Re: Interesting analogies...

[John M <***>]

Judith, HI!

If I add some "negative" sounding items to a certain
number of items it will act as a positive addition. 
3arguments + 5arguments make 8 arguments, whether No 6
is called a 'negative' content or not. 
Sincerely: your Strawman.

Then again I don't believe that 'bio-semiotics' or any
other chapter we use could include items not yet
discovered (i.e. not yet included in our so-far
achieved epistemic enrichment in our mental
development). However such - still unknow/n/able items
can (and do) influence an outcome, do we know about it
or not. 
Well, it is different if someone is omniscient.I'm
not.
*
> "...the organism will simply change a behavior
> pattern in order to avoid damage...
Pray: which one is your position:
1. the organism (fish etc in your examples) is
analyzing the outcome of its hypothetical behavior and
decides to change it in a way that looks the most
lucrative,  OR: 
2. it KNOWS about the dangers and the better ways how
to act? Then the question is: Is it a collective
consent of the species living on 3 continents or is it
a concensus of a summit meeting? 
I think it goes another way: there are influences from
the ambiance and changes (mutations?) occur in ALL
directions and qualities ALL the time. The changed
variants get lucky (proliferate faster) or unlucky
(die out). The lucky ones can be seen by the
reductionist scientists, later on, because the dead
don't show up. So the conclusion is: THIS SPECIES
CHANGED ITS PATTERN. Indeed it is a continuation of
the species, not the same one, as nothing stays intact
in nature, everything changes. Unless, of course, we
resort at an "intelligent Design" (ha ha). 
The way you described does not even occur in humans of
educated thinking smart participation groups, becuase
there are emotions, greed, powermonging, welath,
politics, religion, nationality, gender, and 100 other
factors blinding the views. "Thinking" (what I deny
from the 'self-organizing' natural species) and
'changing patterns in order to...' is not the way how
evolution occurs - even in societal entities. We would
have an ideal social etc. world.
*
Anticipate we can within the known circumstances only.

Newton could not include in his anticipations the weak
force effect doscovered a century or two later. It is
relational, drawn on what already is knowable. And my
stereotype: 1000 ears ago less was knowable than now
and 1000 years from now more will be.

I hope this is a dialogue, not a debate (on another
list this distinction was argued lately).

Regards
John




--- Judith Rosen <***> wrote:

> 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".
> 
=== message truncated ===