Yeah, Steve. Right. I just got stuck on that very diagram. Wrong, but in fascinating ways. First of all, the a priori distinction between the real and the modeling world is indefensible. If we are honest without selves, we are experience monists. All we have is our experience, and every experience is a model. So every experience is a model of another model. Furthermore, since experience is variable – there’s your experience, and my experience, and yesterday’s experience and tomorrow’s experience, etc., blah, blah – universal experience is something that we as scientists aspire to but can never quite achieve, any more than the rabbit can catch the tortoise. Yet, it is the only reality we have!
So, I prefer to think of models as metaphors. Gone is the distinction between models and reality (what do we know reality, for crissake!) to be replaced by experiences and other, more familiar experiences that serve as models. We can talk about formal and informal metaphors and mathematics is an EXTREMELY formalized metaphor, I grant you. But it is still a metaphor, a distillation of experience. But I am getting ahead of myself here. Let’s see where the A. goes with this. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 2:39 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] On old question And BTW, the section in the paper linked on the topic of "the Modeling Relation" 1.1.3 The modeling relation: how we perceive The modeling relation is based on the universally accepted belief that the world has some sort of order associated with it; it is not a hodge-podge of seemingly random happenings. It depicts the elements of assigning interpretations to events in the world . The best treatment of the modeling relation appears in the book Anticipatory Systems (Rosen, 1985, pp 45-220). Rosen introduces the modeling relation to focus thinking on the process we carry out when we "do science". In its most detailed form, it is a mathematical object, but it will be presented in a less formal way here. It should be noted that the mathematics involved is among the most sophisticated available to us. In its purest form, it is called "category theory" [Rosen, 1978, 1985, 1991]. Category theory is a stratified or hierarchical structure without limit, which makes it suitable for modeling the process of modeling itself. <http://www.people.vcu.edu/%7Emikuleck/mr.gif> reminded me of the work by our own (for a while at least) Vadas Gintautas vi LANL on what he (and Hubler) referred to as "interreality": <https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0611293> Mixed Reality States in a Bidirectionally Coupled Interreality System ? On 10/24/18 2:29 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: Glen/Nick/Marcus/Dave/et alia - For reasons I can't begin to enumerate here, I have been unable to keep up with this list beyond reading/skimming every day or three and each time I formulate a response or contribution to a thread, it sits for another cycle (1-3 days) and feels stale or misbegotten before I get it sent. This one may fall to the same fate... if you are reading this, then I suppose it did not. I have always struggled to understand the multiple/myriad understandings of Rosen's work and it's importance among this group... and this time I feel like I'm doing a *little* better. I've always been fascinated by all variants on the question "what is life?" (or replace "life" with: "consciousness", "complex systems", "nature", "reality", etc.) and the structure/function (or entropy/anentropy if you prefer) duality. This paper: Robert Rosen: The Well Posed Question and it's Answer - Why are Organisms Different from Machines <http://www.people.vcu.edu/%7Emikuleck/PPRISS3.html> http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/PPRISS3.html <http://www.people.vcu.edu/%7Emikuleck/PPRISS3.html> seems to have helped me track some of the things youse guys rattle on about when referencing Rosen... I'd be at least interested in a few opinions about how well this guy (or just this paper) reflects your own understanding of Rosen's work and it's relevance to "Life Itself" ? - Steve On 10/24/18 8:49 AM, ∄ uǝʃƃ wrote: My comment may be addressed a bit by the 2nd paper Roger posted (DGI). But my 1st reaction to your comment was an attempt to reconstruct what Rosen *might* have intended re: function and organization. I'm running with my gestalt memory, but I'll challenge it against his text later. A relational conception of function and organization would necessarily be temporal and situational. So, the function of any one component would depend fundamentally on how the components were related in that *specific* context (either a good colloidal mix or segregated). And such definitions would not be (arbitrarily) dependent on how the system is observed (as long as the system is robust to any manipulation involved in the observation). E.g. the role/function of a vortex in a sink drain isn't "to drain fast", perhaps it's to equalize pressure. And it may not even be that. These purposes/roles/functions are examples of preemptive registration ... imputed by the observer. The (M,R)-system model is (I think) an attempt to describe organization such that it is robust to changes in both material components (N different things playing the same function/role) and situational context (persistence over time and robust to "damage"). If I'm right, then Rosen's conception of organization wouldn't credit salad dressing to be more or less organized in either the settled or shaken state. To boot, his ideas around closure imply that components would be defined in a particular way. For example, your idea of "draining the water out" treats the water layer as a component, rather than treating each H2O molecule as a component. Obviously, the ontological status of the "water layer" is fragile, whereas that of the molecules is robust. Your idea of hierarchy should play well, here. Except that a *strict* hierarchy disallows heterogeneous operands. If a closure happens to rely on components that are also closures, then the you'd expect the functions/roles of those components to have inputs/outputs that are mixed, some of the functions operate over simple materials (like molecules) and others operate over closures. And some functions would operate over a mix of simple components and whole closures. A strict hierarchy would only allow, for example, a 2nd order function to operate over 1st order components. I've only skimmed the DGI paper. But it seems like the patches were defined homogeneously (e.g. 2 hop subgraphs), rather than allowing any sub-graph to be of arbitrary topology. On 10/23/18 11:21 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: Dear Roger, and anybody else who wants to play, While waiting for my paper, /Signs and Designs/, to be rejected, I have gone back to thinking about an old project, whose working title has been “/A Sign Language/.” And this has led me back to Robert Rosen, whose /Life Itself/ I bought almost 9 years ago and it has remained almost pristine, ever since. In the chapter I am now looking at, Rosen is talking about “organization.” Now, I have been thinking about organization ever since I read C. Ray Carpenter’s early work on primate groups back in the late 50’s. It seemed to me at the time, and it seems to me reasonable now, to define the organization of a set of entities as related in some way to the degree to which one can predict the behavior of one entity from knowledge about another. Now the relationship is not straightforward, because neither total unpredictability (every monkey behaves exactly the same as every other monkey in every situation) nor total unpredictability (no monkey behaves like any other monkey in ANY situation) smacks of great organization. The highest levels organization, speaking inexpertly and intuitively, seem to correspond to intermediate levels of predictability, where there were several classes of individuals within a group and within class predictability was strong but cross-class predictability was weak. On my account, the highest levels of organization involve hierarchies of predictability. Thus honey bees and ants are more organized than starling flocks, say. This is where the matter stood at the point that I came to Santa Fe and started interacting with you guys 14 years ago. You-all introduced me to a totally different notion of organization based – shudder – on the second law. But I have never been able to deploy your concept with any assurance. So, for instance, when I shake the salad dressing, I feel like I am disorganizing it, and when it reasserts itself into layers, I feel like it ought to be called more organized. But I have a feeling that you are going to tell me that the reverse is true. That, given the molecules of fat and water/acid, that the layered state is the less organized state. Now this confusion of mine takes on importance when I try to read Rosen. He defines a function as the difference that occurs when one removes a component of a system. I can see no reason why the oil or the water in my salad dressing cannot be thought of components of a system and if, for instance, I were to siphon out the water from the bottom of my layered salad dressing, I could claim that the function of the water had been to hold the water up. This seems a rather lame notion of function. Some of you who have been on this list forever will remember that I raised the same kind of worry almost a decade back when I noticed the drainage of water from a basin was actually /slowed /by the formation of a vortex. This seemed to dispel any notion that vortices are structures whose function is to efficiently dispel a gradient. It also violated my intuition from traffic flows, where I imagine that rigid rules of priority would facilitate the flow of people crossing bridges to escape Zozobra. It’s quite possible that my confusions in this matter are of no great general applicability, in which case, I look forward to being ignored. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
