Re: Question, version 2

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

JohnK,
See interposed,
Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John
> Kineman
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:16 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Question, version 2
>
>
> Tim, Dan,
>
> I think I get Tim's point, and I would agree, but I don't think it
> contradicts what Dan was saying, is that possible?
>
> Dan was saying they cannot be separated.


Just a general comment: I very much dislike the word 'separated' because it
is so vague and can carry so many wildly differing connotations. I take it
that Langton uses 'separated' = 'fractionated'.


>Langton said they were being so
> for modeling purposes.


Where does Langton say this? There is nothing about "for modeling purposes"
in the Langton quote.


> Rosen said get rid of the material concept and
> keep the concept of organization, which as I see it keeps material and
> formal domains connected and inseparable. I think when RR said throw
> away the physics and keep the organization he meant the thought systems.


Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by "thought systems" here. Do you mean
throwing away a preoccupation with material constitution of a system as a
focus of model-building and replacing that with a preoccupation with the
organizational properties of a system as the focus of model-building? If so,
I agree. Rosen refers to relational modelling as a "modelling strategy".


> Langton's claim that life would be associated with the non-physical
> separates material from formal - that's the old Platonic concept and it
> remains mechanical, pushing life off into some never-never land.


I go along with that.


> eh?
> JJK
>