Re: Question, version 2, building models

[Ayten Aydin <***>]

Dear John, M
Your para:" I composed a draft on such possibility and will e-mail it to
interested
listers upon request." Please do include me. We are this way getting deeper
in perceiving abstracting and its place in the communication or
no-communication. All started with my mis-interpretation (!) of
abstract-closure concept. Now I am learning more and go beyond in my thought
process. 'Every cloud has its silver lining'.
My best,
AYTEN

----- Original Message -----
From: "John M" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Question, version 2, building models


> Dan, Ayken, Tim,
>
> Ayken:
> thanks for considering my post,
> I did not mean to include into 'my' *abstraction* the "opposites" as
well...
> Have to rethink it, especially that Dan agreed with you...
>
> Dan:
> I believe it is in the proper RR sense to mention a "modeler' for a model.
> I was speculating to step further: is "modeling" (either rel. or redux)
> indeed an artificial act, or can it follow from some 'given' in the
> wholeness? (I mean the so far unknown structure to Rosen-complexity,
> what I call *wholeness* to escape from the "complex" craze.
>  I AM a heretic.).
>
> I composed a draft on such possibility and will e-mail it to interested
> listers
> upon request. It may be 'ontic' in a different sense from what you
suppose.
> It tries to be more than Tim's " I would want to say that it is an
> inherent and unavoidable by-product of modelling ..." - rather a natural
> origination FOR (some) modeling. A bridge to reasonable reductionism.
> I don't post the essay on this list, because it goes a bit further than
> stricktly
> sturying the RR-stuff - however pertinent to it.
>
> Tim:
> I do see the similarity ot the two items only, if we extend the 'systems'
> from applicability (as in function) to 'speaking about it' as in ideation.
> In a computer program you really cannot separate the software from
> the hardware: none alone does anything, but you can SPEAK about
> them separately. A bodyless alive(?) feature is also only something you
> can 'speak about' - it is NOT alive.
> (Body here understood as more than just biological stuff).
> Detriment to the comparison is that you can apply a software-less
> hardware (as paperweight?) just as a lifeless cadaver (as food?), but not
> in the sense how the unseparated complexity is meant to be used.
> The other part(s) of the complex(es) are olny 'food for talk' (ideation)
> even if you have a hard-(paper)copy of a written sofware in mind.
> So IMO you CAN separate 'them' both, but in doing so, you destroy
> the qualia (essence?) of the "complexity as in the unseparated form".
>
> Cheers
>
> John M
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Fiscus" <***>
> To: <***>
> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 9:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Question, version 2, building models
>
>
> > Tim,
> >
> > But isn't modeling also ontic in that the modeler and all
> > processes involved do exist in reference to, integrated with
> > some material/physical processes (brain, mind, body, life
> > needs, paper, pencils, speech, books, etc. etc.)? This is the
> > inescapable ontic and self-referential aspect to modeling
> > that to me shows the epistemic cut to be artificial and
> > majorly problematic if left to operate alone, unchecked,
> > unbalanced.
> >
> > But looking at Rosen in context (all his works) I would
> > agree that the quotes relate to different meanings and
> > philosophies at the core.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> >
> > Tim Gwinn wrote:
> > > Dan,
> > >
> > > Building models (relational or reductionistic) is an epistemological
act
> of
> > > abstracting from a natural system to a formal system. As I read it,
"can
> be
> > > separated from" appears to refer to fractionation: an ontological
claim
> that
> > > "aliveness" (as Langton calls it) is some logical property that can be
> > > fractionated from a material system. As such, I see no real similarity
> > > between the two quotes.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tim
>
>