So that Gary doesn't feel completely overruled here, I too feel there is a
wheel-spinning aspect to all this. I keep asking how to make progress, but
I don't have enough of the technical tools as yet. I think the hope is that
the correct way of thinking about it all, i.e., philosophy, will save time
later by avoiding dead-ends.
That's where I get into trying to reconcile the quantum issues and
Penrose's ideas. I'm sorting through Ricardo's latest comments about that
to see if I can understand why it is unpopular. Don, would you care to
comment on that correspondance? Given that Rosen's view may be different
from the quantum view, is there a possible synthesis? What is the main
point of disagreement?
I ask this because Penrose's suggestions seem more practical and doable.
The idea that "everything is complex," while ultimately true, I think, has
little practical application, because the word "practical" means "in
relation to more perceptual viewpoints." I think we have to deal with
levels of reality in (or defined by) the modeling relation. If Rosen is
correct in principle, then "reality" itself is relational, and we, as
humans, are part of that relation. Hence my statement that reality and
models cannot be thought of as completely separate, except at the level
where the model can be seen objectively. This gets wierd, but at a very
deep level, the pattern over time that we now call "human" I think can be,
in essence, thought of as a Rosenesque model relation. That seems
objectionable because I havn't defined who's mind the model exists in (and
I don't mean this theologically!). But it seems that one result of Rosen's
view, if he doesn't say this directly, is that our concept of "mind" must
be broadened too, and hence this becomes logical.
Doing that, we can speak of everything observable being, itself, a model
(not just OUR view of it). We keep getting stuck on the idea that we are
the only observers, hence the only entities capable of creating a model.
Perhaps everything is a model of itself. This is perhaps where we get
levels of perception that, on the one hand, are a resuult of human thought,
and on the other hand can also be considered "natural." Its the reason I
like Penrose's self-observation principles (Objective Reduction and
self-collapse in the QM perspective). What else do we mean by a
"self-definining universe?"
The problem with trying to adopt a wholistic perspective entirely is that
all differences dissolve at the final level of wholeness. My hunch is that
the relational perspective is more valuable as part of the foundation for
theory, i.e., part of the philosophical worldview. That in finding the
correspondances between this and the more perceptually based theories, such
as quantum, we can develop something practical. But its a hunch, and I'd
like to hear the arguements.
At 12:43 PM 8/14/98 -0400, you wrote:
>OK;
>There may indeed be something worth trying to understand here.
>which will be of some real value someday.
>sorry for my rudeness.
>My pragmatic engineering realist perspective
>and sense of doom regarding our planet,
>is a bit too far away for me to appreciate all this, that's all
>I guewss.
>u wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>OK,
>Carry on!
>
>Professor Gary Boyd, Education (Educational Technology Graduate
>Programme)Concordia University,
>1455 DeMaisonneuve West, Montreal, Quebec Canada H3G 1M8.
><boydg@vax2.concordia.ca> tel.(514)848-3459, fax(514)848-4520.
>homepage <http://alcor.concordia.ca/~boydg/drboyd.html >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Toward Eco-CO-cultural conviviality, through participative cybersystemic
>modelling, and Grace & grudge networking.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
-----------------------------------------------
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)