Re: [FRIAM] holism vs. reductionism, again
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 of the many processes that constitute evolution. Can you clarify the question? -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com 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
Re: [FRIAM] holism vs. reductionism, again
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 how many times Jean-Luc Picard says it (typically after some one-episode character turns into a pulsating energy butterfly). Eric On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 12:50 PM, glen e. p. ropella g...@agent-based-modeling.com wrote: 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 of the many processes that constitute evolution. Can you clarify the question? -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com 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 Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 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
Re: [FRIAM] holism vs. reductionism, again
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 FYI, although I am an engineer (who had no inclination to go into formal research - I briefly drifted into designing some tiny aspects of the engines of war) my interest in complexity is almost entirely driven by religion / philosophy; Aristotle, Socrates .. Rashevsky, Rosen, etc. with a focus on transmission of biological information via genetics (and is unconnected to my.work life) . Returning to my point (1) - ie non-computable biological entities, I propose that this further reduces to defining if there is actually a limit to the smallest bit of information. For eg, is an electron (or atom) computable? My rough and ready approach to determining which biological systems are computable (and dare I say you would have encountered some variant of this in your own complexity adventures) abandons mathematical formalisms entirely (if you know the answer why frame the question) dwells on the the reality of Man. For, those who say that Man is real and a creation usually fall within the computablecamp, whereas those who favour the unreality line would say Man is non-computable.. Your point about mystics/seers (possibly / occasionally) being a few hundred years ahead of science, is not too far off the mark. In the context of Zeno's.paradox, extracting even the slightest sliver from the progression would render the infinite computable,. So when we measure it affects reality (?) and fools (deludes) us into believing that we have solved (computed) the problem. However, I have no problem with such approximate computation (pseudo-science) if it delivers some practical application (sooner rather than later). Finally, I wonder why Vladymir perceives us to be idealists who put up with corruption Sarbajit On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:07 AM, glen e. p. ropella g...@agent-based-modeling.com wrote: 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 justification would have to be a _demonstration_ that something was non-computable. And based on the way computability is defined, such a demonstration would consist of showing that the system was definitely beyond the capabilities of a universal turing machine. Hence, determining which biological systems are computable and which are not doesn't seem like a simple task to me. Similarly, determining which parts of the data/info glut contributors will lead to the next leap of insight and which parts are just noise or trivial doesn't seem so simple to me, either. So, it seems to me that you're throwing the term pseudo-science around a little too loosely. Granted, there is a lot of pseudo-science out there. And it can be difficult to tell the difference because, invariably, one has to wade into the jargon and do a non-trivial amount of research to differentiate. And none of us has the time to do such delving into every discipline. And that's why we rely on social networks and reputation, perhaps too much at times. But it's working so far! In fact, I would assert that the rather mystical statements you make in your bullets (3) and (4) can be (somewhat) defended from a scientific perspective NOW; but that only a few hundred years ago, those statements could only come from mystics and the religious. No scientist would stake his reputation on these sorts of metaphysical statements. But because these pseudo-science reductionist methods are _working_, we can begin to build the case that those very same methods, while satisficing, are not accurate enough to capture the vanishing point that is reality. Of course, this is just a restatement of critical rationalism. While we _know_ that our pseudo-science reductionist methods will ultimately be proven inadequate, we also know that they each take us a tiny step closer to the limit. And to get over Zeno's paradox, we sporadically construct theories that repackage all or most of what's come before to take us a huge leap forward. But we'll never get there. And we've known that for quite some time (at least since the early 1900s). So, it seems that your (4) is a well accepted position to me, even amongst many of the scientists fully engaged in what you're calling pseudo-science reductionist methods. The old saying comes to mind: It may not be perfect; but it's the best we have! FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe,
Re: [FRIAM] holism vs. reductionism, again
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 necessarily in coonflict (Ebony and Ivory ..). Right. I get that. Don't take my responses as wholly combative. [grin] If I didn't agree with you in at least some sense, I wouldn't be able to responds because there'd be no common ground from which to work. Returning to my point (1) - ie non-computable biological entities, I propose that this further reduces to defining if there is actually a limit to the smallest bit of information. For eg, is an electron (or atom) computable? My rough and ready approach to determining which biological systems are computable (and dare I say you would have encountered some variant of this in your own complexity adventures) abandons mathematical formalisms entirely (if you know the answer why frame the question) dwells on the the reality of Man. For, those who say that Man is real and a creation usually fall within the computablecamp, whereas those who favour the unreality line would say Man is non-computable.. It's not clear to me how you can actually abandon math formalisms but still use the word computable. (That does not compute! said in automaton voce) That word has been hijacked from the English language by computationalists and mathematicians to mean something very specific. Perhaps simulable or emulable or something would be better? Your point about mystics/seers (possibly / occasionally) being a few hundred years ahead of science, is not too far off the mark. In the context of Zeno's.paradox, extracting even the slightest sliver from the progression would render the infinite computable,. So when we measure it affects reality (?) and fools (deludes) us into believing that we have solved (computed) the problem. However, I have no problem with such approximate computation (pseudo-science) if it delivers some practical application (sooner rather than later). But this is the whole point of the scientific method! It's an evolutionary approach in the sense that each individual scientist is a woefully ignorant little cog in the huge machine where the combinatorial explosive space of possibilities is being explored by life. That little cog is allowed, even encouraged, to delude himself if that helps the bigger machine of life expand the biosphere, including inseminating other galaxies. ... [ahem] Finally, I wonder why Vladymir perceives us to be idealists who put up with corruption I believe he was claiming that I am willing to tolerate corruption, where toleration is an indicator for a crypto-idealist and you were complaining of it. But I'll let him speak for himself. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com 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
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 justify the assertion that any given biological system is non-computable. It seems to me that such a justification would have to be a _demonstration_ that something was non-computable. And based on the way computability is defined, such a demonstration would consist of showing that the system was definitely beyond the capabilities of a universal turing machine. Hence, determining which biological systems are computable and which are not doesn't seem like a simple task to me. Similarly, determining which parts of the data/info glut contributors will lead to the next leap of insight and which parts are just noise or trivial doesn't seem so simple to me, either. So, it seems to me that you're throwing the term pseudo-science around a little too loosely. Granted, there is a lot of pseudo-science out there. And it can be difficult to tell the difference because, invariably, one has to wade into the jargon and do a non-trivial amount of research to differentiate. And none of us has the time to do such delving into every discipline. And that's why we rely on social networks and reputation, perhaps too much at times. But it's working so far! In fact, I would assert that the rather mystical statements you make in your bullets (3) and (4) can be (somewhat) defended from a scientific perspective NOW; but that only a few hundred years ago, those statements could only come from mystics and the religious. No scientist would stake his reputation on these sorts of metaphysical statements. But because these pseudo-science reductionist methods are _working_, we can begin to build the case that those very same methods, while satisficing, are not accurate enough to capture the vanishing point that is reality. Of course, this is just a restatement of critical rationalism. While we _know_ that our pseudo-science reductionist methods will ultimately be proven inadequate, we also know that they each take us a tiny step closer to the limit. And to get over Zeno's paradox, we sporadically construct theories that repackage all or most of what's come before to take us a huge leap forward. But we'll never get there. And we've known that for quite some time (at least since the early 1900s). So, it seems that your (4) is a well accepted position to me, even amongst many of the scientists fully engaged in what you're calling pseudo-science reductionist methods. The old saying comes to mind: It may not be perfect; but it's the best we have! sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-03-31 04:13 AM: Confining ourselves within the scientific boundaries you have set grin 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-scienceartificial sub-disciplines (reductionist specialties) . 2) The data that emanates from such a pseudo-science-reductionist model / approach is usually self serving garbage reminiscent of many blind men feeling up the proverbial elephant. 3) The pictures which emerge from such data, is just a 2D infinitesmally thin perceptive slice of an infinitely complex reality. Perception being a creative process to approximate the infinite universe and determine some order (there may actually be none) in nature's chaos The action of measuring in itself being a creative process involving classification, discrimination etc 4) Science for me would begin from the recognition that we can never, ever, know everything We would progress from this to the acceptance that all methods - mechanistic, reductionist, holistic, empirical .. blah--blah .. are only slices from reality, and not necessarily intersecting slices, and to be accorded the degree of recognition which we ordinarily give to images. The way science solves, an example would be the Archimidean tortoise paradox, is to skip a slice of the infinite progression. Hypothetical presumptions requiring variable data (I mean data from variables), or vice-versa, is a dangerous combination. Now stepping out a little from your boundary. There are many religions (primitive sciences) which ban images or idols as representative of God/nature. As an observationalist, I see that some of them seem to be growing at exponential rates comparable to the explosion of reductionist sub-disciplines. Sciences based on non-formalism (I know this could sound weird at first) actually just empower the few great minds rather than secularising scientific advancement to the point where anybody can cook (many little fish swimming in their virtual synthetic ponds). -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com FRIAM Applied
Re: [FRIAM] holism vs. reductionism, again
Hi Glen, You did an admirable job of trying to be reasonable. Sarbajit may sound edgy but in large part he is essentially pointing to something substantive. He may embellish and inflame but nevertheless your response indicates your own awareness of the same issues. What disturbs me is that both of you appear to be idealists. You are protecting ideals and seem prepared to tolerate some level of corruption. Sarbajit feels betrayed and wishes to condemn all that is tainted. While both of you are distracted the corruption continues undiminished. The corruption has been there since the very beginning and it is impossible for an ideal system to be constructed that is immune to corruption. I have been much possessed by the nature of corruptible systems. I have a very uncomfortable suspicion that any system capable of evolution is corruptible and in fact evolution is simply corruption, the positive or negative attributes are simply the consequence of observer perspective. The notion is uncomfortable, and perhaps demonstrable with computer simulations. I propose that all complex systems are corruptible and in fact it is a property of all systems capable of evolving. No doubt some one else has already reached the same conclusion so it is not my idea. If as some would suggest, all complex systems are broken and can function with damaged subsystems, that then implies that corruption is a tolerable defect and occasionally beneficial. As Sarbajit has pointed out, the system has more than a Single Point of Failure SPOF. And that the identification of SPOF's has inevitably failed to contend with systemic flaws. In fact focusing on SPOF's may actually create more in a perverse feed back loop. A classic example was the discovery that the only way to keep Spitfire pilots alive in air battles was to get rid of the armour. It gave them speed and added enormous fear to the pilot's performances. Today such a solution seems absolutely politically incorrect. Every incremental increase of armour had led to more deaths. Science has always been at the mercy of the rich and powerful. Quoting my Brother, We are all just mercenaries building Pyramids to inflate the ego's of the pharaohs.If we weren't good at it they would dispose of us next time the Crown changes Hands Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology) 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax vbur...@shaw.ca -Original Message- From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: March 31, 2010 1:37 PM To: The Friday 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 justify the assertion that any given biological system is non-computable. It seems to me that such a justification would have to be a _demonstration_ that something was non-computable. And based on the way computability is defined, such a demonstration would consist of showing that the system was definitely beyond the capabilities of a universal turing machine. Hence, determining which biological systems are computable and which are not doesn't seem like a simple task to me. Similarly, determining which parts of the data/info glut contributors will lead to the next leap of insight and which parts are just noise or trivial doesn't seem so simple to me, either. So, it seems to me that you're throwing the term pseudo-science around a little too loosely. Granted, there is a lot of pseudo-science out there. And it can be difficult to tell the difference because, invariably, one has to wade into the jargon and do a non-trivial amount of research to differentiate. And none of us has the time to do such delving into every discipline. And that's why we rely on social networks and reputation, perhaps too much at times. But it's working so far! In fact, I would assert that the rather mystical statements you make in your bullets (3) and (4) can be (somewhat) defended from a scientific perspective NOW; but that only a few hundred years ago, those statements could only come from mystics and the religious. No scientist would stake his reputation on these sorts of metaphysical statements. But because these pseudo-science reductionist methods are _working_, we can begin to build the case that those very same methods, while satisficing, are not accurate enough to capture the vanishing point that is reality. Of course, this is just a restatement of critical rationalism. While we _know_ that our pseudo-science reductionist methods will ultimately be proven inadequate, we also know that they each take us a tiny step closer to the limit. And to get over Zeno's paradox, we sporadically construct theories that repackage all or most
Re: [FRIAM] holism vs. reductionism, again
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 lack of sperm. How can you identify in the moment which aberrations will lead to evolution, versus which aberrations will lead to atrophy? Development over enough time changes circumstances so that former criteria are no longer accurate. I've never seen a dynamic evolving system without random noise, errors, unexpected elements, unpredictability, weirdness and the like in there. Responses to these elements are what drive dynamism and evolution. A pristine corruption-free state is stagnant. Non-complex. No emergence. Problem-solving around 'corruption' is a motivator for growth. Enjoying this tremendously. Thanks, Vlad- Victoria On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote The corruption has been there since the very beginning and it is impossible for an ideal system to be constructed that is immune to corruption. ... In fact evolution is simply corruption, the positive or negative attributes are simply the consequence of observer perspective. 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] holism vs. reductionism, again
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 Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
