Quoting Horse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
{H}
> >> In terms of how a 'city' emerges I think this is correct. The whole
> >> process is also self organizing and this is the fundamental reality of
> >> emergence.
[P]
> > We part company on "self-organizing." For me that's attributing change to
> > God or a ghost because identifying the "self" in "self-organizing" is left
> > to
> the
> > imagination. It's like "spontaneous" whereby something happens for no cause
> > or reason. Or "chance," the favorite of Darwinians. All boil down to "We
> > don't know." Or, as Wilber, says, "Oops," a city emerges. In short, I think
> > "emerge" is a cop out, like life "emerged" from a mixture of forces and
> > chemicals,which explains nothing.
[H]
> There are plenty of examples of self-organization and not a single one
> has anything to do with god or ghosts or some mysterious self.
> Self-organization simply means that there is no central system which
> plans the organizing from the top down.
Right. Not only is there no central system organizing from the top down
but there's no known organizing system of any kind that can be identified.
Where I come from, that's called "Oops."
>You know, like those nasty
> socialist systems you purport to not like very much, but here you are
> saying that this is how the world works. Oy Ve!!!
Socialist systems with their planned economies are self-organizing? Yeah, right.
> It can be observed in
> biological and social systems all over the place and the causes are well
> known.
What are the causes of self-organizing systems? If there was a cause they
wouldn't be self-organizing. They would be organized by a cause, not a "self."
> So well known that computer simulations can model self-organizing
> structures. The system within which I work at my place of employment
> utilizes a form of self-organization and it works a whole lot better
> than having a top-down structure imposed upon it. In general,
> self-organization works from the bottom up following simple rules. It
> really isn't rocket science.
Last time I looked computer simulations modeling self-organizing systems
are caused by a human programmer who turns out to the be the "self."
> And what's all this about chance and Darwinians? Have you been reading
> the creationist literature again? Many in the fundamentalist god-squad
> try and pass of this sort of garbage but this is because they either
> don't understand the first thing about natural selection of they are
> deliberately trying to confuse those with little or no idea about it.
> Natural selection in Darwinian evolution has as much to do with chance
> as sexual activity has to do with plate tectonics. Natural selection has
> nothing to do with chance and any advocate of Darwinist or neo-Darwinist
> theory would not seriously entertain such a notion. You really pick the
> most outrageous things to say sometimes Platt - it's almost as if you
> want to start an argument!
What an outrageous thing to say yourself, Horse. Of course Darwinian evolution
depends on chance mutations. Are you suggesting perhaps that mutations do not
occur by chance but are directed by a designer?
[H]
> >> But the other thing to remember here is that it doesn't have
> >> to be overly concerned with individuality or creativity - although these
> >> may also be factors in any modern city. The city (or any other social
> >> pattern) is not concerned with the individual or what it does, only with
> >> the interactions and how those interactions become complex and
> >> sufficiently ordered to attain a level of stability. Sometimes
> >> individuality and creativity are anathema to the patterns of the city -
> >> think of big planning, often initiated by a creative individual.
> >> Individuals, along with their creativity and their intellectual
> >> patterns, come and go but the city still remains as collective knowledge
> >> - i.e. social patterns of value.
[P]
> > Yes, this is the Pirsigian view of the "Giant." It's based on the notion
> > "You can't fight city hall." I don't buy the idea of personifying a nation
> > or
> > a city like Pirsig does, or as expressed in your words, "The city is not
> > concerned with the individual . . ." Cities and social patterns aren't
> "concerned"
> > except as expressed by individuals anymore than a corporation like EXXON is
> > "concerned" about the high price of gasoline. Assigning personal attributes
> > to collectives is when the arguments you are trying to settle begin.
[H]
> Its no more than a form of shorthand. I'm not trying to personify social
> patterns any more than you are. Social patterns of value of the city do
> not value creativity or individuality (or any other patterns of value)
> unless it reinforces the social patterns of value of the city.
> Biological patterns of value are only valued inasmuch as they benefit
> social patterns of value. I think 'concerned with' is much less of a
> mouthful.
I don't think social patterns value anything other than the status quo.
Best regards,
Platt
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
