Re: Reactive vs. Anticipatory

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Hi John M.

There's one comment from your post I can't resist commenting on in return. Where you said:
> How about those that perish? They underwent exactly
> the same principles and goofed their survival.

It's true of "those that perish" as well. Model-based behavior is not infallible-- quite the contrary. It's only as good as its models. The models themselves are apparently not very open to adaptation, just as genetic codes don't radically change within an organism's lifetime. So, if the context changes radically enough to no longer fit the model, every behavior the organism generates based on its model is going to be inappropriate to some degree-- perhaps fatally. Model-based behavior fails in characteristic ways and these are patterns exhibited by living systems, as well. It should be easy enough to design experiments to prove or disprove this. Anyone out there in a position to run the experiments and want to publish the results?

Judith



Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science based on the Relational (Rosennean) Complexity Paradigm
On Nov 8, 2005, at 5:13 PM, John M wrote:

> 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