Xref: utzoo comp.ai:3027 sci.bio:1711
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!xanth!mcnc!ecsvax!hes
From: hes@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Henry Schaffer)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence (long)
Summary: how does one establish that reductionism isn't sufficient?
Message-ID: <6177@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>
Date: 9 Jan 89 03:41:21 GMT
References: <558@soleil.UUCP>
Organization: NC State Univ.
Lines: 63

In article <558@soleil.UUCP>, peru@soleil.UUCP (Dave Peru) writes:
>... 
> MATHEMATICIAN/PHYSICIST/ASTRONOMY:
> 
> In the book "Bridges To Infinity" Michael Guillen (Ph.D in physics, mathema-
> matics, and astronomy from Cornell University) writes (p.98): ...
> 
>  Pursuing the logic of his method, Conway is able to create between in-between
>  numbers, then numbers between *these*, and so on, literally ad infinitum.
>  The result is limitless hierarchies of in-between numbers, never before
>  named in mathematics.
 
  Hmm, (even this has nothing to do with reductionism) how is this different
that what is done in traditional mathematics?

> ... 
> PHYSICIST:
> 
> In the book "The Turning Point" Fritjof Capra [writes] ...
> 
>  Although the reductionist approach has been extremely successful in biology,
> ...
>    As the eminent biologist Paul Weiss has observed:
> 
>    We can assert definitely ... on the basis of strictly empirical investiga-
>    tions, that the sheer reversal of our prior analytic dissection of the
>    universe by putting the pieces together again, whether in reality of 
>    just in our minds, can yield no complete explanation of the behavior
>    of even the most elementary living system.
> 
  This seems to be an example of "proof by assertion".  

>... 
>  An extreme case of integrative activity that has fascinated scientists
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^ - yes
>  throughout the ages but has, so far, eluded all explanation is the phenome-
                                               ^^^ - the large
       community of embryologists and developmental biologists
       would probably feel that they've explained *something*
>  non of embryogenesis-- ...
>  --a process far too complex to lend itself to reductionist analysis.  ...

Another proof by assertion -

  This whole controversy makes me think again about a question which
has bothered me before.  If reductionism is not sufficient - how can
one show/prove that it is not sufficient.  Clearly if a process is
very complex, then much work must be done do reduce it sufficiently
far to explain everything via a reductionist scenario.  

  I doubt that any reductionist is willing to believe that embryogenesis
is beyond reductionist analysis.  We haven't even finished cataloging
all the enzymes and enzymatic pathways in a single cell, there is still
lots of (reductionist) work left to be done and which clearly can be
done (I haven't heard anyone say that sequenceing the genome of a
higher organism can't be done - just that it is a lot of work) and so
clearly one can't give up on reductionism just yet.

  Is that the answer?  One can't disprove reductionism as long as there
is more work left to be done?  That would mean essentially never.


--henry schaffer  n c state univ