Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Generative Methodology Glass Bead Games
On the limits of the OWL standard à [184]
Reading material [1]
Reading material [2]
Reading material [3]
Summary of the discussion up to this point à [186]
On Edelman’s notion of degeneracy, and n-articulate ontology
(this is the beginning of a series of communications on this subject)
Communication from Judith Rosen
I have read some of Edelman's writings. I'm not, by any means, an
expert on his work, but I can definitely say that his use of the word
"degeneracy" is unique in my experience. In Robert Rosen's usage,
degeneracy is defined as the forcing of two initially distinct and independent
things into coincidence, or the imposition of relations on things initially
unrelated. He asserted that the assumption of simplicity, which the machine
metaphor represents, creates many such degeneracies-- where two things that are
not alike at all are viewed as essentially indistinguishable from one another
due to the label they correspond to in the formalism. In his view, contemporary
physics is replete with laws that try to force natural systems to fit inside
causal explanations based on entailments like a machine's; creating a relation
of congruency between natural systems and machines which is not necessarily
warranted. Clearly, the word "degeneracy" has a negative value in my
father's lexicon.
In Edelman's work, however, "degeneracy" is used very
differently. As near as I can tell, the term apparently gets its meaning from
an obscure usage in chemistry: It refers to the chemical behavior of elements,
whereby two different elements can have the same reactive capability. He extrapolates
this aspect and name to behaviors in biological systems whereby two
structurally different components can serve the same functional purpose within
a system.
I admit that I find the word "degeneracy" rather a
misapplication, both in the chemical behavior of elements and in the biological
realm. It seems to have been borne of a frustration on the part of chemists
who, I suspect, would have preferred that elements not have this capacity! It
certainly does complicate chemical analysis, doesn't it? So it was labeled a
"degeneracy" when in fact it seems more of a synthesis or synergy, to
my mind.
Once I trained myself to translate into Edelman's intended
meaning, I could see that there are some parallels between my father's work and
Edelman's but there are some important distinctions to be made as well. One is
that, unless I missed it somehow, no causal basis is suggested by Edelman for
this entailment pattern or for why this entailment pattern repeats. It is
apparently taken as a given, in chemistry, that elements have this capability
because of, or as an integral part of, their material nature. However, how does
this account for the radically different chemical behaviors of different
allotropes of the same element? (I wonder what the chemical name for that
phenomenon is... Anybody?)
In contrast, as I have pointed out before, relational complexity
can explain both situations: why two systems with entirely different material
ingredients can manifest the same behavior patterns; and why two systems with
identical material ingredients can manifest entirely different behavior
patterns. The relational aspects of organization can generate these kinds of
effects. In fact, it was precisely because of the utter diversity of the class
of material systems we call "organisms"-- all of which nevertheless
manifest the same patterns of life-- that my father came around to viewing
relational aspects (and, thereby, system organization) as playing such an
enormous role in generating the entailment patterns of systems. This is also
why he said the machine metaphor, as a foundational concept for science, has to
be expunged.
I would have to study Edelman's work in far greater depth before I
could comment on it in any greater depth than this. If there are any specific
questions of comparison between assertions of Edelman's and Robert Rosen's
view, I would welcome those. It would give me something specific to home in on.
Judith