|
Steve Johnson wrote: If I were placed in
the middle of
Antarctica with no food or clothes I
would have a pretty good model of what
is going on but
I could still not adapt because of the limitation of
my
physical body not of the limitation of my capacity
to build models of the
environment.
Ah, but we're speaking of different "models"... The kind of
model you're referring to is the intellectual kind. I was referring to models
encoded into the organization. The aspects of the physical body you are
referring to are part of the models. For example it would appear that
humans have a warm evolutionary climate encoded into us, since we don't
have much in the way of insulation. If we weren't able to compensate for the
lack of our models, we would never be able to live in most of the climates on
the planet. The point is that the internal predictive models don't have
contingencies for "if I was placed in Antarctica with no food or clothes..." The
citrus tree has limited volitional or behavioral ability to compensate
(although it does have some; like dropping all its leaves, for example), so it
is stuck with the limitations of its models. It's evolution never had to face
the oddities of its seeds winding up in pots of soil in a house in Western
New York.
Judith
Judith Rosen:
"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".
Steve
Johnson:
Though I agree with the spirit of the comment I think
it is
not an accurate example of the failure of model
in the sense of
"Anticipatory Systems". Adaptation is
a broader concept than learning. If I
were placed in
the middle of Antarctica with no food or clothes I
would
have a pretty good model of what is going on but
I could still not adapt
because of the limitation of
my physical body not of the limitation of my
capacity
to build models of the environment. I would propose
the example
of the butterfly flying towards a light
bulb as an example of model
failure. Its incorrect
model causes it to die not the limitation of its
body
- it could have chosen to fly in another direction.
Sorry for
nitpicking.
--- 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
> will
> require many more
measurements (encodings), but
> the larger model
> will
still
> be separated from the system by these
encodings.
> All you have
> 'healed" is
> the
previous cut made for the simpler system.
>
>
>Dan: So not only is the location of the cut
> arbitrary, but I
think
> >the cut itself is arbitrary or a choice too
when
> one considers
> >that there is an
alternative.
>
> HP: I don't see any alternative. The
position of
> the cut is all that
> is
>
arbitrary. You have not shown how the concept of
> "model" can evade
> the
> modeling relation as Rosen represents
it.
>
> Howard
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
|