Fw number four: [ROSEN] Observers/surrogacy

["Judith Rosen" <***>]

From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Observers/surrogacy


>
>
> > >
> > >On observers/observations/surrogacies: Robert Rosen noted; "Not all
observers are
> > >models of each other."
> > >

> What my father meant by this is always going to be ambiguous but I do
> believe I know what he meant: He was saying that what is observed is "in
the
> eye of the beholder" and no two beholders, or observers, are going to see
> things the same way. It refers to the idea of surrogacy; or substituting
one
> observer for another, because if you are using formalisms to represent
these
> observers, then the obvious difference between two human beings will not
be
> as apparent. He was musing on the fact that any observation that is
recorded
> is automatically contaminated by the specific observer who recorded it-- a
> inescapable fact that has been the bane of science since the dawn of human
> consciousness. The observation is then further contaminated by the person
> interpreting it, and so on. He was also musing on the fact that formalisms
> leave out crucial information that can completely change the seemingly
> obvious result.
>
> Many of the notes near that quote had to do with surrogacy. One discussed
> using rats as surrogates for humans in medical experiments and so forth.
> Surrogacy is a concept that is so widespread in human life that it becomes
> an assumption. People tend to forget that there's a big "IF" at the
> beginning of the whole exercise: "IF rats are close enough surrogates for
> humans in this capacity, THEN drug A could be a carcinogen..." or whatever
> the experiment is about. That can be very misleading with regard to
analysis
> of the data (where you then have the joy of further complications with
> different people interpreting the data!).
>
> With scientists observing some natural phenomenon and trying to understand
> it, the "if" would be along the lines of "IF I am seeing this clearly
enough
> and in its entirety..."
>
> Does that help at all?
>
> Judith
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I don't know what this means. What is the criteria for observers that
> > are models of each other? One speculative interpretation, might be that
> > in order to establish a modeling relationship, or I should say when
> > establishing a modeling relationship, one necessarily establishes a
> > "larger system." There implies a hierarchy (although not a unique one)
> > where a larger system can contain a model of a smaller one. We may then
> > ask how a smaller system's internal model can model larger systems. This
> > could be the purpose for his statement - a question in this regard.
> >
> > It seems clear from other aspects of the view/theory that all these
> > systems are connected in some way. A big theme of Rosen's was how larger
> > systems DO causally affect the ontology of smaller ones, violating the
> > usual taboo on this in traditional science. In other words the existence
> > of parts may partially be owed to factors in the whole. This was the
> > case with protein folding examples. The explanation here seems to be
> > that larger-smaller hierarchies exist naturally (aside from any
> > scientific model), and that the smaller system models, say those
> > employed by an animal, are not formally restricted just to the encodings
> > contained in the animal itself but also extend up and down the
> > hierarchy. As an example, my model of the world might include real-time
> > influences from the environment that exists independently of me, i.e.,
> > the encodings embedded in the environment rather than an internal memory
> > storage system. In that case, the entailments exist up and down the
> > hierarchy.
> >
> > In other words, this way of seeing nature in terms of modeling
> > relationships, eliminates the physical reductionist hierarchy, but then
> > spreads any system through an infinite hierarchy of modeling relations.
> > This implied connectedness is very ecological, and thus appealing in
> > that regard (everything is connected to everything else), but it means
> > that sub-systems would at least partially entail their larger systems.
> > So again, which obsrvers are not models of each other?
> >
> > All I can think of is the case of an observation model that has no
> > decoding entailment loop - like a thought that is never tested or acted
> > upon. One can argue that this is ultimately an impossibility, so I would
> > question the statement. Could his intention have been to consider the
> > proof of this impossibility????
> >
> > Another possibility is that he was focusing on the "each other" part.
> > Perhaps all observers are models of what they observe, but there is the
> > case where this is not mutual - that the observed may not be observing
> > back. That would seem defensible. So, if I observe animals from behind a
> > blind, they may not be aware of my presence. That would seem like an
> > obvious case, but a relative one. In an absolute sense, even my blind
> > observation does feed back to the subject through future changes in my
> > behavior and alterations in the environment, management schemes, etc. So
> > ultimately even this case is entailed.
>