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

Re: photographs as models

John M.

I'd like to respond to this, recognizing the other responses so far, which I've read.

I can see a photograph as a model in the context that Judith described - a human system. It could be called, technically I suppose, a non-human modeling component in that it is not part of the human organism as such, but an extension of it - perhaps part of some human social system. I would think that the time difference between design, photograph, and reading, and computer analysis in between, are all aspects of that system. To identify the whole system, I'm thinking that we should look at the encoding and decoding relations - then say where the system is. The computer that reads the image does not decode to the system that produced it - so that's an incomplete relationship. Not until we get to the human do the encodings and decodings loop to the same modeling relation components.

A bird's nest or beehive I think could be considered a non-human model. It is encoded and decoded by the bird or bee.

"Modeler" is different than model and I think harder to discuss because we are reluctant to deal with identities as real. The bird is a modeler because it packages everything neatly into an organism. But what part of the bird is the modeler? The feathers, the brain? How about a dung beetle, for which a dung ball is a model? Is the modeler the nervous system? Where is it?

The modeler is what facilitates or causes encoding and decoding. As far as I know Rosen, or anyone else, could not say what that is. To me it always gets back to awareness ( a word I like because it avoids the threshold of consciousness distinctions). I also find it inescapable to think that the "modeler" is associated with purpose, by which I mean that a modeler interprets meanings and that the act of modeling defines purpose.

What I had in mind by a non-human model was to extend the concept of the modeling relation to physics. Two quantum particles in a system could be said to be modeling each other. The result if you have enough is some material, say Iron. The model that emerges is iron. A different system models oxygen. Put them together and they model rust. OK, perhaps it seems too metaphorical with respect to RR's biological meanings, but I think the theory can be extended to physics in this way. Then who's the modeler? That ends up corresponding to the same question that physics have asked, who's the observer? Its matter itself.

Now, if we want an idea of "modeler" that avoids the issue of human elaborated consciousness and thus where to draw the line, I'd go there. In that case, there indeed isn't any line, as JM suggested, but a continuum -- perhaps a continuum with significant leaps, as in "thinking about thinking" but nevertheless a continuum.

JK





At 05:07 PM 4/19/04 -0400, you wrote: 
Dan,
excellent idea, the non-human modeler. I have an example:
a photograph. It is a reduced model (e.g. no smell included)
of the visual boundaries-enclosed modeling. Momentarily I
am at a loss to mention another one - product of not some
*conscious activity* (like the camera, or say a bee-raindance
provided information of flowers - to say extremes). I was
looking for a model 'made' by a stone or a glalxy... Sorry.
Do you think conscious activity can only lead to models?
Cheers
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel A. Fiscus" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: causing trouble, active/passive


I agree with John K. in the general feeling/thought that
models, modeling, modeling relation are active and maybe
even more active than physical/material factors in the
sense of creative. We could say that for physical/material
dynamics we have the 1st and 2nd laws that cover conservation
of energy/mass and decay of energy quality, but we have no
law yet for creation or growth of energy quality. I think
this is where the relational/topological principles may be
the most causally active and the most important. It links
to them being ontic as well.

Also I don't see models as separable from a modeler ever,
but I also don't think a modeler has to be human or even
alive necessarily.

Some hunches,

Dan



On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, John Kineman wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> >>Rosen
> >>Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 9:00 AM
> >>To: ***
> >>Subject: Re: causing trouble
> >>
> >>
> >> J.K. wrote: The argument for two models modeling each other
> >>would be the key. That inherently defines an ontology of some kind,
i.e.,
> >>it self-defines something.
> >>
> >>Most of Quantum Physics doesn't interest me because it doesn't
> >>offer much of
> >>value to answer the questions in Biology that my father was interested
in.
> >>Since he was able to derive more physics from biology than the other way
> >>around, I tend to be uninclined to delve deeper into Quantum stuff.
> >>Consequently, I won't be able to add much muscle to this ongoing
> >>discussion.
> >>However, questions of the kind like the one above DO provoke my
> >>imagination
> >>because modeling is key in Rosennean Complexity, both the theory and in
> >>applications. And since the subject line is still "Causing Trouble", I
> >>thought perhaps a little of my own mischief would be apropo.
> >>
> >>Two models modeling each other... Why would this define an
> >>ontology? Here's
> >>how I'm looking at this: If all they are doing is modeling each
> >>other, there
> >>is no creation or self-perpetuation or anything. Furthermore, models, by
> >>their nature, are passive tools. 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. It serves a
> >>function for the
> >>system, therefore it is integral to the activity and organization of the
> >>system. But in Quantum issues, there is no concept of function in the
> >>biological sense, so I tend to discount any active participation
> >>of a model
> >>in generating what it models.
> >>
> >>Secondly, I can easily imagine any number of machines we could
> >>make where a
> >>pair of  models model each other. I could draw drawings of it. I
> >>could build
> >>them. If they are modeling each other well, then they will be
> >>identical. If
> >>they are not modeling each other well, there will be an infinite
> >>regress as
> >>the models spiral downward in constant attempts to fix the accuracy.
> >>
> >>Self-definition is a whole other realm from this, where the questions of
> >>ontology and epistemology are seperate issues. At least, that's the way
it
> >>looks from my perspective.
> >>
> >>Judith
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> © 2004 John J. Kineman
> all rights reserved
>