At 08:36 PM 2/13/99 -0800, you wrote:
.............
>
>I'm not sure that the understanding in the rock is purely at the
>sub-atomic level. I think it may occur at all levels including the
>molecular and the macro physical. For instance, consider the properties
>of our rock when it is thrown. Its weight, shape, texture and density
>help define its trajectory.
>
>
Yes, I suspected that this is where the discussion would land, and its why
I raised the issue. My point is that all these "macro-physical" properties
are adequately explained by reductionistic models to the level of matter.
It is below that where we have to consider micro-macro mutual causation
(observership).
I don't see the coarse scale "objective" properties of the rock (or other
object) having any causal effect on the essence of the rock. There are no
"morphogenetic" properties at the objective level of the simple object that
feed back to definitions at the sub-atomic, except for the structure of the
elements. In other words, it wouldn't matter if it were a lump of iron, an
iron beam, or if it was being thrown, or whatever; nothing at the coarse
scale is involved in determing the properties of the rock itself.
>> 2. ".... the notion that data [are] non physical." I do not believe that
>> data are non-physical, because the concept refers to time/space attributes.
>> Something analogous to data may be non-physical. I prefer to use the less
>> defined word "information." But this is semantics, really.
>>
>
>We've been through this many times before. To me, data is just a
>difference that makes a difference. I know this is ungrammatical
>because data is plural, but I think common usage today has blurred
>this. Also I use data and information interchangeably, while you have
>some specific meanings for data you've developed as a result of your
>work. Still for our purposes in these discussions, we've agreed that
>data and information are by definition just non physical differences
>that can make a physical difference.
>
I'm thinking of common definitions in the physical sciences. I see no way
to define "data" outside of a space-time context; it seems inseparable from
coding, which is physical.
>In other words, the simple/complex notion is grounded in our locational
>and temporal frame of reference. It has some meaning in the macro
>physical realms, but in the non physical realms complexity is an
>inappropriate use of "or" logic.
Yes, I agree with this. But we cannot ignore the meaning and value it has
in the "macro-physical realms;" and in that realm I am arguing that systems
are simple, and quite distinct from living systems which combine both
simple and complex systems. I do not believe it is useful to think of
everything as complex - that really confuses things and throws out the baby
(current knowledge built from the mechanical view) with the bathwater (that
and the inadequacies of the mechanical view). We want to replace the
inadequacies and keep what already works. That means defining the difference.
>
>It adds nothing to say that a model of a macroscopic object is simple.
>It also adds nothing to say that interactions at the particle level are
>complex. And I think it is very confusing to say that a formalism is
>simple in some respects just because it is a reductionistic non physical
>imaginary model or replication of a natural system such as a rock.
Rosen's definition of "simple" is synonymous with reductionism. My point is
that a simple model of the rock itself is completely adequate to understand
the rock, and thus we can say that the rock itself is simple. The more
complex aspects that one might wish to refer to, such as the different
attributes that ants vs. humans might perceive, are a function of the
complexity of the perceiving organism, not the rock. That's what I'm
saying. All attributes that are solely of the rock itself seem to reduce as
a simple system.
......When we are dealing with the non
>macro physical realms, we need to use "and" logic. This is the only way
>I know of getting past our blind spot. And since the simple/complex
>notion is essentially an "or" logic thought mode, I think we ought to
>leave it out of our discussion of the modeling relation.
You are mixing two things here. I agree with the first; that for
non-mechanical phenomena simple models don't work and your "and" logic is
appropriate. However, let's be clear that the modeling relation of Rosen is
a general theory that applies to both cases. It applies to complex systems
as well as simple systems, and may help to understand how simple systems
came about. It is definitely inadequate to treat everything as simple. It
is equally inappropriate to treat everything as complex. Thus the
distinction is very informative, and I believe that is why Rosen was so
focused on complexity in his later writings.
>
>Living organisms, on the other hand,
>> retain complexity at a macroscopic level.
>
>Saying that complexity is a characteristic of living organisms has no
>meaning. We might as well say that living organisms are alive because
>God did it.
No. When we attribute the cause to God, we are either stating a circular
definition ("it is because it is") or referring to the unknown (God is
unknowable). When we say a living organism is complex and a rock is not we
are identifying a "difference that makes a difference" to use your words.
Complexity is definable as non-computability, something we can know.
Neither of the God explanations allow us to understand the difference in
theoretical terms.
>
>"Data" are macroscopic physical
>> records (perhaps the entire macroscopic physical world), but interpreting
>> data requires a complex system.
>
>Again, saying interpreting requires a "complex" system says nothing
>useful. And as I've said, trying to use "or" logic to figure out what
>interpreting and understanding are makes no sense at all.
I'm trying to be practical. I think it would be useful for many people to
know (if it turns out to be true) that a modern-day computer cannot
interpret (symantically) because it is not complex. We could then say that
many people are trying to use computers for something they are incapable of
doing. "Useful" must refer to what people are doing, not to our own ideals.
>
>Hence I conclude that organisms can process
>> environmental data because they have macroscopic complexity that allows
>> them to interpret the data, whereas a rock can only interpret data
>> (macroscopic structure) that defines particle state domains.
>
>Sorry John, to me this is a nonsense sentence. Macroscopic complexity
>has nothing to do with the differences between our understanding and a
>rock's understanding. Go back and read how I characterized this
>difference. It too falls short, but it makes more sense to me. And so
>far, that is the best I can do.
>
Well, I've thought about it a lot and I think this does at least steer us
in a useful direction. Rosen must have thought so too, as he spent most of
his life trying to work it out. Perhaps you have achieved a greater
understanding than this (perhaps I have as well), but this step is still
relevant to science, I believe. Remember, I'm not interested in abandoning
science, but I am interested in expanding it.
.............
>I think that the rock's understanding is more akin to what we call an
>experience. It processes data in a direct, unfiltered way. There is no
>central data processing system and no specialized circuitry to transmit
>the raw data to and from central processing.
OK, but ask the hard questions. What is the rock understanding
(experiencing) in this view? I say its experience does not even include "I
am a rock" let alone "I am a rock with these properties: ...." I think its
experience does not rise above the atomic composition of the elements in
the rock. My reason for thinking this is that everything above that level
is reducible as a simple system, with no residue. Now this sounds like a
reductionist, but I argue that I am not. The reason is that I'm speaking
only of the rock itself as an independent object - that is a very special
definition, one that is by definition considered without other complex
relationships. When we discuss attributes of a rock, we are adding
relationships to other things that are complex, hence the discussion of
attributes involves complexity. "Hardness" for example is a property in our
(or another observer's) experience as much as it is a property of the rock.
The part the rock contributes is reducible; the whole concept that involves
us is not.
>
>On an intelligence scale, it would, along with other
>> physical objects, define the lowest possible score, with single partical
>> events being somewhat higher.
>
>
>I don't think it is at all helpful to infer that we can scale the
>different types of understanding as if it were an IQ test. The way
>understanding manifests itself in the physical, life and thought realms
>is much more qualitative than quantitative. So it is not helpful to
>quantify this understanding quality and pretend we have a lock on it.
>Again this quantification attempts to inappropriately use "or" logic
>with an "and" logic natural system.
The "scale" I refer to is conversational and qualitative.
>
>It is crucial to match the logic of our mental model with the natural
>system we are focused on. Otherwise, the modeling relation will be
>totally out of sync.
Yes! That is precisely why I am matching the concept of a simple system
with our definition of a rock and the concept of a complex system with our
definition of "living." The modeling relation is worthless if it does not
help us understand such distinctions.
>Let me know if this still doesn't make much sense.
Sure, it makes sense; you're a very sensible guy! Most of it makes "common"
sense, which seems to be rather uncommon in many fields. I understand your
arguments and agree with their general tone and intent. Buy pointing out
some details where I disagree I'm not trying at all to shoot down the
general thesis, which I agree with: I'm instead attempting to go deeper and
to link it with other concepts that are indispensible in current practise.
If we understand the relationship between different theoretical views of
these things, we can gain a better grasp of the limits of what we know and
the opportunities in what we don't know. I trying to take the next step
that your (our) view demands.
-----------------------------------------------
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)