Re: the "(M,R)-System" model, Modeling relations, and semantics

[Jerry Zhu <***>]

I found RR's quatos below (homology vs physical
structure) consistent with Pattee (symbol aspects and
matter aspects of semantic closure), Wittgeinstein
(pictoral form and logical form), Popper (world 2 and
world 1 ontologies).  Homology is an important
evolutionary concept often neglected.  I think it is
about the relationship of forms of species at
different levels of evolutionary dynamics.  I would
like to see more about how RR explain and use
homology.  The only minor issue with me is the terms
used based on Kant who differentiate percept from
concept. Our experience on physical aspects is called
percepts (by our sense organs) and our experience on
formal asepcts is called concepts (by our internal
sense).  RR used perception on homology which it is
more appropriate to use conception. (I was trying to
be philosophical.) I completelely understand RR and
also am completely in agreement.

I found major issues with Judith.  I found no
correlation between RR's quota and her comments below.
And i found Judith's explanation unconvincing and
confusing.  Time is always there and hence is constant
and we don't have to have it in our models explicitly.
If Judith meant when study formal aspects of living
systems we don't need to consider time explicitly, I
would agree. But we need to complement our study with
physical aspects which time should be an important
variable to be considered explicitly.  The consequance
of studying life by focusing on formal aspects only
and ignore matter aspects has been addressed by von
Neuman and Pattee etc. Such as the false vision on
artificial intelligence.  Meaning can be separated
from physical embodiment etc...

Try this experiment.  Replace Judith's "complexity"
and "complex systems" with "mechanical machines" and
you will find no problems. Indeed the steering wheel
is related to tires which can only be understood in
relationship.  Disamount the steerign wheel and put it
on the table.  It steers nothing. By taking automobile
apart, the whole loses its essential property so is
its parts.



Jerry Zhu
VCU

> On page 3 of Anticipatory Systems, Robert Rosen
> wrote:
> "I am persuaded that our recognition of the living
> state rests on the 
> perception of homologies [similarities] between the
> behaviors 
> exhibited by organisms, homologies which are absent
> in non-living 
> systems. The physical structures of organisms play
> only a minor and 
> secondary role in this; the only requirement which
> physical structure 
> must fulfill is that it allows the characteristic
> behaviors themselves 
> to be manifested. Indeed, if this were not so, it
> would be impossible 
> to understand how a class of systems as utterly
> diverse in physical 
> structure as that which comprises biological
> organisms could be recognized as a unity at all."
> 
> Complexity is a relational issue, which in complex
> systems is 
> generated  via their organization. Therefore,
> organization becomes a 
> prime concern, scientifically. But it's a tricky
> thing to study, 
> because it's only "study-able" while it's intact. In
> a complex system, 
> the organization is made up primarily of relations,
> which are almost 
> entirely destroyed by fractionation. Even more
> difficult; any given 
> living organism will have unique relational
> structure, some of which 
> is a species-based contribution, some of which is an
> environmental 
> contribution, and some of which is unique to the
> individual, entirely. 
> How do you begin to sort out the general from the
> uniquely individual? 
> RR's strategy was to approach from the one direction
> where he could 
> see a clear generality: the patterns of life. The
> homologies he spoke 
> of. That's precisely what an "(M,R)-System" is
> modeling. Metabolism 
> and repair, both generated from within the system,
> are the homologies 
> unique to living organisms.
> 
> Returning to Rodrigo's question about how time is
> represented in a 
> relational model: Certainly it will depend on what
> you're modeling, 
> but using this as an example can be instructive, I
> think. Metabolism 
> and Repair are both ongoing processes which are
> always present, always 
> "up and running' in a living organism-- in that they
> are capabilities 
> which are present throughout life and remain until
> the system 
> collapses (dies). So, time is a constant. It isn't
> spelled out that 
> way, in the model... but it's included by
> association or implication. 
> That's one of the beauties of his model of an
> organism; it carries all 
> of the relations necessary for these two critical
> functional 
> capabilities, and the model itself can be used to
> learn about those 
> relations.
> 
> If one is planning to model a component of a living
> organism, say we 
> want to model "metabolism"... a relational model
> will include the 
> homologies in that particular category of living
> functional 
> capability, the aspects which are true of all living
> organisms, 
> regardless of individual material differences. Let's
> say we want to 
> model the differences between the metabolisms of
> warm-blooded animals, 
> cold-blooded animals, and green plants. We have to
> first know what the 
> similarities are in terms of metabolic capability,
> and then specialize 
> down to what is homologous within each category (so,
> what metabolic 
> similarities exist within all warm-blooded animals,
> for instance, but 
> are not manifested in plants or cold-blooded
> animals...).
> 
> Relational modeling is a very strong partner to the
> analytic kind, 
> even in simple system study. It is not intended to
> replace the other, 
> but to allow us to get entirely different kinds of
> information about 
> the systems under study than can be had via
> traditional reductionist 
> techniques. In complex systems this is clearly far
> more urgent than in 
> simple system study, but we need both kinds. A good
> relational model 
> will act as a road map, in a way, helping direct
> science to which 
> aspects to scrutinize in order to learn the stuff we
> want to learn. If 
> we are interested in metabolism, the relational
> model will suggest 
> avenues for study and even avenues for more
> reductionistic types of 
> science, to answer specific questions, etc.
> 
> Judith
> BioTheory: An E-Journal of General Science in the
> Rosennean Complexity 
> Paradigm 
>
http://www.rosen-enterprises.com/RobertRosen/BioTheoryLaunch.htm
> Website address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com/
> My favorite discussion list: 
>
http://www.lsoft.com/scripts/wl.exe?SL1=ROSEN&H=HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Rodrigo Peláez
>   To: ***
>   Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:41 PM
>   Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Modeling relations and
> semantics
> 
> 
>   Judith: Could you lengthen your very useful
> explanation of the 
> Modeling Relation, by telling us your thoughts about
> what role play 
> the variable "time" in it? When the time lag between
> encoding and 
> decoding a natural system is large enough with
> regard with that 
> particular system, one could lose essential
> characteristic of that 
> system, or capture only truth, false or apparent
> regularities. Also is 
> possible that time (or velocity) in N be different
> of the time in F.
> 
>   Thanks
> 
>   Rodrigo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Judith: Could you lengthen your very useful
> explanation of the 
> Modeling Relation, by telling us your thoughts about
> what role play 
> the variable "time" in it? When the time lag between
> encoding and 
> decoding a natural system is large enough with
> regard with that 
> particular system, one could lose essential
> characteristic of that 
> system, or capture only truth, false or apparent
> regularities. Also is 
> possible that time (or velocity) in N be different
> of 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com