
from BOTH views to get a better idea of it. From an analytical (scientific)
view, reality looks one way, from a Rosenesque or wholistic view (if this
isn't unfair to Rosen), things look another way. We can't ask that there be
one "right" way, only what the different views are good for. And that
relates to what our purpose is. If we want to know how to construct a
building, I would suggest a strictly positivist, reductionist, determinist,
mechanical, classical, euclidean viewpoint. If we want to get along with
the construction workers and have a successful project, I'd suggest the
opposite, perhaps something more ala Rosen. Complex systems seem to be at
the interface, hence allow one to debate both perspectives. I'll save my
opinions about the details for response to the other messages, but my point
here is that I wholly agree that the deeper issues need to be discussed.
Eventually we will find a way to draw appropriate boundaries for the
investigations at hand.
At 12:54 PM 8/14/98 -0300, you wrote:
>Dr. Gary Boyd wrote:
>
>> 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 \
> +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
>
>
-----------------------------------------------
John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
(303) 497-6900 (phone)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)
jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)