Re: Reactive vs. Anticipatory

[John M <***>]

Hi, Ms.JR,
Appreciate to let the 'strawman' pass.

Now I copy YOUR text for my reply and will - sort of -
interspace some of it. And please, do not misinterpret
my style for joking. I am serious even speaking light.
John

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

> Hi John M.
> 
> I agree with your first two points (although I
> notice you used 
> mathematics to "prove" your point-- Isn't that sort
> of against your 
> policy?) I'll let the "strawman" comment slide for
> now...

I have no 'oath' to avoid math, just have some points
in which I disagree, especially fo its alleged
superiority over topical common sense logic. Mine.

>JR: 
> However, this next one requires further discussion:
> John M. wrote;
> > 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.

>JR: 
> Are those really the only options you think there
> are?

Of course not! As Karl Sagan wrote in his Cosmos, this
world was created by a Demiurg who failed to do it
right and it was left swirling for everybody to see
how NOT to do it. "They" (whoever they are) saw flaws
and decided upon improvements. This could count as the
changes in behavior, pattern, features. <G> 
Or the Tooth Fairy. Who else would change the
patterns/behavior? see below after next.

>JR: 
> Your description of adaptation is a purely reactive
> one, where only 
> random accident can be the agent of change in
> organisms. 

Please, if you remember my idiosyncracy against math,
do not forget my aversion against 'random' as well.
Nothing is random, unless we would see parallel and
independent natures side by side, what we don't. 
The changes are strictly deterministic from an
interactive totality of which we know only a fraction
and recognize in our model-views even only fractions
of that fraction. That is science. No
accident/randoom! 

>JR:
>In contrast, 
> the two options you offer to me are both talking
> about a thought 
> process, as if I'm suggesting that all behavior of
> organisms is somehow 
> based on an organism "knowing" something.

Well, either "they know something" and act accordingly
upon THEIR decision, OR circumstances e/affect changes
and such entailment occurs as a de/in/con/structive
process. Any.
Matter (organism for that matter) does not "just"
change - it must follow the why, in either sense of
the "why"s: 1. the causational or 2. the goal oriented
one. Let us skipt the second - I don't want to go into
teleology. That 2nd "why" I leave for theology, 
I leave that to the Demiurgs who follow an Intelligent
Design. 
What leaves us with the instigated changes (in all
directions and amplitudes, unlimited, some more
relevant (observable?) than others, some discovered,
others not yet even thought of. 

>JR:
? That's not what I'm saying at 
> all and I don't think any of those options is
> correct. It's certainly 
> true that, in some organism species, a thought
> process and learning are 
> definitely a factor in generating behavior (and it's
> also clearly a 
> boon to survival). But all organisms are
> anticipatory, even those 
> without a brain. 

How about those that perish? They underwent exactly
the same principles and goofed their survival.

>JR:
> It's not a thought process, it's a
> behavior pattern 
> generated, in Robert Rosen's view, by the presence
> of information in 
> the organization of the system. 

I am not arguing with RR here, only with your views
BASED on your interpretation of what you learned from
him. I put 'information' as 'difference acknowledged'
into both ideational and so called material (model)
views - do not differentiate the totality according to
the cut models of (reductionistic) sciences.
Interrelation of complexities is undivisibly
ideational and functional (what probably you would
call: material) Information is as well the attractive
notion of a + ion to a (-) charge as the news about
Iranian politics. 
If you talk "system" you are talking model. It would
mean differently as "natural system". And you place
the organization as ingredient of a 'system', so it is
not the 'organization unlimited' of the totality.
I do not separate the ONE complexity "mind and body" 
(thought and no-thought processes) nature is one and
only our views (model that is) differentiate it into
controversial noumena. And there is function, process
CHANGE. Both ideational and 'physical' if you like.

>JR:
> Behavior that is generated by 
> interaction with information can be referred to as
> model-based behavior 
> and even the most primitive organisms exhibit such
> behavior patterns.

Here you talk about biological organisms? Like single
-cellulars? I rather try to visualize totality. (Don't
really succeed, but I try). And whatever we realize in
our observation is model-based. At least (in science)
model-observed. Some people try to overcome it in
their speculations, I call them "more-or-less
Rosenites". 
It is still above our ongoing mental capabilities.
> 
> Judith
> 
> Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com

John