Re: Some thoughts on the Modelling Relation

[Dan Fiscus <***>]

Tim Gwinn wrote:

snip

> If - for the sake of discussion - these three types you mention are indeed
> instantiations of modelling relations, then it seems to me we are still
> talking about modelling relations as the generality and not something more
> generic than modelling relations.
>
> I'd like to hear how these three types are, in fact, instances of modelling
> relations. This would go a long way toward bridging these two fields. From
> my understanding, though, the partitioning of the aspects of communication
> in semiotics is not consistent with that in modelling relation.

snip

Tim,

A few more comments...

At one place in either Sebeok's book Signs an Intro. to Semiotics or
The Forms of Meaning, Modeling Systems Theory and Semiotic
Analysis by Sebeok and Danesi is mentioned the link that plant,
animal and human semiotics are structured by the food of these
life forms. Thus since the foods are qualitatively different, then the
structures, functions and systems of meaning are likewise
qualitatively different. Still early in my reading of this, and not
sure how or how well it links to Rosen and modeling relation. But
as for a link to metabolism-repair modeling, this fundamental
difference in types of modeling systems (semiotic term) based on
food (plants "eat" sunlight, water, CO2 as self-feeders; animals
eat plants and plant-derived food as other-feeders) it is interesting
to me to consider that plants are the repair function for animal
metabolism and animals can also serve as a repair function for
plant metabolism (recycle CO2 faster than by abiotic means).

Still speculating, it could be that something like "feeding" or more
generally "material relation" could be more generic, or prior in
evolutionary development (time, history) than modeling relation.
These may be kinds of reciprocal interaction that are less
developed than modeling. They may also be prior to a real, hard
split between epistemic and ontic realms. Thus they may also be
important as we seek to re-integrate across this problematic split.
Through eating and/or material relation may be the only way to
"communicate with" (or commune), or co-model for survival on
Earth with, the other animals and the plants, if we can't
communicate through language or other non-material, formal
channels.

A last similarity with Rosen's complexity might be seen in the
fact that plants, animals and humans may be three
incommensurable models or modeling systems (with varying
blends of formal/epistemic and material/ontic aspects) and
these three may all be required (the combo is unfractionable)
for life as a whole to both survive on Earth and have any chance
to survive beyond Earth (that's a key human role, one the other
life types can't do alone, though they'd both be required for any
self-sufficient colony off-Earth. Again, the three type being both
incommensurate (can't reduce or replace one for another) and
unfractionable as components of life itself).

Dan