Re: causing trouble

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

JohnK,

I think Judith put it well:
"Even the "anticipatory model" within the organization of living systems may
only be "active" insofar as it is part of the dynamic organization of the
system itself."

Extracting the internal predictive model from the anticipatory system, so as
to have a 'model without a modeler', would result in a lump of material, not
a standalone 'model' which is causally efficacious in any organized way.

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John
> Kineman
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 12:45 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: causing trouble
>
>
> Tim et al.
>
> There are numerous examples of how models are not passive, but have
> causal effects on natural systems. It is RR's major point and if it were
> not intended this way he would not have written so extensively and
> strongly about "internal predictive models" IN organisms. If they don't
> do anything there, why bother with them? Without causal effect from
> models, there is nothing at all to the theory other than a different
> color we can apply to the painting of nature.
>
> JJK
>
> Tim Gwinn wrote:
>
> >I agree with you, Judith. Models are passive - and they are not even
> >'models' of anything until someone or something outside the model brings
> >them into an encoding/decoding relationship with an object
> system of which
> >they are intended to be a model. The encoding/decoding in an MR is not
> >entailed by, or within, the MR itself [Essay p. 159].
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tim
> >