Folks – Just to offer a connection. The core issue in 20th C philosophy of science was whether advances in knowledge (understanding) were logical, systematic and conceptually continuous (consistent) – namely inductive (the Logical Positivists position) – or whether advances were conceptually revolutionary and progressive – Kuhn’s position (Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
Kuhn, Popper, Feyerabend, Lakatos et al. argued that advances were conceptually revolutionary, logics-mathematically (inductively) discontinuous and expansive – ampliative. What I have referred to ‘the Clue’ – supportive evidence – is that with an advance you are able (enabled) to ask new TYPES of questions that could not even be formulated in terms of the prior theory. This is a common experience and perception of practicing scientists: advances open up new unexpected lines of inquiry and development. The technical jargon that emerged, initially formalized in the debates over quantum theory, referred to The Correspondence Principle: the later better theory must both subsume and supersede the prior theory. Subsumption means that the later theory can explain the successes of the prior theory – in a new way (viz. in a new conceptually discontinuous, revolutionary way). For instance, the spherical earth theory is able to explain the successes of the flat earth theory by reference to the limited experimental framework of the flat earth wherein we are very small on a very large sphere. Supersession means, requires, that the prior evidence confirming the flat earth theory is to be understood in a new way. The point is that the new, better theory is not committed, inductively, to all the implications of the prior theory; like falling off the edge of the flat earth. An example the new type of questions that arise (are possible) in the new better theory, would be about orbiting an artificial satellite. Such question don’t make sense, can’t even be formulated in the prior theory. Peirce’s Research Program clearly saw the universe as evolutionary in a qualitative sense – in an inductively, logic-mathematically discontinuous sense. Induction would be locally justified – deductive – if and only if the universe was ‘uniform’ (viz. Uniformity is the missing major premises that would make induction deductive). Bon appetite Terry P.S. I am not inclined to try to pull all this out of Peirce piecemeal. But obviously what he was pointing at with his explorations in 'abduction’ are closely related to the above. On Apr 5, 2015, at 11:04 PM, Danko Nikolic <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Jerry, Thank you for the kind words. On 06/04/15 06:39, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: > > I am still working on your extensive narrative and its numerous logical > assertions about the nature of the unities of the sciences. It is a very > stimulating read, and like all good research projects, it raises more > questions than it answers. > > Your usage of two terms leaves me pondering about your intended meanings. > > 1. Cybernetics? Does your usage of this term include dynamic descriptions of > chemical events, such as ion transport across membranes? Or, are your using > the term is a more restrictive sense? Does your usage have any mathematical > implications or inferences? > Cybernetics, as a theory, can be argued to rest on two fundamental theorems, the requisite variety theorem and the good regulator theorem. These theorems are also fundamental to practopoiesis. Also, these theorems are mathematically formulated. Hence, yes, one can derive mathematical implications. I am using this fact now as I am currently working on calculating the total cybernetic variety of the human brain to compare the results obtained from different presumptions of brain's adaptive organization (T1 vs. T2 vs. T3). Ion transport across membranes by the means of opening and closing ion channels should be surely covered by the term cybernetics. Ion channels on a membrane can close a feedback loop with their "environment" and can be seen as regulators that control some variables whereby the ion transport is a part of the regulation machinery. Likely, the same holds for ion pumps. They should also regulate ion concentration in intra and extracellular spaces. Those also can be viewed as cybernetic devices. > 2. Traverse? This is a verb. Who / what is the subject of this verb? Is your > usage of the term "traverse" synonymous with the term "transitions to" or > not? The subject is "cybernetic knowledge". Within the structure of any cybernetic device, by operating and hence, by interacting with the surrounding world, cybernetic knowledge traverses from more general to more specific. Important is that during a traverse general knowledge is used to extract specific knowledge such that, after the traverse, the original general knowledge is not lost or replaced or in any other way gone. As the knowledge traverses within the organizational structure of an agent, the agent continues to posses both the general and the specific knowledge. For example, you don't loose your genes after expressing them and producing some proteins. This is why I think that the term "transition to" would be misleading as it usually implies "transformation" i.e., that the system has changed from one state to the other such that the previous state is now gone. "Traverse" refers to a different property of an adaptive agent, namely the relationship between its mechanisms laying on different levels of the adaptive hierarchy (i.e., poietic hierarchy). Thus, I would not find it precise enough to say that "Information stored in genes transitions into the capability of riding a bicycle." It seems clearer to define a new term that does not carry this transformational implication and say: "General cybernetic knowledge stored in genes (+ gene expression mechanisms) traverses through adaptive interactions with the environment into a more specific knowledge on how to ride a bicycle." Note that for similar reasons the term "cybernetic knowledge" is used rather than "information". Information carries the implication that there should be at least a separate mechanism for decoding the information if not also a mechanism for coding it in the first place, before entering the communication channel. Cybernetic knowledge covers the whole regulation machinery: the sensory, the decisions device, the effectors. In other words, it covers the knowledge on what signals to observe, what to do for which values of those signals and how to execute the needed actions. Please tell me how much this helps. I would like to know how successful I was in clarifying your questions. Danko -- Prof. Dr. Danko Nikolić Web: http://www.danko-nikolic.com Mail address 1: Department of Neurophysiology Max Planck Institut for Brain Research Deutschordenstr. 46 60528 Frankfurt am Main GERMANY Mail address 2: Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies Wolfgang Goethe University Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1 60433 Frankfurt am Main GERMANY ---------------------------- Office: (..49-69) 96769-736 Lab: (..49-69) 96769-209 Fax: (..49-69) 96769-327 [email protected] ---------------------------- ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . Terry Bristol, President <http://www.isepp.org> <http://www.isepp.org/> Institute for Science, Engineering and Public Policy 3941 SE Hawthorne Blvd Portland OR 97214 503-819-8365 “Science would be ruined if it were to withdraw entirely into narrowly defined specialties. The rare scholars who are wanderers-by-choice are essential to the intellectual welfare of the settled disciplines.” Benoit Mandelbrot
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
