Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Additional reading:
Cory Casanave's paper on Data
Access
work on ontology for biological signal pathways
[126]
ß parallel discussion in
generative methodology bead thread
Discussion on informational invariance and complexity
[342], [343], [344], [345], [346], [347], [348], [349], [350]
As I point out in the foot note 1
at [348].
Many of us feel that this use of language “complex” is what is improper. We feel that the proper word here is “complicated”, not “complex”.
I also point out, in footnote 2, a specific and very well-defined institutional behavior.
This behavior supports the work that is funded rather than the work that is not funded. In many cases, as the judicial system is well aware; there is a need to over turn well established behavior - in this case funding behavior by the federal government.
Paul (Werbos) this is really critical to the point I have been making over and over for two decades.
You have not read, I assume, the careful and detailed analysis that Robert Rosen made... I know from private discussions over the decades that you do not read Rosen... and only look at Penrose's arguments on a surface. You have not addressed this careful analysis.
No one is perfect, and one has to acknowledge that your work is leading work; but in this case there is (as you know my position) a specific blind spot.
The way in which Judith has presented her father's arguments is "perfect", and is the position taken by a number of us. But we do not get the funding and we do not get the air time. (Yet)
John Dolye's work is interesting but, incorrect in our view. He can be talking about emergent behavior of computational systems as a form of "discovery" like theorem proving. But under his work is formal computational systems on a von Neumann computer.
When we go to non digital computing things are different as pointed out by someone at Penn (Frahat) whom I have lost the reference to at the moment.
Funding to develop and organize this alternative viewpoint is critical - and will not come as long as the polemics enforced are in place.
Foot note 2 points to a polemic. It is the epitome of a polemic. It is one that is repeated "precisely" and over and over again when Penrose, Rosen or others attempt to point out the difference between what is proper to call "complex" and what is merely "complicated". Further, this polemic is memetic. It is the exemplar of memetic replication of something that is indented not to be analyzed.
I have stated this strongly, and ask that you forgive me for taking this moment to make a point I have made to you before. I do not; however, in any sense question your deep understanding of so many relevant issues and literatures.
Paul (Prueitt)