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

[John M <***>]

--- John M <***> wrote: (Repeat!!!!)

> Judith'
> let's forget anbout "blame"!
> 
> I address two passages of your post, delete the
> rest.

>>>> (That darn YAHOO!~Mail stole again my 'composing'
and mailed it right after I began to write it. Let me
try to continue and wish me good luck that I can
complete it before it glitches again)
>>>>
So CONTINUING THE STOLEN FRAGMENT:
 about the two passages:
  #  One:
(I like your "What they need is some of that
"proximate cause" thinking!"- this must be the
model-way, choosing the most obvious)
> >... the fact that direct relations, either 
> > singly or in sum (via accretion/added together)
> > rarely can account for 
> > the behavior of complex systems.

RR-complexity, that is. The ubiquitous usage of
'system' incl. 
"complex system" refers exactly to thos
complicated/convoluted models you want to separate
'out' in your text. 

> > ...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.

Perfect, I would like to have in it some more to
reduce the
mysticity of life, Ccness, intelligence. "Based on"
seems less to me than "an entailment of" - see my 2nd
quote remark.

  #  Two:

> > 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?

You may remember my difficulties with this term. I did
not give
up and now I stand at (tell me if you find it still
inadequate):
" Occurrence (result of a process) originated by the
interaction of both the in-model visible "cause(s)"
and the impact of "the rest of the world" - do we
recognise it or not." 
Accordingly I appreciate RR's preference for the "e"
word over "cause" and over 'causality' - referring to
the unlimited process vs. the reductionist model-views
(thinking). We still think in the models we are
capable to encompass in our thinking. But whenever
something is "more relational"(?) (=has wholistic
aspects) than within the restricted (scientific?)
view, I use 'entailment' for the deterministic
occurrences instead of 'caused by'.

Regards

John M  

 
> --- Judith Rosen <***> wrote:
> 
> > Jamie Rose wrote:
=== message truncated ===