Vladimyr
I am intentionally trying to avoid the typical negative connotation to
"Corruption" as I also avoid the positive connotation placed on "Evolution",
others tried that in 1930's.
My use of the word corruption is focused on a complex system and its
component machinery being usurped
ropella
Sent: April 1, 2010 3:44 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] holism vs. reductionism, again
Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-03-31 09:04 PM:
> The notion is uncomfortable, and perhaps demonstrable with computer
> simulations
Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-03-31 09:04 PM:
> The notion is uncomfortable, and perhaps demonstrable with computer
> simulations.
I have to agree with Victoria (and Eric), here. "Corruption" does not
make sense in the context of evolution. The sense of the word is that
we have some
sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-04-01 12:21 PM:
> The reason my points were phrased that way was due to the subject of
> this thread. The "vs." paints holism / reductionism as a black vs
> white "fight", whereas there is a whole spectrum (and not only of
> grays) in between (and beyond) not necessaril
Hi Glen
The reason my points were phrased that way was due to the subject of this
thread.
The "vs." paints holism / reductionism as a black vs white "fight", whereas
there is a
whole spectrum (and not only of grays) in between (and beyond) not
necessarily in
coonflict ("Ebony and Ivory ..").
Just
Pardon me, but I couldn't help overhearing (i.e., randomly butting in):
Evolution is never visible 'in the moment', evolution is one type of change
over time. This whole thing where you think you can see a new organism born and
say "see, look at that, THAT is evolution" is crazy talk... no matter
Victoria Hughes wrote circa 10-03-31 09:29 PM:
> How can you identify in the moment which aberrations will lead to
> evolution, versus which aberrations will lead to atrophy?
It's not clear to me that there's a difference between "evolution" and
"atrophy". It seems to me that atrophy is just one
Allright you all-
Although chiming in without having read the entire thread is probably
an error with you all, re Vladimyr's intriguing comments below:
I agree completely, although I do not see this as an uncomfortable
conclusion. I see it as less hubristic and more integrated. Must be my
y Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] holism vs. reductionism, again
You make some interesting points; but they're phrased in a way that
makes it difficult to respond. I'll just tick off a few things I think
stand out.
I don't think it's very easy to ju
You make some interesting points; but they're phrased in a way that
makes it difficult to respond. I'll just tick off a few things I think
stand out.
I don't think it's very easy to justify the assertion that any given
biological system is non-computable. It seems to me that such a
justificatio
Confining ourselves within the scientific boundaries you have set
1) I see so many non-computable biological examples everywhere and everyday,
that I ponder on the politics, compulsions and funding of university driven
academia that
result in the exponential explosion of niche "pseudo-science"art
sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-03-30 12:15 PM:
>
> Derek Gatherer wrote:
>> "If Darwinian reductionism really does transcend the old
>> reductionist-holist dichotomy, systems biology would be the ideal
>> place to demonstrate it. Likewise, we are now in a position to test
>> Rosen’s theories about non
Hi
To digress considerably from your query, I find it interesting that
the author concludes his paper with the following reference to
(Robert) Rosen and "relatively easy experiments"
"If Darwinian reductionism really does transcend the old
reductionist-holist dichotomy, systems biology would be t
So what do we really mean when we say that systems biology is holistic?
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/4/22
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fr
14 matches
Mail list logo
