Robert Rosen
Locked
 
|
All,
On the recommendation of somebody on this list, I started reading Rosen's Life Itself. It does indeed, as the recommender suggested, seem to relate to my peculiar way of looking at such things as adaptation, motivation, etc. The book is both intriguing and somewhat over my head. Pied Piperish in that regard. So I am wondering if there are folks on the list who wold like to talk about it. By the way, does the fact that I am attracted to Rosen make me a category theorist? I am told that that is somewhat to the left of being an astrologer. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Research Associate, Redfish Group, Santa Fe, NM (nick at redfish.com) Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthompson at clarku.edu) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20071228/80099c67/attachment.html |
|
|
By all means have a discussion. Rosen is not an easy read, nor easy to
talk about even. I have some grumbles with Rosen, which I mention in my paper "On Complexity and Emergence", but these are fairly muted. There've been some interesting articles recently in Artificial Life by Chu & Ho that appear to disprove Rosen's central theorem. I suspect their rather more rigourous approach crystalises some of my grumbles, but I haven't found the time yet to try out the analysis more formally myself. Cheers On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 08:41:43PM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > All, > > On the recommendation of somebody on this list, I started reading Rosen's Life Itself. It does indeed, as the recommender suggested, seem to relate to my peculiar way of looking at such things as adaptation, motivation, etc. The book is both intriguing and somewhat over my head. Pied Piperish in that regard. So I am wondering if there are folks on the list who wold like to talk about it. By the way, does the fact that I am attracted to Rosen make me a category theorist? I am told that that is somewhat to the left of being an astrologer. > > Nick > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Research Associate, Redfish Group, Santa Fe, NM (nick at redfish.com) > Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthompson at clarku.edu) > ============================================================ > 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
Hi,
apparently these articles have given rise to rebuttals, see http:// www.panmere.com/?cat=18 for a survey of this discussion. I read 'Life Itself' a while ago, found it extremely interesting but not an easy read either. Later I read some of the essays from 'Essays on Life Itself", which helped. The biggest problem with Rosen's writing was for me that it is very concise; for a layman (like me) it would have been good to have a bit more flesh around his central argument, in the form of historical references and examples. Later I discovered the writings of Howard Pattee (an essay in the first Artificial Life proceedings) and Peter Cariani (his thesis from 1989 <http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/CarianiWebsite/Cariani89.pdf> and a later article for example <http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/ CarianiWebsite/Cariani98.pdf>. I found both their writings more digestible. hope this helps, Joost. On Dec 29, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > By all means have a discussion. Rosen is not an easy read, nor easy to > talk about even. I have some grumbles with Rosen, which I mention in > my paper "On Complexity and Emergence", but these are fairly > muted. There've been some interesting articles recently in Artificial > Life by Chu & Ho that appear to disprove Rosen's central theorem. I > suspect their rather more rigourous approach crystalises some of my > grumbles, but I haven't found the time yet to try out the analysis > more > formally myself. > > Cheers > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 08:41:43PM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >> All, >> >> On the recommendation of somebody on this list, I started reading >> Rosen's Life Itself. It does indeed, as the recommender >> suggested, seem to relate to my peculiar way of looking at such >> things as adaptation, motivation, etc. The book is both >> intriguing and somewhat over my head. Pied Piperish in that >> regard. So I am wondering if there are folks on the list who wold >> like to talk about it. By the way, does the fact that I am >> attracted to Rosen make me a category theorist? I am told that >> that is somewhat to the left of being an astrologer. >> >> Nick >> ------------------------------------------- Joost Rekveld ----------- http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld ------------------------------------------- ?This alone I ask you, O reader, that when you peruse the account of these marvels that you do not set up for yourself as a standard human intellectual pride, but rather the great size and vastness of earth and sky; and, comparing with that Infinity these slender shadows in which miserably and anxiously we are enveloped, you will easily know that I have related nothing which is beyond belief.? (Girolamo Cardano) ------------------------------------------- |
|
|
I really like the array of issues raised by Tim Gwynn in quoting
Dominique Chu and Wen Kin Ho's statement about Rosen's central conclusion: "Robert Rosen?s central theorem states that organisms are fundamentally different from machines, mainly because they are ??closed with respect to efficient causation.? The proof for this theorem rests on two crucial assumptions. The first is that for a certain class of systems (??mechanisms?) analytic modeling is the inverse of synthetic modeling. The second is that aspects of machines can be modeled using relational models and that these relational models are themselves refined by at least one analytic model. We show that both assumptions are unjustified. We conclude that these results cast serious doubts on the validity of Rosen?s proof." (from http://www.panmere.com/?cat=18) The interesting question is if there might reasonably be no means of proving a theorem about things you can't observe as that puts them beyond your 'box' of definitions for proof... I think Rosen's conclusion that organisms are "closed with respect to efficient causation" is decidedly true, but unprovable because it's true. It's implied by observing inaccessible organizational development, missing content on nature 'between our models', but proof rests on things within a model. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com -- "it's not finding what people say interesting, but finding what's interesting in what they say" -- > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Joost Rekveld > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 8:34 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen > > > Hi, > > apparently these articles have given rise to rebuttals, see http:// > www.panmere.com/?cat=18 for a survey of this discussion. > > I read 'Life Itself' a while ago, found it extremely interesting but > not an easy read either. Later I read some of the essays from > 'Essays > on Life Itself", which helped. The biggest problem with Rosen's > writing was for me that it is very concise; for a layman > (like me) it > would have been good to have a bit more flesh around his central > argument, in the form of historical references and examples. > > Later I discovered the writings of Howard Pattee (an essay in the > first Artificial Life proceedings) and Peter Cariani (his > thesis from > 1989 <http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/CarianiWebsite/Cariani89.pdf> > and a later article for example <http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/ > CarianiWebsite/Cariani98.pdf>. > I found both their writings more digestible. > > hope this helps, > > Joost. > > On Dec 29, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > > > By all means have a discussion. Rosen is not an easy read, > nor easy to > > talk about even. I have some grumbles with Rosen, which I > mention in > > my paper "On Complexity and Emergence", but these are fairly muted. > > There've been some interesting articles recently in > Artificial Life by > > Chu & Ho that appear to disprove Rosen's central theorem. I suspect > > their rather more rigourous approach crystalises some of my > grumbles, > > but I haven't found the time yet to try out the analysis > > more > > formally myself. > > > > Cheers > > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 08:41:43PM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > >> All, > >> > >> On the recommendation of somebody on this list, I started reading > >> Rosen's Life Itself. It does indeed, as the recommender > >> suggested, seem to relate to my peculiar way of looking at such > >> things as adaptation, motivation, etc. The book is both > >> intriguing and somewhat over my head. Pied Piperish in that > >> regard. So I am wondering if there are folks on the list > who wold > >> like to talk about it. By the way, does the fact that I am > >> attracted to Rosen make me a category theorist? I am told that > >> that is somewhat to the left of being an astrologer. > >> > >> Nick > >> > > > ------------------------------------------- > > Joost Rekveld > ----------- http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld > > ------------------------------------------- > > ?This alone I ask you, O reader, that when you peruse the > account of these marvels that you do not set up for yourself > as a standard human intellectual pride, but rather the great > size and vastness of earth and sky; and, comparing with that > Infinity these slender shadows in which miserably and > anxiously we are enveloped, you will easily know that I have > related nothing which is beyond belief.? (Girolamo Cardano) > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Joost Rekveld
A Living System Must Have Noncomputable Models
A. H. Louie Abstract: Chu and Ho's recent paper in Artificial Life is riddled with errors. In particular, they use a wrong definition of Robert Rosen's mechanism. This renders their "critical assessment" of Rosen's central proof null and void. http://www.panmere.com/rosen/Louie_noncomp_pre_rev.pdf Gus Koehler, Ph.D. President and Principal Time Structures, Inc. 1545 University Ave. Sacramento, CA 95825 916-564-8683, Fax: 916-564-7895 Cell: 916-716-1740 www.timestructures.com Save A Tree - please don't print this unless you really need to. -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Joost Rekveld Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 5:34 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen Hi, apparently these articles have given rise to rebuttals, see http:// www.panmere.com/?cat=18 for a survey of this discussion. I read 'Life Itself' a while ago, found it extremely interesting but not an easy read either. Later I read some of the essays from 'Essays on Life Itself", which helped. The biggest problem with Rosen's writing was for me that it is very concise; for a layman (like me) it would have been good to have a bit more flesh around his central argument, in the form of historical references and examples. Later I discovered the writings of Howard Pattee (an essay in the first Artificial Life proceedings) and Peter Cariani (his thesis from 1989 <http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/CarianiWebsite/Cariani89.pdf> and a later article for example <http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/ CarianiWebsite/Cariani98.pdf>. I found both their writings more digestible. hope this helps, Joost. On Dec 29, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > By all means have a discussion. Rosen is not an easy read, nor easy to > talk about even. I have some grumbles with Rosen, which I mention in > my paper "On Complexity and Emergence", but these are fairly muted. > There've been some interesting articles recently in Artificial Life by > Chu & Ho that appear to disprove Rosen's central theorem. I suspect > their rather more rigourous approach crystalises some of my grumbles, > but I haven't found the time yet to try out the analysis more formally > myself. > > Cheers > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 08:41:43PM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >> All, >> >> On the recommendation of somebody on this list, I started reading >> Rosen's Life Itself. It does indeed, as the recommender suggested, >> seem to relate to my peculiar way of looking at such things as >> adaptation, motivation, etc. The book is both intriguing and >> somewhat over my head. Pied Piperish in that regard. So I am >> wondering if there are folks on the list who wold like to talk about >> it. By the way, does the fact that I am attracted to Rosen make me a >> category theorist? I am told that that is somewhat to the left of >> being an astrologer. >> >> Nick >> ------------------------------------------- Joost Rekveld ----------- http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld ------------------------------------------- "This alone I ask you, O reader, that when you peruse the account of these marvels that you do not set up for yourself as a standard human intellectual pride, but rather the great size and vastness of earth and sky; and, comparing with that Infinity these slender shadows in which miserably and anxiously we are enveloped, you will easily know that I have related nothing which is beyond belief." (Girolamo Cardano) ------------------------------------------- ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 10:40:23AM -0500, Phil Henshaw wrote:
> > The interesting question is if there might reasonably be no means of > proving a theorem about things you can't observe as that puts them > beyond your 'box' of definitions for proof... I think Rosen's > conclusion that organisms are "closed with respect to efficient > causation" is decidedly true, but unprovable because it's true. It's > implied by observing inaccessible organizational development, missing > content on nature 'between our models', but proof rests on things within > a model. > I don't think that living systems being "closed to efficient causation" is necessarily being disputed (although I think it is far from proven). Rather, what is being disputed is Rosen's "result" that machines cannot be closed to efficient causation. From what I understand, things like the SCL artificial chemistry (which is definitely a type of machine) is closed to efficient causation in Rosen's sense, but again it must be admitted my understanding of such matters is a little foggy. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gus Koehler-2
This was Chu and Ho's earlier paper they published last year. I was
somewhat dissatisfied with both that paper, and Louie's rebuttal, however Chu and Ho's paper that just recently came out is a stronger paper. Cheers On Sat, Dec 29, 2007 at 08:43:31AM -0800, Gus Koehler wrote: > A Living System Must Have Noncomputable Models > A. H. Louie > > Abstract: Chu and Ho's recent paper in Artificial Life is riddled with > errors. In particular, they > use a wrong definition of Robert Rosen's mechanism. This renders their > "critical assessment" of > Rosen's central proof null and void. > http://www.panmere.com/rosen/Louie_noncomp_pre_rev.pdf > > Gus Koehler, Ph.D. > President and Principal > Time Structures, Inc. > 1545 University Ave. > Sacramento, CA 95825 > 916-564-8683, Fax: 916-564-7895 > Cell: 916-716-1740 > www.timestructures.com > Save A Tree - please don't print this unless you really need to. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf > Of Joost Rekveld > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 5:34 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen > > Hi, > > apparently these articles have given rise to rebuttals, see http:// > www.panmere.com/?cat=18 for a survey of this discussion. > > I read 'Life Itself' a while ago, found it extremely interesting but not an > easy read either. Later I read some of the essays from 'Essays on Life > Itself", which helped. The biggest problem with Rosen's writing was for me > that it is very concise; for a layman (like me) it would have been good to > have a bit more flesh around his central argument, in the form of historical > references and examples. > > Later I discovered the writings of Howard Pattee (an essay in the first > Artificial Life proceedings) and Peter Cariani (his thesis from > 1989 <http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/CarianiWebsite/Cariani89.pdf> > and a later article for example <http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/ > CarianiWebsite/Cariani98.pdf>. > I found both their writings more digestible. > > hope this helps, > > Joost. > > On Dec 29, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > > > By all means have a discussion. Rosen is not an easy read, nor easy to > > talk about even. I have some grumbles with Rosen, which I mention in > > my paper "On Complexity and Emergence", but these are fairly muted. > > There've been some interesting articles recently in Artificial Life by > > Chu & Ho that appear to disprove Rosen's central theorem. I suspect > > their rather more rigourous approach crystalises some of my grumbles, > > but I haven't found the time yet to try out the analysis more formally > > myself. > > > > Cheers > > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 08:41:43PM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote: > >> All, > >> > >> On the recommendation of somebody on this list, I started reading > >> Rosen's Life Itself. It does indeed, as the recommender suggested, > >> seem to relate to my peculiar way of looking at such things as > >> adaptation, motivation, etc. The book is both intriguing and > >> somewhat over my head. Pied Piperish in that regard. So I am > >> wondering if there are folks on the list who wold like to talk about > >> it. By the way, does the fact that I am attracted to Rosen make me a > >> category theorist? I am told that that is somewhat to the left of > >> being an astrologer. > >> > >> Nick > >> > > > ------------------------------------------- > > Joost Rekveld > ----------- http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld > > ------------------------------------------- > > "This alone I ask you, O reader, that when you peruse the > account of these marvels that you do not set up for yourself > as a standard human intellectual pride, but rather the great > size and vastness of earth and sky; and, comparing with > that Infinity these slender shadows in which miserably and > anxiously we are enveloped, you will easily know that I have > related nothing which is beyond belief." > (Girolamo Cardano) > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > ============================================================ > 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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
In reply to this post by Russell Standish
it is because of references like these that I like to lurk on lists
like this one. thank you, Joost. On Dec 30, 2007, at 1:11 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > From what I > understand, things like the SCL artificial chemistry (which is > definitely a type of machine) is closed to efficient causation in > Rosen's sense, ------------------------------------------- Joost Rekveld ----------- http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld ------------------------------------------- ?This alone I ask you, O reader, that when you peruse the account of these marvels that you do not set up for yourself as a standard human intellectual pride, but rather the great size and vastness of earth and sky; and, comparing with that Infinity these slender shadows in which miserably and anxiously we are enveloped, you will easily know that I have related nothing which is beyond belief.? (Girolamo Cardano) ------------------------------------------- |
|
|
In reply to this post by Gus Koehler-2
I missed the implication people are finding in Rosen's idea of "non-computable models". Can someone offer some examples of instances where that matters. It sounds like it means something other than 'insoluable'. Could it perhaps include 'internalized' & so therefore not accessible?
Phil Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: "Gus Koehler" <[hidden email]> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 08:43:31 To:"'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen A Living System Must Have Noncomputable Models A. H. Louie Abstract: Chu and Ho's recent paper in Artificial Life is riddled with errors. In particular, they use a wrong definition of Robert Rosen's mechanism. This renders their "critical assessment" of Rosen's central proof null and void. http://www.panmere.com/rosen/Louie_noncomp_pre_rev.pdf Gus Koehler, Ph.D. President and Principal Time Structures, Inc. 1545 University Ave. Sacramento, CA 95825 916-564-8683, Fax: 916-564-7895 Cell: 916-716-1740 www.timestructures.com Save A Tree - please don't print this unless you really need to. -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Joost Rekveld Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 5:34 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen Hi, apparently these articles have given rise to rebuttals, see http:// www.panmere.com/?cat=18 for a survey of this discussion. I read 'Life Itself' a while ago, found it extremely interesting but not an easy read either. Later I read some of the essays from 'Essays on Life Itself", which helped. The biggest problem with Rosen's writing was for me that it is very concise; for a layman (like me) it would have been good to have a bit more flesh around his central argument, in the form of historical references and examples. Later I discovered the writings of Howard Pattee (an essay in the first Artificial Life proceedings) and Peter Cariani (his thesis from 1989 <http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/CarianiWebsite/Cariani89.pdf> and a later article for example <http://homepage.mac.com/cariani/ CarianiWebsite/Cariani98.pdf>. I found both their writings more digestible. hope this helps, Joost. On Dec 29, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Russell Standish wrote: > By all means have a discussion. Rosen is not an easy read, nor easy to > talk about even. I have some grumbles with Rosen, which I mention in > my paper "On Complexity and Emergence", but these are fairly muted. > There've been some interesting articles recently in Artificial Life by > Chu & Ho that appear to disprove Rosen's central theorem. I suspect > their rather more rigourous approach crystalises some of my grumbles, > but I haven't found the time yet to try out the analysis more formally > myself. > > Cheers > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 08:41:43PM -0700, Nicholas Thompson wrote: >> All, >> >> On the recommendation of somebody on this list, I started reading >> Rosen's Life Itself. It does indeed, as the recommender suggested, >> seem to relate to my peculiar way of looking at such things as >> adaptation, motivation, etc. The book is both intriguing and >> somewhat over my head. Pied Piperish in that regard. So I am >> wondering if there are folks on the list who wold like to talk about >> it. By the way, does the fact that I am attracted to Rosen make me a >> category theorist? I am told that that is somewhat to the left of >> being an astrologer. >> >> Nick >> ------------------------------------------- Joost Rekveld ----------- http://www.lumen.nu/rekveld ------------------------------------------- "This alone I ask you, O reader, that when you peruse the account of these marvels that you do not set up for yourself as a standard human intellectual pride, but rather the great size and vastness of earth and sky; and, comparing with that Infinity these slender shadows in which miserably and anxiously we are enveloped, you will easily know that I have related nothing which is beyond belief." (Girolamo Cardano) ------------------------------------------- ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
There is a school of thought called "strong ALife", stating that
computational systems can be alive, given the right program. It is analogous (but not equivalent to) the better known "strong AI" position, sometimes known as "computationalism". Rosen's result essentially says that "strong ALife" is impossible. Hence the interest in it, particularly from ALifers. There is also interest from AI people and more importantly philosphers of the mind, as it is often thought that the parallels between ALife and AI are strong enough to carry results from one field to the other (which personally I'm a bit dubious about). Of course, it doesn't help that nobody has a really good definition of life... On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 06:23:52PM +0000, sy at synapse9.com wrote: > I missed the implication people are finding in Rosen's idea of "non-computable models". Can someone offer some examples of instances where that matters. It sounds like it means something other than 'insoluable'. Could it perhaps include 'internalized' & so therefore not accessible? > > Phil -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
Ah well yes, life is undefined because the systems we build and make
proofs about are informational constructs and life is a physical construct. But what was Rosen's idea of 'right program' that he was saying couldn't exist? The problem with physical systems is that there is so much that has to remain hidden about them, and it's not useful to simply declare that everything hidden is irrelevant because that's not true, but we need to teach information structures to go look for it and don't quite know how. Just a guess, but an information incompleteness theorem might be used that way. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: sy at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell Standish [mailto:r.standish at unsw.edu.au] > Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 4:44 PM > To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Robert Rosen > > > There is a school of thought called "strong ALife", stating > that computational systems can be alive, given the right > program. It is analogous (but not equivalent to) the better > known "strong AI" position, sometimes known as "computationalism". > > Rosen's result essentially says that "strong ALife" is > impossible. Hence the interest in it, particularly from > ALifers. There is also interest from AI people and more > importantly philosphers of the mind, as it is often thought > that the parallels between ALife and AI are strong enough to > carry results from one field to the other (which personally > I'm a bit dubious about). > > Of course, it doesn't help that nobody has a really good > definition of life... > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 06:23:52PM +0000, sy at synapse9.com wrote: > > I missed the implication people are finding in Rosen's idea of > > "non-computable models". Can someone offer some examples of > instances where that matters. It sounds like it means > something other than 'insoluable'. Could it perhaps include > 'internalized' & so therefore not accessible? > > > > Phil > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Mathematics > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 Nicholas Thompson on 12/28/2007 07:41 PM: > On the recommendation of somebody on this list, I started reading > Rosen's Life Itself. I don't know who recommended Life Itself; but, you should have started with "Fundamentals of Measurement and Representation of Natural Systems". It's a much better book. > By the way, does the fact that I am attracted to Rosen make me a > category theorist? I am told that that is somewhat to the left of > being an astrologer. Well, Rosen only _proposed_ using category theory to capture the relationships he wanted to capture. He wasn't fixated on it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that category theory is fundamental to his work. It's only incidental. Also, category theory is a perfectly respectable type of mathematics. So, whoever suggested that it's "somewhat to the left of astrology" is way off base. sy at synapse9.com on 12/30/2007 10:23 AM: > I missed the implication people are finding in Rosen's idea of > "non-computable models". Can someone offer some examples of instances > where that matters. It sounds like it means something other than > 'insoluable'. Could it perhaps include 'internalized' & so therefore > not accessible? Steve Kercel has some interesting comments on that. But, in a nutshell, Rosen's position is that living systems are examples of supra-computation. I.e. they "compute" the non-computable. Hence, the only way we'll ever capture the essence of life itself is to develop some mathematics that captures a particular type of non-computability. The essence of the non-computability is, as Russell pointed out, the causal cycle. E.g. A causes B causes A. Kercel whittles this down to ambiguity, however, which comes closer to Penrose's argument that the brain doesn't implement an algorithm. So, if you really want to understand the non-computability aspect of cyclic inference, then look to Kercel, not Rosen. (You might also check out non-well-founded set theory, too.... though some people -- not Rosenites by the way -- claim that I'm off the mark on the relevance of that.) Kercel's got a recent article here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/116833300/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 BTW, Louie does NOT demonstrate that "A Living System Must Have Noncomputable Models". That paper merely makes an assertion without proving anything. I'd advise you to read it rather than just assuming it demonstrates the assertion. Nicholas Thompson on 12/30/2007 10:32 AM: > In fact, could somebody clarify, in terms that a former english major > would understand, what it means to say, > > "organisms are closed to efficient causation." I read it and I read > it and I READ it and it just doesnt STICK! It doesn't stick because it's a philosophical red herring. It's a meaningless phrase. The fact that it doesn't stick means that you're a clear thinker and aren't bamboozled by aristotelian nonsense. [grin] Having said that, efficient cause is the "agency" that brings something about. For example, the efficient cause of a house would include the carpenters, masons, plumbers, and other workers who used these materials to build the house in accordance with the blueprint for its construction. Something that was closed to efficient cause would be capable of not only _assembling_ all the agents that cause the thing to exist but also maintaining the organization of all those agents. And such a concept is clearly silly. Nothing is closed to efficient cause... except, perhaps, the universe. Also, note that closure to efficient cause is distinct from causal closure in general. > For the new year, I dream of a world in which no two people are > allowed to argue in my electronic presence until the key AGREEMENTS > that make their argument possible are made explicit. That is probably > amounts to asking you all to be as dumb as I am. Hey! I can ask! Well, you may as well abandon Rosen now! He used a very perverse lexicon in a well intentioned attempt to use words appropriately, rather than using them the way the rest of the world used them. His text and his followers are very hermeneutic, which is one of the reasons you'll find that it turns on lots of very different people with very different backgrounds.... his text is open to interpretation.... which is, of course, why he was looking for something like category theory to help him be clear and unambiguous. I'm not a betting man; but I'd bet that the Rosenites will _never_ come to any key AGREEMENTS. And if they do, it'll only be after a complete overhaul of his work. - -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful. -- Anton LaVey -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHeacpZeB+vOTnLkoRArxxAJ9cSnGm4AtSl3FSlS8MOqENK51PoQCfVw+C 0WlyyB1b+sKNYygy378Qo8k= =EYrt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |