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

[John M <***>]

Judith'
let's forget anbout "blame"!

I address two passages of your post, delete the rest.





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

> Jamie Rose wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Someway, somehow, the butterfly will  - but not by
> direct encounter.
> 
> > Nothing is unrelated to anything else, and
> surety/unsurety
> > co-integrates to produce the effective world we
> are part of.
> 
> 
> Your language use is sometimes difficult for me to
> integrate into my 
> mind, Jamie, probably as my father's language use
> can be for a lot of 
> people... but I think we generally "see" things very
> much the same way 
> (at least, judging from our conversations to date).
> The above passage, 
> I would translate into "It's a relational universe."
> 
> What you're saying, as I interpret it, is very much
> in concert with 
> RR's point of view; namely, that in a relational
> universe, one of the 
> universal entailments is the impact of relational
> aspects on causality. 
> In fact, relational interaction drives causality
> (meaning, I suppose, 
> that it is the "ontology" of it). One of the nifty
> and yet baffling 
> realities about relational interactivity is that
> direct relations are 
> often not the most impactful, and that is why
> relational issues need 
> far more study in science. The current paradigm
> generally only takes 
> direct relations (such as those between any
> component to the overall 
> material structure of a system) into account, at
> least in the formal 
> logic of the paradigm foundations. Yet, in any field
> dealing with 
> complex systems (which tends to encompass all of
> them really, to some 
> extent or other), most of the questions will have
> answers beyond the 
> capabilities of the paradigm to find.
> 
> You mentioned Chaos Theory, which tries to answer to
> that issue, at 
> least as I understand the descriptions I've read
> about Chaos Theory. 
> But Chaos Theory is hobbled by the schizophrenic
> nature of scientific 
> logic, right now. For instance, they don't address
> the fact that most 
> of what they are talking about or describing is
> actually beyond the 
> allowed boundaries of science. In other words; if we
> allow the current 
> paradigm to define science, then what Chaos Theory
> describes is 
> actually "unscientific"-- as unscientific as
> philosophy or teleology... 
> or religion (and "intelligent design" vs.
> evolutionary theory). This is 
> why my father kept hammering away at the requirement
> to remove the 
> machine metaphor from the foundations: It's not
> enough to just add new 
> stuff onto the old stuff in an attempt to increase
> the capability of 
> scientific investigation. The paradigm is such that
> it forbids 
> according any causal power/causal ontology (I don't
> know if the word 
> "ontology" is correct to use, here, but it describes
> the concept I'm 
> after) to the aspects that complexity invokes.
> 
> I like your butterfly analogy, although perhaps not
> the way you 
> intended? Then again.... could be! In the
> Prolegomena of "Life, 
> Itself", my father wrote:
> 
> "What is life? What is it that enables living
> things, apparently so 
> moist, fragile, and evanescent, to persist while
> towering mountains 
> dissolve into dust, and the very continents and
> oceans dance into 
> oblivion and back? "
> 
> It was Robert Rosen's fascination with living
> organisms and his drive 
> to use science to answer his own questions about
> them that led to his 
> frustration at the artificial road-blocks science
> puts in the way of 
> investigation and, ultimately, led to the body of
> work he created. So 
> there is a real analogy here between the effect of
> biological systems 
> on the evolution of science and the situation he
> described in the 
> quote, above.
> 
> I've always had a problem with the proverbial
> butterfly quote that 
> Chaos Theory is so famous for. The butterfly of
> Chaos Theory no more 
> causes a hurricane than a hurricane causes
> butterflies. What they need 
> is some of that "proximate cause" thinking! But I
> think  the point 
> they're trying to address is the fact that direct
> relations, either 
> singly or in sum (via accretion/added together)
> rarely can account for 
> the behavior of complex systems. All that science
> can really describe 
> that way is complicatedness, not complexity. And
> life will never emerge 
> from complicatedness. Nor will consciousness. Or
> intelligence. The 
> balance inherent in a complex system, especially a
> living one, is 
> entirely based on relational
> interaction/interactivity and it is a 
> matter of scale or dimension, not arithmetic.
> 
> > Jamie Rose wrote:
> > 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.
> > 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.
> 
> What is it about entailment that is so difficult???
> Let's hash this 
> out, because it's a sticking point for lots and lots
> of people. It's 
> also really important. I need to know where I'm not
> addressing the 
> questions people have about this concept, so speak
> up out there, OK?
> 
> Judith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
> BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science
> based on the 
> Relational (Rosennean) Complexity Paradigm
> On Dec 11, 2005, at 7:04 PM, 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.
> >
> > The basic notion is relatively easy, but it's
> grand scope
> > and inclusiveness, anything but.  More than the
> last of my
> > pghs you cited, my two that immediate followed it
> were the
> > denoument point of the three.
> >
> >   "In other animals the perceive-evaluate-react
> net of
> 
=== message truncated ===