Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"

[Jack Park <***>]

Tim,

Thank you for this. I just read it, and several other papers of his.

What I get from the paper is that the issue of "depth" is important: you 
can't just evolve on surface causes, but must waltz ever deeper into 
causality. That part seems to exist in agreement with Rosennean 
application of the multiple causes of Aristotle, though I'm not sure 
that's what Kampis is saying. In the end, his recipe for application 
sounds very much like the QP envisionment that my program builds, but 
his admonition to pay attention to depth suggests the addition to the 
"recipe" that one must take the time to see to it that all entailments 
are accounted for. On that point, I'm not sure any one individual can be 
expected to see and account for all possible entailments; that seems to 
be an option for discovery. It's the facilitation of that discovery that 
animates my program.

Thanks
Jack

Tim Gwinn wrote:

> Jack,
>
> A paper by George Kampis, "A CAUSAL MODEL OF EVOLUTION", might be of
> interest to you. It discusses some of the problems with evolutionary
> simulations and their premises which limit their effectiveness. He then
> proposes a general strategy for introducing a more realistic role for
> causality into the process. This would seem to increase what I would call
> "algorithmic novelty" into the simulation. It is painted in broad strokes,
> but I thought it might be helpful:
> http://www.jaist.ac.jp/%7Eg-kampis/SEAL02/A_Causal_Model_of_Evolution.htm
>
> His homepage for this project is at:
> http://www.jaist.ac.jp/%7Eg-kampis/
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>
>  
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Jack
> > Park
> > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 1:04 PM
> > To: ***
> > Subject: Re: Rosennean "Cookbook"
> >
> >
> > I agree with the need to consider the impacts on the initial
> > conditions.  I am wondering if that is, in fact, how my program works.
> >
> > Let me explain. Given an initial condition, consider that a node in a
> > tree. As process rules fire on those conditions, new nodes are created.
> > When several rules fire (several entailments assert their influence),
> > branches form in the tree. Each new node becomes the equivalent of a new
> > set of initial conditions. We call that an "envisionment".
> >
> > In some sense, the envisionment-building process -- I call it model
> > building -- is not always practical. When Bob Trelease at UCLA was
> > growing an envisionment of some behaviors under hyperbaric immunology
> > contexts, the program ran all week, right up till the moment the janitor
> > unplugged his computer to get a broom into a difficult space. Sigh...
> >
> > Nevertheless, in some sense, given that each node in a growing model
> > represents a fresh set of initial conditions, the totality of the model
> > reflects a histories (different histories for each branch in the tree)
> > of the various entailments and their effects.
> >
> > It becomes necessary to inject metarules -- stopping rules -- which
> > reflect a modeler's view of when any particular history has sufficiently
> > reflected the needs of the model.
> >
> > When nodes are found to contain the same or similar information as other
> > nodes somewhere in the graph, that branch is linked into the other
> > (earlier) location in another branch and that history ends. This is
> > usually a looping condition.  When we ran this program on the Krebs
> > cycle, we discovered cycles which were slightly different from loops;
> > the end of a cycle brings more information to the start than the initial
> > loop started with. We documented that as cycles and spirals.
> >
> > Jack
> >    
>
>
>