Helmut, Stan, and lists,
Applying the so-called "the principle of the *emergence-invariance
complementarity*" discussed on these lists recently [1, 2] to the problem
of "thought", I came up with the following tentative conclusions:
(1) *INVARIANCE:*
"What is common to crystals and the human brain is ORGANIZATION,
(090415-1)
of matter, there being various degrees of organizations, each of
which
having a distinct function."
(2) *EMERGENCE:*
"What emerges when the complexity of organization increases from
(090415-2)
that of crystals to that of the human brain is *thought*."
What connects crystals and the human brain is the living cell or life which
is in turn a highly condensed form of information leading to the following
thesis.
(3) *EMERGENCE of LIFE from MATTER:*
"Life can be viewed as highly condensed form of *information*, just
(090415-3)
as physicists consider matter as highly condensed form of *energy*"
[3].
Statements (090415-1), (090415-2), and (090415-3), can be organized as a
hierarchy as shown in Figure 1.
*Societies* (Languages, sciences,
technologies, arts, religions, etc.)
^
|
* Brains* (Self-replication with
variations, symbolic)
^
|
*Cells* (Life, or the highly
condensed form of information [3])
^
|
*Molecules* (Catalysis of chemical
reactions)
^
|
*Atoms* (Crystals)
Figure 1. Five levels of material ORGANIZATION with associated EMERGENT
properties.
All the best.
Sung
References:
[1] Ji, S. (2015). Emergence vs. Invariance: Are they complementary
aspectg sof complex system
Posted to PEIRCE-L on September 1, 2015.
[2] Ji, S. (2015). Can crystals think ? Posted to PEIRCE-L on Septbmer
2, 2015.
[3] Ji, S. (2004). Semiotics of Life: A Unified Theory of Molecular
Machines, Cells, the Mind, Peircean Signs, and the Universe based on the
Principle of Information-Energy Complementarity.
<http://www.conformon.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/SOLManuscriptsubmitted_final_downloaded_from_Taragona_09032011_modified_07282012.pdf>
In:
Reports, Research Group on Mathematical Iinguistics, XVII Tarragona Seminar
on Formal Syntax and Semantics, Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona,
23-27 April 2003. PDF at http://www.conformon,.net under Publications >
Proceedings and Abstracts. P. 2.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Sung,
> I think, that the human mind is a (as I call it) "causally closed" system,
> because the pictures and wishes a human has got in his/her mind, are not
> (except if they are communicated) shared by other minds. See in my first
> post about "causalities" the attachment. And I think, that crystals are not
> causally closed. The quasi-mind of the universe, or of the evolution, has
> made human minds possible, but does not have telepathical connection with
> them either. That is what I assume, but it may be different. Some religions
> say that it is, eg. the Atman- Paratman theory by the Hindus, I think.
> Peirce thought, that all minds are connected, which I just do not
> understand:
>
> "[B]y the phaneron I mean the collective total of all that is in any way
> or in any sense present to the mind, quite regardless of whether it
> corresponds to any real thing or not. If you ask present when, and to whose
> mind, I reply that I leave these questions unanswered, never having
> entertained a doubt that those features of the phaneron that I have found
> in my mind are present at all times and to all minds." (Adirondack
> Lectures, 1905; in Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 1 [eds.
> Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
> Press, 1931], paragraph 284)
>
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Helmut,
>
> By the same token then, wouldn't you have to say that " . . . .although
> humans do not think, it is the quasi-mind that is thinking" ? The key
> question would be, do we need to invoke a quasi-mind to explain the human
> mind ? Aren't humans self-sufficient to think and mind ?
>
> To me, "thought" can mean either the "result" or the "process" of
> thinking. In either case, "thought" is an example of what Prigogine called
> "dissipative structures" [1, 2] which I have abbreviated as "dissipatons"
> in [3].
> Again, I agree with Pickering that crystals do not think as we do [4],
> because crystals are *equilibrium structures* and not *dissipative
> structures*. From the thermodynamic point of view, the raising of
> questions like "Can crystals think ?" is unthinkable.
>
>
> All the best.
>
> Sung
>
>
>
> Reference:
> [1] Prigogine, I. and Lefever, R. (1968). Symmetry-breaking
> instabilities in dissipative systems. II. *J. Chem. Phys*. *48:*1695-1700.
>
>
>
>
> [2] Prigogine, I. (1977). Dissipative Structures and Biological
> Order, *Adv. Biol. Med. Phys.* *16: *99-113.
>
> [3] Ji, S. (2012). Principles of Self-Organization and Dissipative
> Structures. <http://www.conformon.net/?attachment_id=1088> In: *Molecular
> Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical *
>
> [4] Pickering, J. (2007). Affordances are Signs. *tripleC* *5*
> (2):64-74.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Applications.* Springer, New York. Chapter 3, pp. 69-78. PDF at
> http://www.cpnformon.net under Publications > Book Chapters.
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 1:53 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sung, List,
>> Maybe it is correct to say, that "Thought (...) appears in the work (...)
>> of crystals", although crystals do not think, if it is the quasi-mind of
>> the universe that is thinking, but not each single crystal. Just like when
>> a human is uttering a symbolic word, it is not the word, that is thinking.
>> Best,
>> Helmut
>>
>>
>> "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]>
>>
>> Hi Peirceans and biosemioticians,
>>
>> These following two quotes address the relations among three quite
>> distinct types of material objects -- *crystals*, *bees*, and *humans*.
>>
>>
>> "Thought is no necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the
>> work of bees, of crystals and (090215-1)
>> throughout the purely physical world; and one can no more deny that it is
>> really there, than that the
>> colors, the shapes, etc. of objects are really there." (CP 4.551)
>>
>>
>> ". . . . This is not to say that bees and crystals think in anything like
>> the way that human beings think, (090215-2)
>> and they surely cannot know they are thinking, . . . " [1]
>>
>>
>> To me, the first quote of Peirce highlights the CONTINUITY or invariance
>> (i.e., thought, mind, semiosis, or ITR, irreducible triadic relation) found
>> among these material systems. In contrast, Pickering [1], while cognizant
>> of the continuity, nevertheless, is not blind to the DISCONTINUITY, or the
>> emergent properties (resulting from the increasing organizational
>> complexities from crystals, to bees and to humans), among the same set of
>> objects. I agree with Pickering. Organizations are not all same. Some
>> organizations (as in the human brain) can cause thinking that is detectable
>> by an EEG machine, while some other organizations (e.g., in crystals)
>> cannot cause any thinking since no EEG signals can be generated.
>>
>> To emphasize Statement (090215-1) at the neglect of Statement (090215-2)
>> would be akin to asserting that light is particles (ignoring its wave
>> properties) or waves (ignoring its particle properties), as was the common
>> thinking among physicists before the principle of complementarity was
>> established in the mid-1920s' [2].
>>
>> Some Peircean scholars may wish to uphold (090215-1) and deny the
>> validity of (090215-2), but, if what I referred to as "the principle of
>> "*emergence-invariance
>> complementarity*" in my last posting on these lists [3] is right, both
>> (090215-1) and (090215-2) would be valid since they reflect the
>> *complementary
>> aspects of mind. *That is:
>>
>> "*Mind may be both continuous* (as Peirce asserts) *and* *discontinuous*
>> (as suggested by the complementarity principle)." (090215-3)
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> Sung
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Reference:
>> [1] Pickering, J. (2007). Affordances are Signs. *tripleC* *5*
>> (2):64-74.
>> [2] Plotnitsky, A. (2003). Niel Bohr and Complementarity: An
>> Introduction. Springer, New York.
>> [3] Ji, S. (2015). Emergence vs. Invariance: Are they complementary
>> aspects of complex systems ? Posted to PEIRCE-L on 9/1/2015.
>>
>> --
>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
>>
>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
>> Rutgers University
>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855
>> 732-445-4701
>>
>> www.conformon.net
>>
>
>
> --
> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
>
> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
> Rutgers University
> Piscataway, N.J. 08855
> 732-445-4701
>
> www.conformon.net
>
--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
-----------------------------
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 .
