Re: Interesting analogies...

[John M <***>]

Jamie,

with my 'mental blockage' for the unrestricted (total)
interconnections, I keep the possibility open that all
we MAY know today is insufficient for anticipating the
possibilities for the next change - (in practical
cases mostly true, but I don't care for practicality
when I speculate theroy) - I have a remark on you
viruses:
> ..."destruction
> of virues is incomplete and presses them to mutate
> into more virulant strains. ...<

The model of a virus is just that, a pattern, a view,
a limited description of whatever 'science' finds
relevant. There are always subtle differences not even
acknowledged in most cases, some resistent to the
applied antibiotics (or whatever), which survive the
"attacj" of the medics. So the habitat is emtied from
most of the competitors and the survivals have a
blanket windfall space for proliferatio. And they do.
The subsequent examination finds "the same model"
virus live and kicking in spite of the proven drugs.
So what happened: the answer is exactly what you wrote
however untrue. Wait a minute: you wrote "mutate" and
in some respect that is true: from a small variant it
HAS "mutated" into a majority. With the rest missing. 

>"... even entailed-systems harbor functional
negatives
> in the scope of all possible entailigs.<
I would add: this is the power of our ignorance about
many of the 'beyond-boundary' (unobserved, maybe not
yet even discovered) factors. So I would call those
'negatives' really positives in addition to what we
consider. 

Just nitpicking

John M



--- James N Rose <***>
wrote:

> Anticipatory Systems 'project toward', not 'away
> from',
> conditions and goals.  So though entailment
> processes
> bi-/omni- directed components, the net trend of
> systems
> goes forward through time to 'new attainables'.
> 
> When 'mind' contributes to decisions, where plans
> can be based on all sort of happenstantially chosen
> criteria, the possibilities open up for 'non well
> contemplated' results, or, results with limited 
> value .. like: lets have a world with no viruses
> or cholesterol; like:  lets have a world where
> produced food is chemically altered to never
> biodegrade, so that it can always be eated.
> 
> With the (disappointing) result that destruction
> of virues is incomplete and presses them to mutate
> into more virulant strains.  With the
> (disappointing)
> result that people ingest the bio-degrading
> prevention
> chemicals and become perpetually sick and
> hyperallergetic
> - though the pharmaceutical companies love it
> because
> it gives them an excuse to push expensive
> anti-allergens
> to fight the symptoms from eating "improved" food. 
> 
> Just like he was disappointed by 'reductive
> thinking',
> even entailed-systems harbor functional negatives
> in the scope of all possible entailigs.
> 
> Just musing on what he might have pondered.
> 
> Jamie
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judith Rosen wrote:
> > 
> > Jamie Rose wrote:
> > 
> >      I image your dad found it both exciting and
> disappointing -
> >      that systems entail toward the future, but
> the nature
> >      of such futures are open for manipulation.
> > 
> > Why "disappointing"? And do all systems really
> "entail toward the
> > future"? That's an intriguing thought. I suppose
> it depends on how
> > we define our terms, but my intuition is that only
> living systems
> > entail toward the future, whereas all other
> systems don't so much
> > "entail toward" as "entail FROM".
> >
>