[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: causing trouble

Tim,
OK, as usual the agreement is in the subtlety on our word meanings. Yes,
I agree it is the whole system that is active as you say. Apologies for
being too hasty and matter of fact (ain't semantics wonderful?). Also, I
could have avoided the misunderstanding if I had said "two systems
modeling each other" which is what I do say in the paper. "Systems"
implies the whole shebang.


Tim Gwinn wrote:

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




--
© 2004 John J. Kineman
all rights reserved