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
First
part of this discussion
[342], [343], [344], [345], [346], [347], [348], [349], [350]
Paul Werbos,
I agree with what you have said here. But I also disagree.
The important position is that:
The notion of complexity was captured by a community (centered about computing and computers) . They gave "complexity" its meaning. They did not understand or anticipate that they were closing off the use of the word by a different community (natural scientists). Mathematical complexity (Mandelbrot and yes Bak) and chaos is wonderful and has many open questions.
I have heard Per Bak talk several times and yes I have talked with Penrose ... and read the first two books... the last is a graduate course on mathematical physics and I have it next to me as I write. I got to know Hameroff well, and his work well.
My funding is not the issue. It is made the issue now and then as a way of suggesting that my philosophical points are not valid. That stinks. (smiles)
But I am not the subject of discussion, nor are you.
The subject is about whether or not formalism, of the Hilbert type, or something new (?) can capture the total reality of any natural system. One way to approach this subject is as Rosen did. Penrose approached the subject in the two books on consciousness and then backed away in his last book (which he specifically said was not about consciousness). I wonder why?
Of course, one conjectures that it is a type of memetic stress.
This is what becomes the issue, the inhibition of the discussion. That is a win for the establishment (not that you are establishment, Paul - you are a leader in many respects.) I just wish that you and I could see Rosen in the same light.
Paul Prueitt