Merle, I don't know about you, but I find loads of "effortless elegance" in how humans "can't STAND not resolving... ambiguity" and the fact that self-consistency is a hallmark of closed systems. We each build our own one in a world that houses prolific varieties of conflicting ones, that survive and thrive on the by-products of their differences through an open system... Don't you think that formal appearance, that environments thrive as open systems by housing closed systems with conflicting self-consistent designs, to be suspicious and possibly useful?
Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff > Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 1:25 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Rosen, Life Itself > > Nicholas Thompson wrote: > > Nick, > > Difficult books are like difficult men: challenging for a while, but > ultimately too much trouble and too little payoff for the effort. Give > me effortless elegance every time. Remind me, why are you doing Rosen? > And while I'm at it, I haven't had time to read all the chatter about > life itself and insight and creativity, but this is one of the most > disappointing dialogues yet on friam. The curve of research in > neuroscience has exploded, finally beginning a synthesis that includes > multiple nodes of knowing (including, Nick, contemplative psychology). > Not to mention that quantum ambiguity continues to confound logic. And > as humans, we can't STAND not resolving the amibiguity. Reason is the > way we operate, we must KNOW. But the "not-knowing" is absent here. > (Too > Bhuddist for you?) Where in all this discussion is the contemplative > inquiry, the extended epistemology? You want to talk about mind and > life? Then visit the Mind and Life Institute site. This discussion > might > have more meaning if you guys were reading Varela and Maturana and > Bateson and Boehm. We all agree there is no non-relational reality, but > that includes our relationship with "God." Even Stu Kauffman is > "Reinventing the Sacred" (while still going after the physicists. I > don't get it. You won, Stu, the 21st century is the Age of Biology!) > And > it looks to me like Ann may be the prophet in your midst. Oh, well, > I'll > keeping checking in at friam, because as Pablo Cassals the great > cellist > said when asked at the age of 94 "why do you keep practicing every > day?" > "Because", he said, "I think I detect signs of improvement." > > Merle > > Phil, > > Everybody needs to remember that this is my synopsis of Rosen, not > Rosen. > > Also, I am starting my synopsis on Chapter Five. I have read the > > previous chapters with great care and understand things abut them, > but > > the synopsis of chapter five will never settle down until somebody > has > > written synopses to the earlier chapters. > > Now substance. I am not sure the word "realize" is causal in Rosen's > > lingo. He just means that some tangible object or process in our > > worlds has the same formal structure. Am I wrong about this???/ > > For him, causality consists of entailments in the world "out there". > > If it is the case that hitting the ball entails the ball > dissappearing > > over the fence, then he would say that the hit caused the ball to fly > > over the fence. Physical laws get their implication only when they > > display "congruence" with events in the world. This, according to > > Rosen, is why Newton can disclaim an interest in causality. Do you > > have the book at hand? Am I wrong about this??? > > Have I misjudged the group's interest in Rosen? I have imagined by > now > > that others would be beavering away at synopses of other chapters > > and/or been so seduced by my incompetence that they would have taken > > over the synopsizing of chapter five. > > I dont know any other way to come to understand a difficult book. > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > > Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Phil Henshaw <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > *To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;The Friday Morning Applied > > Complexity Coffee Group <mailto:friam@redfish.com> > > *Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > *Sent:* 8/3/2008 5:36:00 PM > > *Subject:* RE: [FRIAM] Rosen, Life Itself > > > > I find it interesting that he seems to establish the > applicability > > of his formalism to physical systems with the casual word > > "realize" as in "/Any two natural systems that realize this > > formalism ." /as if no demonstration was required. There seems to > > be no instrumentality for such a transference, the same > difficulty > > of there being no information input-output device for a human > > mind, just each person's original recreation device. Whenever > > natural systems adopt a structure from some other place they do > so > > by reinventing it for themselves, from scratch, which costs you > > your basis of proof it would seem to me. > > > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Nicholas > Thompson > > *Sent:* Friday, August 01, 2008 1:02 AM > > *To:* friam@redfish.com > > *Cc:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > *Subject:* [FRIAM] Rosen, Life Itself > > > > Dear Anybody Interested in Rosen, > > > > I have continued to plug away at the task of writing a synopsis > of > > the crucial chapter 5 of Rosen. As you see if you go look at > > > > > http://www.sfcomplex.org/wiki/RosenNoodles#Comments_on_chapter_5.2C_Ent > ailment_Without_States:_Relational_Biology > > > > the chapter is in danger of defeating me. > > > > Is the passage below any clearer to anybody else than it is to > > me??? Because of the difficulties of distinguishing my words from > > Rosen;s, reading of the passage below will be GREATLY facilitated > > by reading it in HTML. > > > > Rosen writes, > > > > "/Now . let us suppose that . [there is a formalism, F] that > > describes a set of formal components, interrelated in a > particular > > way. Any two natural systems that realize this formalism . can > > they be said to realize, or manifest, a common organization. Any > > material system that shares that organization is by definition a > > realization of that organization./" > > > > Rosen now precedes build such a formalism. > > > > "/We have by now said enough to clearly specify what the formal > > image of a component must be. It must in fact be a mapping (sic!) > / > > > > /"f: A-->B / > > > > /"This formal image clearly possesses the necessary polar > > structure, embodied in the differentiation it imposes between the > > domain A of f and its range B. It also posses the necessary > > duality; the "identity" of the component is embodied in the > > mapping f itself, while the influence of larger systems, O, in > > which the component is embedded, is embodied in the specific > > arguments in A on which the mapping can operate. / > > > > /"In what follows, I shall never use the term "function" in its > > mathematical sense, as a synonym for mapping; I reserve it > > entirely as an expression of the relation of components to > systems > > and to each other." p. 123, LI.* */ > > > > I have reproduced, rather than summarize this passage, because > its > > meaning is opaque to me. > > > > The first two paragraphs seem to be saying that components map > but > > the last paragraph seems to insist that the function of a > > component is not to map. What follows in the text is a two-page > > orgy of notion in which organization is expressed as a series of > > mappings and metamapping in the manner outlined below. Given the > > disclaimer in the last sentence above, I haven't a clue what he > > could be saying. > > > > But when the orgy of notation is over, he is clear about what he > > THINKS he has said.. > > > > /".organization . involves a family of sets, a corresponding > > family of mappings defined on these sets, and above all, the > > abstract block diagram that interrelates them, that gives them > > functions". p.126, LI. / > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > > > > Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
