Pedro, re: Do we need a new interpretation of history, info based? hb: we definitely need a few new tools with which to see the patterns of history. whether those patterns are informational or not, I'm not sure. I lean toward the tools you cite, the ones emerging from biology. superorganism, ideas, and the pecking order, for example, come from evolutionary biology. so do hormonal interpretations of history, some of which are in my books. the real challenge is in the puzzle you pose: how do we make insights that come from "inspiration and metaphor" more rigorous. one tiny suggestion. forget mathematics. it has been consistently misleading in the realm of the living. instead look at the example of darwin. darwin used a metaphor--the sort of selection a pigeon breeder uses to achieve new characteristics. he imagined nature as the picky, choosy selector, not the pigeon breeder. so he called his metaphor "natural selection." yet he used not a single equation. the validity of his metaphor was judged by the number of facts it explained. and by the extent to which facts fit into another of his tools, one his grandfather had pioneered, an evolutionary story, a timeline, that began with a big bang (his grandfather's starting point) and worked its way up to the present. if the timeline fit the facts and the facts fit the timeline, the timeline was worth employing as a tool. in the 157 years since Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species, more and more facts have fit. And more and more predictions based on the timeline have proven true. I'd suggest the same approach to concepts like the secular trio of the forces of history, the unholy trinity of the lucifer principle: superorganism, ideas, and the pecking order. the pecking order, in fact, can be traced back to hierarchies within atoms 380,000 years after the big bang and to the hierarchies within galaxies and solar systems 400 million years after the big bang. emergent group identities, the pre-biotic equivalent of superorganisms, can be traced back to the first quark trios in the initial 10(-32) of a second of the cosmos existence, and to the first galaxies, solar systems, stars, and planets. replicators are totally unique to life. and ideas are totally unique to minds. my insistence on finding the basic patterns in the abiotic cosmos that reappear in the forces of history is my humble attempt to do a darwin--to see what basic organizing principles emerge from the timeline of the cosmos' existence, from the big bang to what you and i are doing at this minute in our exchange. information may or may not be a primary tool of this understanding. but surely communication, which has been around from the instant when the first quarks precipitated from a speeding, expanding space-time manifold 10(-32) seconds into the cosmos' existence, is crucial. which puts us back to where we left off in my previous email: does abiotic communication qualify as information? and if it is disqualified, are those performing the disqualification weakening the potential explanatory power of their chosen discipline? with warmth and oomph--howard ____________ Howard Bloom Author of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History ("mesmerizing"-The Washington Post), Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New Yorker), The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism ("A tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic), The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates ("Bloom's argument will rock your world." Barbara Ehrenreich), How I Accidentally Started the Sixties ("Wow! Whew! Wild! Wonderful!" Timothy Leary), and The Mohammed Code ("A terrifying book…the best book I've read on Islam." David Swindle, PJ Media). www.howardbloom.net Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University. Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; Founder, Space Development Steering Committee; Founder: The Group Selection Squad; Founding Board Member: Epic of Evolution Society; Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project; Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International Society for Human Ethology, Scientific Advisory Board Member, Lifeboat Foundation; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Space Philosophy; Board member and member of Board of Governors, National Space Society.
In a message dated 1/13/2016 3:38:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes: Thanks for the positive comment, Marcus. Actually there is another book from the 90s too by Hobart and Schiffman ("Information Ages", John Hopkins, 1998) that also focuses on a new vision of history, pretty much informational we could say. The problem with theses exploratory attempts, and here we may include Jared Diamond on social complexity and the two books supporting Howard's NY lecture (Lucifer Principle and the Global Brain), is that they should mostly rely on inspiration and metaphor. The difference with previous mechanical metaphors for social change (e.g., Marxian) is evident, and nowadays most of the scientific sources and paradigm loans are taking from the biological, and I think that's more useful a strategy. But going from an individual's "exploration" to disciplinary "colonization" is always a problematic transition--somehow we are trying to do it now in the discussion. Is it possible a more rigorous or systematic parallel between biological evolution and social history? Is this the nucleus of an informational approach to history? Do we need a new interpretation of history, info based? Personally I respond YES to the three questions. Best regards--Pedro ____________________________________ De: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] en nombre de Marcus Abundis [55m...@gmail.com] Enviado el: domingo, 10 de enero de 2016 5:49 Para: email@example.com Asunto: [Fis] January Lecture--Information and the Forces of History Hi Pedro, Thank you for your well crafted (typical Pedro) synthesizing statement, it was a pleasure to read. Thanks also for the reminders of J. Diamonds work. It has been ages since I read it, but it was certainly a treasure (hmm, now where I put my copy . . . ) Your note: > Bob has drafted the universal drama, where the elements of the two different scenarios AP & LP mix< I am not sure I have seen the draft referenced here, or if I missed it in an earlier post – details? In acquainting myself with the IS4IS community I recall seeing some references to your AP, but in my quick survey I never came across anything of depth. I assumed such work existed, but I did not stumble upon it. Can you point me to a particular piece that you feel gives a good representation? Your posts have rekindled my curiosity. _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis