limits

[Jim_Dundon]

{Jim Dundon 2007.05.23 1227 EDT]

[Bill Powers 2007.05.22.1040mdt]

"Limiting the prototype" never crossed my mind -- it was all I could do to >come up with a model that works as well as it does. If I knew how to make >a better one I would certainly do so.

I know

I suppose that makes it an ongoing investigation, if I have to choose. >Anyway I didn't say I used the human organism as a prototype for what can >be built into machinery

That is true. That is not what I said you said. [See below.] But when you modeled, the limits you placed on the model become the limit of what you saw in the prototype.

I have but cannot find just now a copy of your presentation at a meeting. I think it was organized by Cliff Joslyn. As I remember the meeting was to achieve a measure of agreement on ideas. You, did "not like it".

As I visualize it, the statement appeared in the lower right portion of the first page. To be fair I will say that I do not remember it verbatum. But I remember it because at first glance it appears to be a dependable impressive approach to discovering "everything' about the prototype but on second view I realized that it limits the prototype to whatever you can do using your methods, tools, maths, words concepts systems etc.

It went something like this:

"In this approach I planned to use the organism [or human organism] as the prototype for the model."

You did not say "I will put limits on the model" but in your modeling you put limits and continue to put limits. We are all always putting limits. A model contains its own limits. Our words put limits. You continue to deny that you put limits and that you agree with others to deny that you put the limits on the systems, the terminology, etc. so you can call it science. Science is naming and putting limits on things. How can you unitize something you can't name. Science is counting and measuring. You must name your units. Units are limits. Where did those names, limits, come from. Science? Sure! where did science come from? Our need to predict. They are simultaneous doings.

Your prototype, the human, has become limited to a mathametizable, unitizable, predictable, controlling entity,

Surely as a scientist you realize that you can only model with your tools those things your tools are capable of modeling. If you assume that your model represnts every characteristic of the prototype you have now made your model the prototype and your former prototype becomes the model.

But your model requires that you say otherwise.

Best

Jim D

[Bill_Powers1]

I have but cannot find just now
a copy of your presentation at a meeting. I think it was organized
by Cliff Joslyn. As I remember the meeting was to achieve a measure
of agreement on ideas. You, did “not like it”.

As I visualize it, the statement appeared in the lower right portion of
the first page. To be fair I will say that I do not remember it
verbatum. But I remember it because at first glance it appears to
be a dependable impressive approach to discovering "everything’
about the prototype but on second view I realized that it limits the
prototype to whatever you can do using your methods, tools, maths, words
concepts systems etc.
[From Bill Powers (2007.05.23.1544 MDT)]

Jim Dundon 2007.05.23 1227 EDT –

Well yes, of course. One’s explanations are limited to what the model can
cover, whether you use math or not. The models I have developed do better
at matching real behavior than most other approaches do, even though the
behavior being modeled is still pretty simple. Doesn’t that apply to
everybody?

It went something
like this:

“In this approach I planned to use the organism [or human organism]
as the prototype for the model.”

I’m really confused about what your objection is, here. What I was trying
to do was generate a model that would explain certain behaviors of an
organism, a person. I don’t see what reading you’re putting on this. And
I can recall using the word prototype only in the sense of saying that
living systems are the prototypes of all control systems – in other
words, they came first.

You did not say
“I will put limits on the model” but in your modeling you
put limits and continue to put limits. We are all always putting
limits. A model contains its own limits. Our words put
limits. You continue to deny that you put limits and that you agree
with others to deny that you put the limits on the systems, the
terminology, etc. so you can call it science. Science is naming and
putting limits on things.

That’s a funny view of science. I thought science was just about trying
to understand things. Of course our understanding is limited, and it’s
best to take small steps if you want to reach real understanding, but who
would deliberately put limits on understanding if there is a way to get
past them?

Your prototype, the
human, has become limited to a mathametizable, unitizable,
predictable, controlling entity,

Surely as a scientist you realize that you can only model with your tools
those things your tools are capable of modeling.

I think I realize that very well indeed. All we can do is the best we can
to push back the limits of understanding a bit. But what do you suggest
as an alternative? Is there any other way of understanding things that is
as solid and reliable as the way we call science? I don’t think there are
any other ways of equal value.

If you
assume that your model represnts every characteristic of the prototype
you have now made your model the prototype and your former prototype
becomes the model.

That’s just silly. I am quite aware of which is the model and which is
the reality, and which explains part of the other. As to the unexplained
part, which is considerable, I don’t think anyone understands it yet,
though people have made up lots of untested stories.

Best.

Bill P.