Re: [Fis] reply to Javorsky. Plea for (responsible) dualism

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Stan, 

 

In this model the “qualia” are not accessible as discursive knowledge. They
remain tangential, accessible to individual perception. Only after their
translation into an observational report, they can be represented (!) in the
scientific knowledge base. Otherwise, this remains tacit knowledge at the
individual level. 

 

The environment of the system thus remains “unknown” otherwise than in terms
of theoretically informed (!) hypotheses. 

 

Best wishes, 

Loet

 

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR), 
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam. 
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-842239111
 <mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> l...@leydesdorff.net ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

 

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On
Behalf Of Stanley N Salthe
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 10:07 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Javorsky. Plea for (responsible) dualism

 

in my first for the week, Replying to Joseph: 

 

Dealing as I do with hierarchies and thermodynamics, I have come to the
postmodern conclusion that our explicit scientific knowledge is a logical
construct -- unlike our intuitive 'knowledge' (viz. qualia) of the world we
are IMMERSED IN.  In these scientifically-based efforts we create a logical
simulacrum (which I call 'Nature') of The World.  Its basis is logic and
esthetic, but today it also passes through a pragmatic filter imposed by
those who pay for the science.  This latter bias works mostly in choice of
study objects.  Stepping back from active engagement in the process of
gaining primary knowledge in these ways, I feel that I am these days
engaging in a renewed Natural Philosophy -- an attempt to construct a
scientifically based 'mythology' for moderns, meant as an alternative to
religious myths.  These latter importantly have also engaged, via rituals,
the qualia we are immersed in.  Inasmuch as Natural Philosophy has no such
practices associated with it, the primary function of the emerging Nature is
to challenge the religiously based myths associated with the rituals in an
attempt to unseat the associated political establishments (Rome, the
Caliphate, the Republican Party, etc.) that enforce them. 

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Joseph Brenner 
wrote:

Dear All,

In agreeing with Bob, I would like to point out that his critique is not
"theoretical philosophy". He is calling attention to something essential
missing in the pictures and models of Stan and Karl, namely, 1) the "life
and blood" of the world; 2) that that "life and blood" follows different
rules than the entities in the models; 3) those rules are based on real
dualities of equal ontological purport: order and disorder, continuity and
discontinuity, entropy and negentropy; etc.; and 4) these dualities play
out in real interactions in biology, cognition and society, for example
in information and non-information.

It is perfectly possible to see "grids" of numbers and levels or hierarchies
in Nature as abstract structures - this is indeed Karl's word, as is his use
of "independence" - but this is not going toward the world, but away from
it. The world includes Karls and Stans and Josephs and Bobs, and I challenge
anyone to propose a theory that insures that our "antagonisms", which are
real, also receive some logical treatment.

I for one do not know everything  about everything I'm made of (cf. our
fluctuon discussion), but I have the feeling it is not abstractions or
sequences of numbers. I mentioned string theory, but I am by no
means pushing it as the full story.

Cheers,

Joseph


- Original Message -
From: "Robert Ulanowicz" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Javorsky


Dear All:

At the risk of being seen as the one who tries to throw a monkey
wrench into the fine discussion you all are having, I would like to
mention that the foregoing thread had focused entirely on alternatives
among monist scenarios.

I see the world as dual, not in the sense of Descartes, but of
Heraclitus. If I am correct, then any strategy predicated on a monist
principle is destined to lead to disaster. (Stan and I have gone round
and round on this. I see entropy as double-sided and not simply as
disorder. [Ecological Modelling 220 (2009) 1886-1892].)

But I'm hardly the only one to warn against a monist view. Terry
Deacon's model of self-organization, the "Autocell" acts similarly.
The process starts by using up external gradients as quickly as
possible, but gradually shuts down as the autocell nears
self-completion. (Deacon, T.W. and J. Sherman. 2008. The Pattern Which
Connects Pleroma to Creatura: The Autocell Bridge from Physics to
Life. Biosemiotics 2:59-76.)

The best to 

Re: [Fis] reply to Javorsky. Plea for (responsible) dualism

[Stanley N Salthe]

in my first for the week, Replying to Joseph:

Dealing as I do with hierarchies and thermodynamics, I have come to the
postmodern conclusion that our explicit scientific knowledge is a logical
construct -- unlike our intuitive 'knowledge' (viz. qualia) of the world we
are IMMERSED IN.  In these scientifically-based efforts we create a logical
simulacrum (which I call 'Nature') of The World.  Its basis is logic and
esthetic, but today it also passes through a pragmatic filter imposed by
those who pay for the science.  This latter bias works mostly in choice of
study objects.  Stepping back from active engagement in the process of
gaining primary knowledge in these ways, I feel that I am these days
engaging in a renewed Natural Philosophy -- an attempt to construct a
scientifically based 'mythology' for moderns, meant as an alternative to
religious myths.  These latter importantly have also engaged, via rituals,
the qualia we are immersed in.  Inasmuch as Natural Philosophy has no such
practices associated with it, the primary function of the emerging Nature is
to challenge the religiously based myths associated with the rituals in an
attempt to unseat the associated political establishments (Rome, the
Caliphate, the Republican Party, etc.) that enforce them.

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Joseph Brenner wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> In agreeing with Bob, I would like to point out that his critique is not
> "theoretical philosophy". He is calling attention to something essential
> missing in the pictures and models of Stan and Karl, namely, 1) the "life
> and blood" of the world; 2) that that "life and blood" follows different
> rules than the entities in the models; 3) those rules are based on real
> dualities of equal ontological purport: order and disorder, continuity and
> discontinuity, entropy and negentropy; etc.; and 4) these dualities play
> out in real interactions in biology, cognition and society, for example
> in information and non-information.
>
> It is perfectly possible to see "grids" of numbers and levels or
> hierarchies
> in Nature as abstract structures - this is indeed Karl's word, as is his
> use
> of "independence" - but this is not going toward the world, but away from
> it. The world includes Karls and Stans and Josephs and Bobs, and I
> challenge
> anyone to propose a theory that insures that our "antagonisms", which are
> real, also receive some logical treatment.
>
> I for one do not know everything  about everything I'm made of (cf. our
> fluctuon discussion), but I have the feeling it is not abstractions or
> sequences of numbers. I mentioned string theory, but I am by no
> means pushing it as the full story.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joseph
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Robert Ulanowicz" 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 4:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Javorsky
>
>
> Dear All:
>
> At the risk of being seen as the one who tries to throw a monkey
> wrench into the fine discussion you all are having, I would like to
> mention that the foregoing thread had focused entirely on alternatives
> among monist scenarios.
>
> I see the world as dual, not in the sense of Descartes, but of
> Heraclitus. If I am correct, then any strategy predicated on a monist
> principle is destined to lead to disaster. (Stan and I have gone round
> and round on this. I see entropy as double-sided and not simply as
> disorder. [Ecological Modelling 220 (2009) 1886-1892].)
>
> But I'm hardly the only one to warn against a monist view. Terry
> Deacon's model of self-organization, the "Autocell" acts similarly.
> The process starts by using up external gradients as quickly as
> possible, but gradually shuts down as the autocell nears
> self-completion. (Deacon, T.W. and J. Sherman. 2008. The Pattern Which
> Connects Pleroma to Creatura: The Autocell Bridge from Physics to
> Life. Biosemiotics 2:59-76.)
>
> The best to all,
> Bob
>
> -
> Robert E. Ulanowicz|  Tel: +1-352-378-7355
> Arthur R. Marshall Laboratory  |  FAX: +1-352-392-3704
> Department of Biology  |  Emeritus, Chesapeake Biol. Lab
> Bartram Hall 110   |  University of Maryland
> University of Florida  |  Email 
> Gainesville, FL 32611-8525 USA |  Web 
> --
>
>
> Quoting Stanley N Salthe :
>
> > *Replying to Karl, who said:*
> >
> >
> > one can use a stable model used by neurology and psychology to come
> closer
> > to understanding how our brain works. This can help to formulate the
> > thoughts Pedro mentioned being obscure.
> >
> > One pictures the brain as a quasi-meteorological model of an extended
> > world
> > containing among others swamp, savanna, arid zones. The dissipation of
> > water
> > above these regions causes clouds to form and storms to discharge the
> > vapor
> > within the cloud

Re: [Fis] reply to Javorsky. Plea for (responsible) dualism

[Robert Ulanowicz]

Quoting Joseph Brenner :

> I challenge
> anyone to propose a theory that insures that our "antagonisms", which are
> real, also receive some logical treatment.

Dear Joseph,

I agree with almost all that you said. I won't take up your challenge,  
however, because I think you may be correct. No one has ever been able  
to reduce a dialectic to an algorithm, for example.

Furthermore, I think there is good reason why no one ever will. In a  
nutshell, I think the options that appear as a dialectic evolves are  
combinatorically unmanageable. (In Stu Kauffman's words, the "adjacent  
possible" is overwhelming.)

Happy Holidays to all,
Bob

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] reply to Javorsky. Plea for (responsible) dualism

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear All,

In agreeing with Bob, I would like to point out that his critique is not
"theoretical philosophy". He is calling attention to something essential
missing in the pictures and models of Stan and Karl, namely, 1) the "life
and blood" of the world; 2) that that "life and blood" follows different
rules than the entities in the models; 3) those rules are based on real
dualities of equal ontological purport: order and disorder, continuity and
discontinuity, entropy and negentropy; etc.; and 4) these dualities play
out in real interactions in biology, cognition and society, for example
in information and non-information.

It is perfectly possible to see "grids" of numbers and levels or hierarchies
in Nature as abstract structures - this is indeed Karl's word, as is his use
of "independence" - but this is not going toward the world, but away from
it. The world includes Karls and Stans and Josephs and Bobs, and I challenge
anyone to propose a theory that insures that our "antagonisms", which are
real, also receive some logical treatment.

I for one do not know everything  about everything I'm made of (cf. our
fluctuon discussion), but I have the feeling it is not abstractions or
sequences of numbers. I mentioned string theory, but I am by no
means pushing it as the full story.

Cheers,

Joseph


- Original Message - 
From: "Robert Ulanowicz" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Javorsky


Dear All:

At the risk of being seen as the one who tries to throw a monkey
wrench into the fine discussion you all are having, I would like to
mention that the foregoing thread had focused entirely on alternatives
among monist scenarios.

I see the world as dual, not in the sense of Descartes, but of
Heraclitus. If I am correct, then any strategy predicated on a monist
principle is destined to lead to disaster. (Stan and I have gone round
and round on this. I see entropy as double-sided and not simply as
disorder. [Ecological Modelling 220 (2009) 1886-1892].)

But I'm hardly the only one to warn against a monist view. Terry
Deacon's model of self-organization, the "Autocell" acts similarly.
The process starts by using up external gradients as quickly as
possible, but gradually shuts down as the autocell nears
self-completion. (Deacon, T.W. and J. Sherman. 2008. The Pattern Which
Connects Pleroma to Creatura: The Autocell Bridge from Physics to
Life. Biosemiotics 2:59-76.)

The best to all,
Bob

-
Robert E. Ulanowicz|  Tel: +1-352-378-7355
Arthur R. Marshall Laboratory  |  FAX: +1-352-392-3704
Department of Biology  |  Emeritus, Chesapeake Biol. Lab
Bartram Hall 110   |  University of Maryland
University of Florida  |  Email 
Gainesville, FL 32611-8525 USA |  Web 
--


Quoting Stanley N Salthe :

> *Replying to Karl, who said:*
>
>
> one can use a stable model used by neurology and psychology to come closer
> to understanding how our brain works. This can help to formulate the
> thoughts Pedro mentioned being obscure.
>
> One pictures the brain as a quasi-meteorological model of an extended
> world
> containing among others swamp, savanna, arid zones. The dissipation of
> water
> above these regions causes clouds to form and storms to discharge the
> vapor
> within the clouds. The model observes the lightnings in the model and sets
> them as an allegory to thoughts (these being electrical discharges) as
> opposed to hormones (that are the fluids in the swamps). So there is an
> assumed independence between the rainfall, the humidity of the ground,
> cloud
> formation and lightnings. The real meteorologists would not agree with the
> simplification that the lightning is the central idea of a rainfall, but
> this is how the picture works (at present).
>
> Why I offer these idle thoughts from the biologic sciences to FIS is that
> it
> is now possible to make a model of these processes in an abstract, logical
> fashion. The colleaugues in Fis are scientists in the rational tradition
> and
> may find useful that a rational algorithm can be shown to allow simulating
> the little tricks Nature appears to use.
>
> Nature changes the form of the imbalance, once too many or too few
> lightnings, once too much or lacking water - relative to the other
> representation's stable state. There are TWO sets of reference. The
> deviation between the two sets of references is what Nature uses in its
> manifold activities.
>
>
>   This model looks at the physical equivalences in two realms by
> modeling in thermodynamics.  Today in thermodynamics we have an advancing
> perspective known as the `Maximum Entropy Production Principle´ (MEPP) for
> relatively simple systems like weather, or Maximum Energy Dispersal
> Principle´ (MEDP) for complicated material