Jerry, Gary, list,
Jerry, you wrote:
"But it is not solely aesthetic. It is connected with the second major peculiarity of living things, their ‘directiveness’, as E. S. Russell (1945) has called it. This refers to the fact that most of the activities of a living organism are of such a kind that they tend to produce a certain characteristic end-result."
This goes along with my view, that systems with a clear border posess causa finalis too, while systems with a blurred border merely posess causa efficiens. Examples: An atom has a blurred border due to its electron, whose orbital border is a matter of probability only, and thus is located througout the whole universe. A proton has a clear border, with its causa finalis to grab an electron, but once it has done so, it is a hydrogen atom with its electron sending the information "I am part of a hydrogen atom" out into the universe, but having no more clear final cause, aka need, but an unclear one only, like "I am ready to react". But with whom to react is not a need anymore, not a final cause, but due to natural laws, thus a matter of cause efficiens.
An organism has a clear border: Its skin or membrane surface, and posesses besides cause efficiens causa finalis. It has needs.
A species has a clear border: It might be defined as the capability of two of its individuals (of different sex of course) to breed fertile offspring. In this species-definition, homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens neandertalensis have been of the same species, but horse and donkey are not. So, if a species has a clear border, it should posess causa finalis too. According to Noble it has.
Now this systems theoretical hypothesis can be elaborated towards social systems too: I think, that social systems are of course blurred by nature, but are trying to clarify their borders and imitate organisms. This must be avoided and fought against fiercely. Any kind of culture-essentialism or voelkishness must be refuted, the digital dictationship too. Why?
Because there can only be one system in charge of control. In a compositional hierarchy of systems only the highest level-system is the individual, the lower-level ones are stripped of their individuality, and have become organs instead of organisms. Examples: The organs of an eucariontic cell, like mitochondriae, chloroplasts are assimilated former organisms. We are still organisms, but in a smart internet-of-everything-world, or in a perfect nationalist, ethnic or cultural "volkskoerper" (nazis) we would be merely organs without individuality, and no organisms anymore. So biosemiotics delivers political arguments against the right-wingers, which is about time, because they are starting to become a nuisance. Please help with arguments too.
Best,
Helmut
Dear list:
Everyone should take time to read Waddington. A strong argument can be made to put Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Peirce, Strauss and Waddington all in the same class in that they contributed distinctively to the conversation regarding forms, ideas, wholeness and completeness.
It is ironic that a narrative of political tension is attached to each great mind (perhaps less so with Aristotle).
For instance, Waddington, Strategy of the Genes:
“All living organisms, except possibly some of the very simplest, though even that exception is doubtful, are characterized by possessing a characteristic form or shape…
Finally, organic forms have a quality, difficult to express precisely in words, but rather forms have a quality, difficult to express precisely in words, but rather definitely recognizable in practice, which is often referred to as ‘wholeness’ or ‘integration’.
This is almost an aesthetic quality- a character of self-sufficiency and completeness.
But it is not solely aesthetic. It is connected with the second major peculiarity of living things, their ‘directiveness’, as E. S. Russell (1945) has called it. This refers to the fact that most of the activities of a living organism are of such a kind that they tend to produce a certain characteristic end-result.”
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote:
John, List,Thanks for this excellent post. I've taken the liberty of forwarding it to the biosemiotics list.Best,GaryGary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New YorkC 745On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 3:54 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote:-----------------------------On 12/16/2016 4:50 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:I'd like to suggest the recent lecture by Denis Noble
in the British Physiological Society:
http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/dance-to-the-tune-of-life-lecture/699
Thanks for the reference. That led me to some of his earlier articles.
The one from 2012 covers many of the points in Noble's lecture and his
recent book: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3262309/pdf/rsfs20110067.pdf
The attached diagram, Noble12.jpg (copied from that article), summarizes
the issues:
1. The arrows pointing up are assumed by 20th c. Neo-Darwinists:
Genes determine the proteins, which determine the cells, which
determine the organs, which determine the organism.
2. But some 20th c. research (starting with Conrad Waddington, who
coined the term 'epigenetics' in the 1930s) implied that acquired
traits can be inherited. But Waddington was largely rejected
because his ideas were contrary to Neo-Darwinism.
3. 21st c. research shows that Waddington was right. Noble's diagram
shows the downward arrows that have a causative effect on earlier
stages. Noble does not deny the upward arrows, but he points out
that the downward arrows reduce the randomness by filtering out
most of the less promising mutations.
4. Those downward arrows have two effects: (a) they preserve the
faithful transcription of the overwhelming majority of genes,
and (b) they guide or facilitate the mutations that may be useful.
5. The Neo-Darwinists were partly right in saying that mutations
are random, but they were wrong in rejecting the idea that
inherited properties (epigenetic) could guide (or at least
facilitate) useful mutations.
6. This argument provides some support for Lamarck's claim that
acquired traits could be inherited. It also provides support
for Darwin's original writings, in which he showed a high
regard for Lamarck and agreed with some of his hypotheses.
7. Conclusion: Darwin's original 19th century views were more
accurate than the 20th c. Neo-Darwinian dogma, which rejected
any hint of Lamarckian tendencies. The Neo-Darwinists were
guilty of blocking the way of inquiry.
The URL of Noble's 2012 article also has links to related articles and
reviews by Noble and others. Most of them can be freely downloaded.
John
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
