[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] 

Re: Interesting analogies...

Jamie Rose and John M. dialogue:
"... 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.

"Negative" and "Positive" are in the eye of the beholder; it's all relational and it's context dependent.

Isn't it "bio-semiotics" which attempts to understand what anything is perceived as by various different organisms or by components within organisms (endocrine systems, for example)? An attempt to imagine what some zooplankton "sees" in its native environment or how two heart cells communicate the electrical rhythm for a beat in unison, etc.? >From a bio-semiotic point of view, then, any seeming "negative" will, at the same time, almost certainly be a positive as well-- if not for the organism on the negative side of the situation, perhaps for the offspring of the organism, or for the species... or perhaps for a different organism, altogether (as in predator/prey situations). Or, perhaps the organism will simply change a behavior pattern in order to avoid damage and then the negative can be perceived differently. It seems to me that this is partly how adaptation works. Just as evolution has been partly based on "function change" in various aspects of a living system's organization (a "swim bladder" in a fish evolved into "lungs"), it is also based on a living system's ability to exploit the positives out of any change in circumstances, or else modify some aspect of self, in order to rebalance optimality. I think it's all part of the capability that being organized as an anticipatory system can achieve in an interactive, relational universe.

Judith

Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science based on the Relational (Rosennean) Complexity Paradigm
On Nov 7, 2005, at 10:50 AM, John M wrote:

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".