John J. Kineman wrote:
> JJK reply to Ricardo's comments:
>
> 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)