As my last posting for the week, replying to Pedro's interesting rejoinder to an earlier one of mine -
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan < pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote: > Dear Stan and colleagues, > > Taking it literally, isn't it a pure contradiction, an oxymoron, attempting > a "scientific" "mythology"? The mythos is the way of knowing purely based on > tradition and on the firmest doubtlessness, where the source of authority > comes only from magnificent ancestors... > Here I use the term 'mythology' in an ethnographic sense, meaning 'stories that are believed to be true'. I use it deliberately in connection with my understanding that scientific knowledge is a social construct every bit as much as were the various knowledges gained by more 'primitive' cultures by whatever means. Of course, science itself, as a practice, does not claim 'truth' in the sense of unchanging status; even the Second Law of thermodynamics might someday be falsified. But persons brought up in a scientific culture more or less instinctively assume that what is taught in the classroom is true (unless other cultural forces working through the family cast doubt on this), especially if this knowledge is useful in technology. Putting a fine point on it, let me say that I personally do BELIEVE that the Second Law is a truth about Nature. But I also know that it is merely a social construct. > Well, I am going happily with Stan in the attempt of a renewed Natural > Philosophy (and I think that future info outcomes may play a significant > role there), but it does not necessarily mean to be engaged in a > confrontation with other legitimate ways of seeing the world --and > legitimately influencing in social practices, particularly by shared morals > and ethos... Given the antecedents of previous historical "revolutions" I > am afraid that a funny world would not result from a unilateral scientifist > vision (Orwell's 1984?). > This is a good point. Here our experience in the US may be bearing upon me. Here we have religious groups actively engaged in contesting some scientifically accepted truths -- e.g., the theory that biological evolution has occurred. In other countries this may no longer (or for the moment anyway) be an issue, but the conflict clearly raises the possibility of the contestability of belief, however grounded. Allied religions in other nations MIGHT take up the same position as some of those in the US, since all (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have the same root myths, and that puts them all constitutively aligned against any new mythology, even if based in science, and even if they use Jesuitical means to avoid literal understandings of the ancient Middle Eastern myths. We can see today that mythology can motivate considerable activity in the adventures of the current group of fundamentalists in Eurasia. > > Also, reflecting on Bob's advocation of "dualism", I would like to bring to > attention again the informational scheme where "agency" is implied. The > philosophical outcome may be some form of "trialism", as one finds now the > triplet: "world", "agents", "scientific observers". Casually I have found an > interesting philosophical doctrine on trialism, as an alternative to > Cartesian dualism, by John Cottingham (1985). The trialist interpretation > keeps the two substances of mind and body, but introduces a third attribute, > sensation, alongside thought and extension and belonging to the union of > mind and body... There are many other nuances and complexities on the term, > and probably some adjustments have to be made to properly fit the info > scheme, but it looks OK. > I feel I should mention here the triadic philosophy of Charles Peirce, which now is gaining considerable traction. Here 'world-agents-scientific observers' would appear as 'object-interpretant-sign'. Working from this, one reaches my position viv-a-vis scientific knowledge. The cultural 'system of interpretance' creates both the sign (using information from the object) and the interpretation. Knowledge in this view, including scientific knowledge, cannot be 'objective'. The context for knowledge is the knower. STAN > > > At a quick glance, and just looking at the discussions we have here, every > party plays at his/her own with a "world" where information of different > kinds impinge on active/perceptive "agents", endowed with transformative > capabilities and with some form of intelligence (embodiment, > self-production, etc may enter here, or not); and the scientific "observer" > establishes the cutoffs and constraints through a narrative following a > particular disciplinary pathway. I have also argued that in different angles > of that story, at least in Nature (cells, nervous systems, people), one has > to re-enter populational thinking, optimality guidance, and the doctrine of > limitation. The hierarchy/heterarchy theme is also of importance in the > populational aspect (as what we see often is "nested agencies"), etc. > > My contention is that the general relationship between information & > intelligence (and their respective disciplines) needs a new form of > discourse. Whether the depicted scaffolding may be of interest or not, is > highly debatable! > > best wishes > > Pedro > > > Stanley N Salthe escribió: > > in my first for the week, Replying to Joseph: > > Dealing as I do with hierarchies and thermodynamics, I have come to the > postmodern conclusion that our explicit scientific knowledge is a logical > construct -- unlike our intuitive 'knowledge' (viz. qualia) of the world we > are IMMERSED IN. In these scientifically-based efforts we create a logical > simulacrum (which I call 'Nature') of The World. Its basis is logic and > esthetic, but today it also passes through a pragmatic filter imposed by > those who pay for the science. This latter bias works mostly in choice of > study objects. Stepping back from active engagement in the process of > gaining primary knowledge in these ways, I feel that I am these days > engaging in a renewed Natural Philosophy -- an attempt to construct a > scientifically based 'mythology' for moderns, meant as an alternative to > religious myths. These latter importantly have also engaged, via rituals, > the qualia we are immersed in. Inasmuch as Natural Philosophy has no such > practices associated with it, the primary function of the emerging Nature is > to challenge the religiously based myths associated with the rituals in an > attempt to unseat the associated political establishments (Rome, the > Caliphate, the Republican Party, etc.) that enforce them. > > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> In agreeing with Bob, I would like to point out that his critique is not >> "theoretical philosophy". He is calling attention to something essential >> missing in the pictures and models of Stan and Karl, namely, 1) the "life >> and blood" of the world; 2) that that "life and blood" follows different >> rules than the entities in the models; 3) those rules are based on real >> dualities of equal ontological purport: order and disorder, continuity and >> discontinuity, entropy and negentropy; etc.; and 4) these dualities play >> out in real interactions in biology, cognition and society, for example >> in information and non-information. >> >> It is perfectly possible to see "grids" of numbers and levels or >> hierarchies >> in Nature as abstract structures - this is indeed Karl's word, as is his >> use >> of "independence" - but this is not going toward the world, but away from >> it. The world includes Karls and Stans and Josephs and Bobs, and I >> challenge >> anyone to propose a theory that insures that our "antagonisms", which are >> real, also receive some logical treatment. >> >> I for one do not know everything about everything I'm made of (cf. our >> fluctuon discussion), but I have the feeling it is not abstractions or >> sequences of numbers. I mentioned string theory, but I am by no >> means pushing it as the full story. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Joseph >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Ulanowicz" <u...@umces.edu> >> To: <fis@listas.unizar.es> >> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 4:52 PM >> Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Javorsky >> >> >> Dear All: >> >> At the risk of being seen as the one who tries to throw a monkey >> wrench into the fine discussion you all are having, I would like to >> mention that the foregoing thread had focused entirely on alternatives >> among monist scenarios. >> >> I see the world as dual, not in the sense of Descartes, but of >> Heraclitus. If I am correct, then any strategy predicated on a monist >> principle is destined to lead to disaster. (Stan and I have gone round >> and round on this. I see entropy as double-sided and not simply as >> disorder. [Ecological Modelling 220 (2009) 1886-1892].) >> >> But I'm hardly the only one to warn against a monist view. Terry >> Deacon's model of self-organization, the "Autocell" acts similarly. >> The process starts by using up external gradients as quickly as >> possible, but gradually shuts down as the autocell nears >> self-completion. (Deacon, T.W. and J. Sherman. 2008. The Pattern Which >> Connects Pleroma to Creatura: The Autocell Bridge from Physics to >> Life. Biosemiotics 2:59-76.) >> >> The best to all, >> Bob >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Robert E. Ulanowicz | Tel: +1-352-378-7355 >> Arthur R. Marshall Laboratory | FAX: +1-352-392-3704 >> Department of Biology | Emeritus, Chesapeake Biol. Lab >> Bartram Hall 110 | University of Maryland >> University of Florida | Email <u...@cbl.umces.edu> >> Gainesville, FL 32611-8525 USA | Web >> <http://www.cbl.umces.edu/~ulan<http://www.cbl.umces.edu/%7Eulan> >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> Quoting Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu>: >> >> > *Replying to Karl, who said:* >> > >> > >> > one can use a stable model used by neurology and psychology to come >> closer >> > to understanding how our brain works. This can help to formulate the >> > thoughts Pedro mentioned being obscure. >> > >> > One pictures the brain as a quasi-meteorological model of an extended >> > world >> > containing among others swamp, savanna, arid zones. The dissipation of >> > water >> > above these regions causes clouds to form and storms to discharge the >> > vapor >> > within the clouds. The model observes the lightnings in the model and >> sets >> > them as an allegory to thoughts (these being electrical discharges) as >> > opposed to hormones (that are the fluids in the swamps). So there is an >> > assumed independence between the rainfall, the humidity of the ground, >> > cloud >> > formation and lightnings. The real meteorologists would not agree with >> the >> > simplification that the lightning is the central idea of a rainfall, but >> > this is how the picture works (at present). >> > >> > Why I offer these idle thoughts from the biologic sciences to FIS is >> that >> > it >> > is now possible to make a model of these processes in an abstract, >> logical >> > fashion. The colleaugues in Fis are scientists in the rational tradition >> > and >> > may find useful that a rational algorithm can be shown to allow >> simulating >> > the little tricks Nature appears to use. >> > >> > Nature changes the form of the imbalance, once too many or too few >> > lightnings, once too much or lacking water - relative to the other >> > representation's stable state. There are TWO sets of reference. The >> > deviation between the two sets of references is what Nature uses in its >> > manifold activities. >> > >> > >> > This model looks at the physical equivalences in two realms by >> > modeling in thermodynamics. Today in thermodynamics we have an >> advancing >> > perspective known as the `Maximum Entropy Production Principle´ (MEPP) >> for >> > relatively simple systems like weather, or Maximum Energy Dispersal >> > Principle´ (MEDP) for complicated material systems like the brain. In >> > both >> > cases the dynamics are controlled by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, >> > which >> > imposes that the available energy gradients will be dissipated in the >> > least >> > possible time, taking the easiest routes available. This becomes very >> > interesting in the brain, where the flow of depolarizations would then >> be >> > predicted to be biased in the direction of more habitual `thoughts´. I >> > think that this prediction seems to be born out in our own experiences >> of >> > the frequent return of our attention to various insistent thoughts. I >> > recommend that Karl inquire into MEPP. For this purpose I paste in some >> > references. >> > >> > >> > STAN >> > >> > >> > MEPP related publications: >> > >> > >> > Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2009. Economies evolve by energy dispersal. >> > Entropy, 2009, 11: 606-633. >> > >> > >> > Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2010. Physical foundations of evolutionary >> > theory. Journal on Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics 35: 301-321. >> > >> > >> > Annila, A. and S.N. Salthe, 2010. Cultural naturalism. Entropy, 2010, >> > 12: >> > 1325-1352. >> > >> > >> > Bejan, A. and S. Lorente, 2010. The constructal law of design and >> > evolution >> > in nature. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B, 365: >> > 1335-1347. >> > >> > >> > Brooks, D.R. and E.O. Wiley, 1988. Evolution As Entropy: Toward A >> Unified >> > Theory Of Biology (2nd. ed.) Chicago. University of Chicago Press. >> > >> > >> > Chaisson, E.J., 2008. Long-term global heating from energy usage. Eos, >> > Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 89: 353-255. >> > >> > >> > DeLong, J.P., J.G. Okie, M.E. Moses, R.M. Sibly and J.H. Brown, 2010. >> > Shifts >> > in metabolic scaling, production, and efficiency across major >> evolutionary >> > transitions of life. Proceedings of the Natiional Academy of Sciences. >> > Early >> > EDition >> > >> > >> > Dewar, R. C., 2003. Information theory explanation of the fluctuation >> > theorem, maximum entropy production, and self-organized criticality in >> > non-equilibrium stationary states. Journal of Physics, A Mathematics >> and >> > General 36: L631-L641. >> > >> > >> > Dewar, R.C., 2005. Maximum entropy production and the fluctuation >> > theorem. >> > Journal of Physics A Mathematics and General 38: L371-L381. >> > >> > >> > Dewar, R.C., 2009. Maximum entropy production as an inference algorithm >> > that translates physical assumptions into macroscopic predictions: Don't >> > shoot the messenger. Entropy 2009. 11: 931-944. >> > >> > >> > Dewar. R.C. and A. Porté, 2008. Statistical mechanics unifies different >> > ecological patterns. Journal of Theoretical Biology 251:389-403. >> > >> > >> > Dyke, J. and A. Kleidon. 2010. The maximum entropy production principle: >> > its >> > theoretical foundations and applications to the Earth system. Entropy >> > 2010, >> > 12:613-630. >> > >> > >> > Herrmann-Pillath, C., 2010. Entropy, function and evolution: >> naturalizing >> > Peircean semiosis. Entropy 2010, 12: 197-242. >> > >> > >> > Kleidon, A. (2009): Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics and Maximum Entropy >> > Production in the Earth System: Applications and Implications, >> > Naturwissenschaften 96: 653-677. >> > >> > >> > Kleidon, A. (2010): Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics, Maximum Entropy >> > Production and Earth-system evolution, Philosophical Transactions of the >> > Royal Society A, 368: 181-196. >> > >> > >> > Kleidon, A. and R. Lorenz (eds) Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics and the >> > Production of Entropy: Life Earth, and Beyond Heidelberg: Springer. >> > >> > >> > Lineweaver, C.H. 2005. Cosmological and biological reproducibility: >> > limits >> > of the maximum entropy production principle. In Kleidon, A. and Lorenz, >> > R. >> > Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics and the Production of Entropy: Life, >> Earth >> > and Beyond. Springer Pp. 67-76. >> > >> > >> > Lineweaver, C.H. and C.A. Egan, 2008. Life, gravity and the second law >> of >> > thermodynamics. Physics of Life Reviews (2008) >> > doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2008.08.002 >> > >> > >> > Lorenz. R.D., 2002. Planets, life and the production of entropy. >> > International Journal of Astrobiology 1: 3-13. >> > >> > >> > Mahulikar, S.P. and H. Herwig, 2004. Conceptual Investigation of the >> > Entropy >> > Principle for Indentification of Directives for Creation, Existence and >> > Total Destruction of Order. Physica Scripta. Vol. 70, 212-22i. >> > >> > >> > Martyushev, L.M., 2010. Maximum entropy production principle: two basic >> > questions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B, 365: >> > 1333-1334. >> > >> > >> > Paltridge, G., 1975. Global dynamics and climate -- a system of minimum >> > entropy exchange. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society >> > 101:475-484. >> > >> > >> > >> > Salthe, S.N., 1993. Development And Evolution: Complexity And Change In >> > Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. >> > >> > >> > Salthe, S.N., 2004. The spontaneous origin of new levels in dynamical >> > hierarchies. Entropy 2004, 6[3]: 327-343. >> > >> > >> > Salthe, S.N., 2010. Development (and evolution) of the universe. >> > Foundations of Science. In Press >> > >> > >> > Schneider, E.D. and Kay, J.J., 1994. Life as a manifestation of the >> > Second >> > Law of thermodynamics. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19: 25-48. >> > >> > >> > Schneider, E.D. and D. Sagan., 2005. Into the Cool: Energy Flow, >> > Thermodynamics, and Life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. >> > >> > >> > Sharma, V. and A. Annila, 2007. Natural process - natural selection. >> > Biophysical Chemistry 127: 123-128. >> > >> > >> > Swenson, R., 1989. Emergent attractors and the law of maximum entropy >> > production: foundations to a theory of general evolution. Systems >> Research >> > 6: 187-198. >> > >> > >> > Swenson, R., 1997. Autocatakinetics, evolution, and the law of maximum >> > entropy production. Advances in Human Ecology 6: 1-47. >> > >> > >> > Ulanowicz, R.D.and B.M. Hannon, 1987. Life and the production of >> entropy. >> > Proceedings of the Royal Society B 232: 181-192. >> > >> > >> > Vallino, J.J., 2010. Ecosystem biogeochemistry considered as a >> > distributed >> > metabolic network ordered by maximum entropy production. Philosophical >> > Transactions of the Royal Society, B, 365: 1417-1427. >> > >> > >> > Virgo, N. 2010, From maximum entropy to maximum entropy production: a >> new >> > approach. Entropy 2010, 12: 107-126. >> > >> > >> > Zupanovic, P., S. Botric, D. Juretic and D. Kuic. 2010. Relaxation >> > processes and the maximum entropy production principle. Entropy, >> 2010.12: >> > 473-479. >> > >> > >> > Zupanovic, P., D. Kuic, Z.B. Losic, D. petrov, D. juretic and M. Brumen >> > 2010. The maximum entropy production principle and linear irreversible >> > processes. Entropy 2010, 12: 996-1005. >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fis mailing list >> fis@listas.unizar.es >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fis mailing list >> fis@listas.unizar.es >> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing > list...@listas.unizar.eshttps://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------- > Pedro C. Marijuán > Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group > Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud > Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª > 50009 Zaragoza, Spain > Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 > 5554pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.eshttp://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ > ------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
