Re: Anticipation/Anticipatory

["John M" <***>]

Judith,
thanks for the time (!) and trouble you invested in explaining my
anticipated(!) error. To answer your question:
No, it makes no sense to me.

I cut out totally the time factor, as an explanatory attribute for us to
explain the observable world of reductionist thinking (physics, that is). In
this discussion my object is not to argue against "anticipation or not", I
accept a semantics one is using if explained (justified) sufficiently,
whether I include it into my vocabulary or rather stay with my own. It is
the WORLDVIEW what I am aiming at and that is (I think) identical to that of
your father's, however I find some expressions prone to "pruning" (maybe
because he was a professor and talking always to his audience: the
reductionist scientists, making THEM to comply).
The worldview-part I am talking about comes out nicely of the wording you
used (as quotation or your understanding? never mind that):
" >...There is no
> thought-process involved in how these organisms are behaving; they simply
> are doing things based on causes we don't understand ...<"
Cut out our (ever changing) understanding. What is called anticipatory is a
deterministic, cause-induced REACTION of circumstances (environment), of
inner AND outer (if that makes any sense) effects in the wholeness.
The maple tree could not care less whether we KNOW the causes that induce
the leaf-disease to drop, or we don't. There ARE causes - not the (English
and modern language) 'anticipation', not even the correct Latin sense
(capere means "to grab, use, apply" things in one's possession or
available), but WHY NOW?
All the mechanism for the leaf-dropping Tim referred to in his quip have
been there in the maple tree all summer (if they, too, haven't been newly
caused by the chnging season) and in fall - the leaves drop. So, as you
said, it is a problem in considering TIME.

I forget about time, (Occam!) and consider only the deterministic side of
the action called "anticipatory", which it is indeed, but not by the
luckiest name.
By offering debatable *words* to the Rosen-antagonists we just widen the
front we have to battle along, without real reasoning to philosophical
issues.
Rosenspeak is pioneerspeak, door opener to the 'profanum vulgus' and maybe
this is the reason why I don't properly understand it: my pioneerspeak was
different for similar thoughts and I dropped certain words (like nonlinear
and chaotic, lately: complex(ity), simplicity, while adopting others:
(limited) model  and natural system and maybe more - with credit to RR.)

">...to take action before the time it would be required.
>In other words, it is a time referent or designation that refers to the
>behavior he saw in all living things where one could only
> understand certain aspects of their behavior within the framework of a new
> perspective on TIME, itself."<

In the ubiquitous and overall change (natue's process) "required" is our
word.
The variants occur and proliferate according to the actual environment which
nature provides, some survive and fleurish, some don't. The 'take action'
means: "react" (see above). Our understanding is based on reductionist
science and its 'limited model' views, it does not influence the
occurrences. QM struggles with similar problems - they have no (RR-like)
perspective to solve it.

With best regards

John M


----- Original Message -----
From: "Judith Rosen" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 1:18 PM
Subject: Anticipation/Anticipatory


> There is a difference between literal meanings and connotations. There is
> also a big gray area with literal meanings when looking at definitions of
> words in any language. This is the trouble that has come up over and over
> with translations of various religion's holy books, for example.
>
> Having said that, I will reiterate the tendency my father had, when
choosing
> a word to express a new idea, to go to the original root meanings of the
> word, rather than to some modern connotation. With the word "Anticipate",
> the roots are Latin: "ante" meaning before and "capare" meaning to take.
My
> father intended it literally to mean "to take action before the time it
> would be required". In other words, it is a time referent or designation
> that refers to the behavior he saw in all living things where one could
only
> understand certain aspects of their behavior within the framework of a new
> perspective on TIME, itself. Living systems exhibit a property or ability
to
> interact in multiple different time scales than is allowed via the
accepted,
> constant and unidirectional, Einsteinian view of time. There is no
> thought-process involved in how these organisms are behaving; they simply
> are doing things based on causes we don't understand and it was in my
> father's attempts to re-envision the possible reasons why these particular
> phenomena are occurring, that he developed this area of his theoretical
> framework. Does that make sense, John M.?
>
> His book, Anticipatory Systems, went into great detail explaining why he
> came to take another look at the accepted definitions of TIME in light of
> these otherwise inexplicable behaviors expressed by all living things. To
my
> knowledge, it was the first work to address these behaviors in the
> perspective of time: Does anyone know of an earlier work? I would be very
> interested to get any information on that.
>
> Judith
>