Re: Some thoughts on the Modelling Relation

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Dan,
See interposed.
Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
>
> 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).


TG: Yes. Rosen pointed out many times that in the (M,R) model, the role of
each component is relative to its place in the model, so:
        Phi:B -> H(A,B)
is repair in the organization:
        A -> B -> H(A,B)
but is in the role of metabolism in an organization of
        B -> H(A,B) -> H[H(A,B) -> H(B,HA,B)]
(see for ex.,1972, "Some Relational Cell Models", p. 236)


> 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.


TG: The modelling relation is an epistemological thing, not an ontological
one, not something which evolved. But if you mean that organisms which
internally realize certain modelling relations were preceded evolutionarily
by things like abiotic chemical reactions, then of course I agree.


> These may be kinds of reciprocal interaction that are less
> developed than modeling.

TG: Same comment as above.

> They may also be prior to a real, hard
> split between epistemic and ontic realms.

TG: Could their even be an epistemic realm before there were living
organisms?

> Thus they may also be
> important as we seek to re-integrate across this problematic split.


TG: I guess I fail to see what is problematic. If epistemology arises as a
consequence of being alive, then - to be a bit sarcastic - being dead seems
to me the only cure for this "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.


TG: In my view, ALL communication is via some physical interaction - there
are no "formal channels" of communication between beings. Otherwise,
communcation becomes an acausal process. An internal interpretation of a
given physical interaction induced on us generates an internal
representation we recognize as a formal entity.


> 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).

TG: I agree that considering something like migrating humans off Earth
brings up the deep interconnectedness between humans and many other aspects
of our surroundings which we consider "external" to us, and hence, seemingly
fractionable from us. (Not to mention, the deep interconnectedness with
critters inside of us. I've always felt that the internal biota is one of
the most important but relatively disregarded of ecosystems.)

If these inter-relationships are functional ones, then it is key to note
that it is possible in most if not all cases for a function to be realized
by different possible structures. I think something like genetic engineering
in large part exists as an enterprise only because function is distinct from
the particular structure which realizes it. Spawning human colonies off
Earth would inevitably require we not only migrate some of the creatures of
our world with us, but also that we seek alternative ways to realize some of
the functions that we may not be able to realize on an alien world by
duplicating the same structures as on Earth. If successful, then in the end
we would have a world with the same (or highly similar) organization of
functional relations occurring as on Earth. It would be analogous to having
two different organisms composed of entirely different structures both
realizing the same (M,R) model. In both cases, the functional organizations
would be nonfractionable, but multiply realizable.