Re: Reactive vs. Anticipatory

[John M <***>]

Judith, you read more into my simpleminded sentence
than was intended when I wrote it.
No fancy 'connotations', just the simple fact that
"science" takes snapshots (from time to time) of the
actual image of the model it observes and those, that
perished intermittently between such snapsots do not
show up at all. Out of sight....So science does not
take into account those disappeared variations at all.

That's all I wanted to point to
John

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

> 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
>