Re: Models and ecosystem balance/change...

[Steve Johnson <***>]

Is the ability to develop certain models is itself a
model that is embedded in the genome or is produced
through coupling of the phenotype and the environment?

In that sense it would the genome be a second order
model of the likely models that the organism would
have to build in order to adapt to the range of
environments it may find itself in. 

What would be a third order model? Does it make sense
to talk of this hiearchy of models?

Judith, alas, no relation to the Steve of the Discover
magazine.



--- John Kineman <***> wrote:

> Hi Judith, I've missed our conversations greatly!
> Again, just an 
> interloping comment for now.
> 
> This is great. I think you are describing the
> situation with 
> considerable practical clarity.
> 
> I suspect you didn't mean to say that the internal
> models don't adapt 
> over long periods, just that they don't change
> quickly and thus 
> sometimes don't adapt to unanticipated sudden
> changes, right?
> 
> It is so clear now to us that such models are real
> and intrinsic, and 
> yet hard for many to grasp because they think of a
> model as requiring 
> human intelligence or something akin to that to
> construct.  A model does 
> not have to be anything more than a surrogacy in
> your father's language, 
> right? One thing substituting for another in an
> established context. 
> This takes the modeling idea right down to the
> foundation.
> 
> JK
> 
> Judith Rosen wrote:
> 
> >Dan, I think I understand your uneasiness with what
> is undeniably a 
> >simplification process that is required for the
> scientific creation of 
> >models-- particularly where natural ecosystems are
> concerned (although 
> >the potential for problems can be substantially
> reduced by having a 
> >theoretical underpinning of complexity rather than
> the machine 
> >metaphor/reductionism).
> >
> >However, the fact that models are limited is a fact
> that even living 
> >organisms cannot escape. Anticipatory System Theory
> postulates that 
> >living systems are anticipatory in that they have
> models of 
> >themselves, of their environment, and of more than
> one time-scale 
> >encoded into their organization-- and this
> information is utilized to 
> >generate an "anticipatory mode of system control".
> This gives living 
> >organisms a huge edge in maintaining stability over
> a purely reactive 
> >system, but it's not foolproof. Changing global
> climate naturally 
> >leads to the death of species and corresponding
> change of whole 
> >ecosystems, as we see in the fossil record. While
> these internal 
> >predictive models seem to encode that "change is a
> constant", there 
> >are ranges within which the models can predict and
> outside those 
> >ranges, the models are useless. If I left my potted
> citrus trees 
> >outside on my deck tonight, they would be badly
> damaged or killed by 
> >the cold. The internal models don't adapt and don't
> "learn".
> >
> >This is what led my father to say the behavior of
> living organisms is 
> >guided/constrained by "models" in the first place,
> knowing full well 
> >that models are abstracted and simplified versions
> of the systems 
> >being modeled. The fact that you can "confuse"
> and/or "fool" a plant 
> >is exploited by humans all the time, for endless
> reasons including 
> >profit. What's the U.S. revenue generated by
> Poinsettia sales over the 
> >holidays? Where did those plants evolve? What is
> their normal blooming 
> >time? How does the plant trade induce the colorful
> display to coincide 
> >with Xmas?
> >
> >So, while there is certainly potential for danger
> in the creation of 
> >models, it's not a danger peculiar to science or
> one that only humans 
> >deal with; it's part of life in general. We have
> all sorts of models 
> >encoded within us, as well, some of which seem to
> be vestigial from an 
> >earlier time when our environment was different
> from what it is now. 
> >Hence, we have an appendix (as one example) and
> don't know what the 
> >heck it would be useful for. Obviously, the fact
> that our evolution 
> >included a changing diet is part of the information
> we have encoded 
> >into our organization... but how far can it change
> and still maintain 
> >the integrity of the system?
> >
> >This is how I look on the epiphany Atkins stumbled
> onto. The current 
> >low-carb movement is a return to eating within our
> encoded models, for 
> >a lot of us. Sometimes called "The Maker's Diet" or
> a Biblical Diet, I 
> >think it goes much father back than that. The
> epidemic of type two 
> >diabetes is a symptom that a diet high in processed
> carbs is too far 
> >outside the ranges we can tolerate. We are also
> learning that 
> >biodiversity in soil ecology has a direct effect on
> the nutrient value 
> >of food grown in it and chemical intensive farming
> techniques are 
> >damaging that ecology. Humans have an edge in
> dealing with the 
> >limitations of our models: We can (hopefully) use
> our intelligence to 
> >learn and deliberately modify our behavior to match
> our internal 
> >models.
> >
> >Judith
> >
> >
> >  ----- Original Message ----- 
> >  From: Howard Pattee
> >  To: ***
> >  Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 8:00 PM
> >  Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Which part of the brain (or
> subject-object 
> >system) is conscious?
> >
> >
> >  At 02:14 PM 12/10/04 -0500, Dan wrote:
> >  >Howard,
> >  >
> >  >This is all well and good for a formal system
> and for a
> >  >static model. But I think if you try to extend
> it to into the
> >  >material realm and a continuous and changing
> modeling
> >  >process, this view itself needs a complement.
> >
> >  HP: This necessity for placing a cut between the
> model itself and 
> >what is
> >  being modeled has nothing to do with he scope or
> time frame of what 
> >is
> >  being modeled. Whatever system you are modeling
> requires that the 
> >model is
> >  not identical with the system itself, but a model
> of the system. 
> >Complex
> >  systems require more than one model, but the
> models must still be 
> >separate
> >  from whatever is being modeled .
> >
> >  >Dan:  When we consider that the observer only
> >  >can observe with aid of a continuous stream of
> energy
> >  >and material from the environment (air, water,
> food, etc.)
> >  >- including likely interactions with the
> objectified system
> >  >he/she observes so the object system and
> observer's life
> >  >support cannot be disentangled - and that also a
> continual
> >  >stream of energy and materials that have been
> altered in
> >  >quality, quantity and configuration (waste and
> other
> >  >products, impacts), it seems to me that the
> epistemic cut is
> >  >fully bridged, or healed.
> >
> >  HP: In this example you are only moving the cut
> so as to include 
> >more of
> >  the ecosystem. Your model is now about a much
> bigger system that 
> 
=== message truncated ===



                
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
http://my.yahoo.com