Re: Modeling relations and semantics: "Blame" and causality

[John M <***>]

Jamie, well, let's see....

I will interpose some remarks into your text below and
if you allow me, delete those parts I do not reflect
to (it is long).

Again: we are on the same side (also with RR) just the
wording?

John M

--- James N Rose <***>
wrote:

> Judith,
> 
> I'm gratified you concur with the things I write
> about.
> 
> RR may have been an adamant Causalist but he gave
> the
> world a causal-concept extraordinarily difficult to
> deal with or even get their minds's around ..
> entailment.

My second etc thoughts about 'cause': in the ambient
parlance a model i observed and within there is an
originating factor most easily associatable with the
entailment we visualize. This is called 'cause' and
this is why I prefer (since - I think - I have a
glimpse about the meaning of the word) "entaliment"
over cause. 
They are not 1:1 interchangable.  RR wrote to an
audience firmly anchored in conventional cultural
heritage, so he could not just miss the reference to
Aristotle, who's genius worked in the maze of the
(epistemic) cognitive inventory of 2500 years ago. In
the RR-complexity of our today's level knowledge-base
there is more to it than those "4" variations. 
>
> skip
> 
>   "In other animals the perceive-evaluate-react net
of 
>    awareness/behaving, is a crucial causal-analysis 
>    chaining as well.
> 
>    How challenging then is it to break from
"tangible"
>    specifiable-causality concept processing, and
accept
>    indefinite but as or more important, indefinite
>    nebulous relations as the more important ones."
> 
> RR effectively and explicitely made the point that
the
> nature of open existence includes causal links that
are
> potentially neither recognized nor included in
extant
> models and noted information.  Causality in known
and
> recognized phenomena is one thing, but watch out,
> don't be arrogantly prideful that what you see is
all 
> there is to see .. other causal influences abound
and
> effect significant entailings that (re)direct system
> operations, actions, performances, values, and
being.

Exactly. The 'significance' is not so obvious: it
depends
also on the model's boundaries we observe, we may
dismiss
even 'significant' entailments as not (so) pertinent
to 
the limited model. I am in modst of a speculation how
to 
formulate a 'measure' of such significance - or rather
the 
side-neglect, called in Kampis's recent evolutionary
paper 
'depth' of the influence, in my views: "more relevant"
in
the network of networks, as applicable to "how to
identify 
a "person" in the total interconnectedness.
> 
> skip class. causes 

> 
>          |        Rosen entailed Causes         |  
(glad you did not write: Rosen entailed entailments)
> 
> Currently, statistical analysis and quantum
mechanical
> concepts reign in the area of projected-supposition,

(especially in the work of bigmouth physicists and
those
who want to seem knowledgeable in "[physical-like"
thinking)

> which involves accounting for observed phenomena
> in a quasi-causal linkage .. likelihoods following
> patterns, from random events potential.  Where no 
> event - and therefore no formal causalchain - can be
> absolutely predicted and specified.

All that within the model they cut for themselves. The

linearity of QM (Alwyn Scott) makes it a narrow model.
> 
> RR might have eventually written that -underscoring-
> even indefinite phenomena, causality is a
preordinate
> primogenitor state or qualia of existence; but the
> openness of being, being itself a companion a
priori,
> makes causality appear a-causal before it can
present 
> its own true nature and instantiate the vast 
> involvements of being.

Here I like to use 'deterministic' instead of
'causality
which includes also the negatiove influences. I was 
questioned about an 'omniscient Maxwell-type demon who
in 
my deterministic world could calculate all future
events.
Firstly: it is easy to invent absurdities, (can an 
omnipotent god create a heavy stone what he cannot
lift?) 
but "MY" determinism is RR's all inclusive originating

interconnectedness, resulting in whatever occurs. Then

the (+) and (-) influences trigger the consecutive
steps 
facilitating or impeding certain routes followable. Do
we 
know about them, or not (yet?).
> 
> Nothing is unrelated to anything else, and
> surety/unsurety
> co-integrates to produce the effective world we are
> part of.
AMEN
> 
> Re-instilling such notion of being into the fixed
> machination
> system that Science is at the moment .. its like
> expecting 
> that butterfly which chaos theory says has the
> potential
> to eventually 'cause' a hurricane, to fly intothe
> middle 
> of that storm, and affect its current behavior.

sorry that you brought up that stupid butterfly I
think
it was Newsman Gleick's example (in his excellent
book)
especially for the chaos 'theory' (you called me a
decade 
ago your 'resident chaotician', remember?) - since
then 
I deem 'chaos' as our ignorance how certain results
have 
been brought about. Mostly by the ekto-model
(neglected) 
connections, left out from the (scientific = model
based) 
observations and considerations. 
Both the occurrence of a hurricane and manipulation of
it 
are more complex than we can put together now.

> 
> Someway, somehow, the butterfly will  - but not by
> direct encounter.

No argument here
> 
> :-)
> 
> 
> Jamie
> 
John