Waldemar:

Good summary (so, let's talk about "investments" and "justifications")  
. . . !!

I'm very big on the subject of responsibility.  Accordingly, I tend to  
focus my efforts on those things for which I'm responsible -- which,  
as it turns out, and as reflected in the organization of my Center,  
means "explaining" our current situation to those who are actually  
responsible for "making" *robots* and using CRISPR &c.  Not the  
distant past or distant future.  Explaining "today," today.

My responsibility is to talk with others who are also responsible.   
And so on.  (Btw, I got that responsibility from my father, who, in  
turn, took it from his mentor, Norbert Wiener, who got it from his  
father, and so on.)

Recently a group from the Center engaged with a conference at NYU  
billed as "Posthuman Ethics."  It was mostly the sort of silliness  
that you'd expect from such a group, until a professor from Stony  
Brook got up and read them the riot-act by constructing a scary CRISPR  
scenario -- revolving around what is (or is not) actually going on  
today at Brookhaven Labs (managed by Stony Brook).

He correctly said that "the nerds in the labcoats have no interest in  
your fancy philosophy" (and I've had similar experiences in China and  
elsewhere).

So, in my case, the goal is taking responsibility for my part in the  
wider puzzle, under radically different conditions in a baffling *new*  
paradigm (in which virtually everything that we thought we understood  
from the previous one is no longer valid) . . . !!

Mark

P.S. As I hope I've made clear, I see *zero* reason why LIFE should  
obey the "same rules" as MATTER (contra L.L. Whyte &al).  Therefore,  
LIFE doesn't "violate" anything and, indeed, the 2nd Law simply  
doesn't apply (btw, a conclusion I reached as a PhD student nearly 50  
years ago).  This becomes important when "complexity science" is  
introduced, since this is the modern re-formulation of the 2nd Law,  
based on "chaotic" astro-physics -- yes, done as another attempt to  
"unify" science.  I've spent a lot of time with these folks and have  
concluded that they have gotten it all wrong (and are nasty about it,  
to boot).  When they try to extend this to MIND and CULTURE it just  
becomes stupid.  My suspicion is that these errors are the result of  
ignorance of Aristotle's "Four Causes," which, as I've suggested, are  
*all* needed to "integrate" Human Knowledge.

Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:

> Dear Waldemar and ToKers, I greatly appreciate the 'comparison and
> contrast' between my way of
> thinking about evolution and Mark's. Waldemar characterized what I had to
> say quite well. I would
> only like to add that the Self-referential Self-organizing character of
> life is of great importance, as are
> the First Principles of Physiology, upon which life is founded. Without
> those aspects there is no explanation
> for how and why life exists far from thermal equilibrium, in violation of
> the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
> The ambiguous nature of life due to this violation is the consequence of
> that 'cheating', and life functions through
> deception as a means of coping with the ambiguity, lacking a way of
> understanding the principles involved in the
> processes of life, up until then, but always with the knowledge of
> 'something greater than itself' as the
> 'echo' of the Singularity/Big Bang, like the physical echo in the form of
> the redshift. The reason I
> extended the concept back to that state of being is because I had been
> successful in tracing the evolutionary
> history of life based on the iterative, repeatative, pre-adaptive nature of
> the process. Given that,
> once I reached the origin of life the question arose as to how and why
> biology utilized lipids to form
> itself based on Self-referential Self-Organization. So I reverted to the
> Singularity that existed
> before the Big Bang as the ultimate pre-adaptive state, there being no
> other 'template'. As for the basis for the
> Self-referential Self-organization, it only stood to reason that there must
> have been a huge 'recoil' after the Big
> Bang based on Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, that for every action there is an
> equal and opposite reaction, hence
> the Self-referential Self-organization as the manifestation of that recoil,
> matter behaving in a way to stabilize itself
> through balanced chemical reactions. Biology co-opts such reactions by
> endogenizing them, as described by
> Norman Horowitz (Horowitz NH, Hubbard JS. The origin of life. Annu Rev
> Genet. 1974;8:393-410).
>
> At that point all of the bases seemed to be covered.
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks to both John and Mark.
>>
>> I appreciate their replies to a request for a statement “defining” their
>> justifications (a la Henriques).
>>
>> I remember that Mark has more to say following Gregg’s return.
>>
>>
>>
>> The explanations provided are helpful and I think I understand them.
>>
>> However, perhaps it would be best to see if I am on the right track.
>>
>>
>>
>> To an extent, they seem to be addressing the same thing.
>>
>> You know the old saw, “they’re the same - - - only different!”
>>
>> So, let’s distinguish between differences.
>>
>>
>>
>> Both approaches seem to be making statements about change and adaptation,
>> though in different time frames.
>>
>>
>>
>> To wit:
>>
>>
>>
>> ·      John appears to be referencing change/adaptation in a
>> geologic/cosmic time frame.
>>
>> ·      In particular, he is not too enamored of the descriptive aspects
>> of “evolution,” principally because it’s hard or impossible to test the
>> description and thereby refute or prove the description.
>>
>> ·      John perceives value in exploring physiology as a means to test
>> evolution, the new biology and genetics.
>>
>> ·      To John, adaptation to “change” is fundamentally adaptation to the
>> environment.
>>
>> ·      This adaption is accomplished via “endogenization” of the
>> environment.
>>
>> ·      The same fundamental physiologic changes, or varians thereof,
>> occur repetitively throughout the history of life.
>>
>> ·      Indeed, the mechanism involved in the transition from matter to
>> life, is repeated throughout the history of life and evolution (ie, from
>> uni- to multicellular life).
>>
>> ·      John sees this as a fundamental aspect of the generation of life
>> out of matter and the “complexification” of life as explained by
>> “evolution.”
>>
>> ·      In other words, John is attracted to “endogenization of the
>> environment,” and the physiology expressed therein, as the means by which
>> life not only arose out of matter but also changed from unicellular to
>> multicellular life forms, such as *Homo sapiens sapiens*.
>>
>>
>>
>> I understand and agree with the concept that fundamental physiologic
>> mechanisms, or variations thereof, constitute a testable methodologic means
>> by which life arose and became complex.
>>
>> John sees this (or these) physiologic processes as having been “present”
>> as far back as the Big Bang.
>>
>> I, on the other hand, see how these physiologic processes may constitute
>> how life arose from matter but do not (yet) see how they are involved in
>> the formation of matter out of the consequences of the Big Bang.
>>
>>
>>
>> ·      Mark, appears to be focused on change/adaptation in mankind and
>> mankind’s complex social nature and products thereof.
>>
>> ·      Mark, appears to propose that mankind cleverly uses “tools” (of
>> various kinds) to not only adapt to nature/life but also to change nature.
>>
>> ·      But, also perceives that mankind is mostly insensitive to a double
>> hermeneutic involved with tool-based change/adaptation.  That is, the
>> tool (or tools) not only modify nature, they also modify us, the tools’
>> creators.
>>
>> ·      Accordingly, the nature of the available tool/s is important.
>>
>> ·      Hence, the aphorism that “if your only tool is a hammer, then
>> every problem appears to be a nail.”
>>
>> ·      The timeframe in Mark’s observations is more immediate – such as
>> centuries, years, months, weeks, and days.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hence, both are considering the nature and effects of mankind’s
>> adaptations, but with a different temporal focus or lens.
>>
>> John claims the physiologic changes date back to the Big Bang and are
>> universally repeated in addressing adaptational challenges with similar but
>> variable results, apparently depending on the environment “endogenized” and
>> the physiology employed in response.
>>
>> Mark doesn’t appear to be claiming a connection to the Big Bang and
>> addresses the double hermeneutic implications of tools used to address the
>> adaptational challenges.
>>
>>
>>
>> I submit this to Mark and John, as well as to other TOKers, in hopes of
>> refining my understanding.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Waldemar
>>
>>
>>
>> PS Welcome back, Gregg.
>>
>> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
>> 503.631.8044
>>
>> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value.* (A Einstein)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 3:17 PM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Mark:
>>
>> Thank you for your response.
>> Alas, what you have provided does not help me as much as I hope it would.
>> I am like Joe M - I need help figuring this out.
>>
>> I am looking for your definition of the new paradigm and the old paradigm
>> which the new one replaced.
>> For me, the word “paradigm” is well defined by the following:
>>
>> *paradigm* (*plural* *paradigms
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_paradigms-23English&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=4YCTxbQFCbjGbD_CDMCxjTw51yoJgTyWpQkrKjbaKJ0&e=>*
>> )
>>
>>    1. A pattern
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_pattern&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=O0AI2__8dl5U0tKfA8Dc4BpMdv3AyiNKkzPFxMQ63HY&e=>,
>>    a way
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_way&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=hZhs47l_4pGQjJGRBeYM7yVL26lgUxkQx1u2JlZGG1A&e=>
>>     of doing
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_doing&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=18m2MIAX_Eo_9N8lY5pjAQA9b_UsY32L2M5u6IfrvnQ&e=>
>>     something
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_something&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=srf_0qeU2aFdvSwpXZFjKOQ_vKtQvJr8tECYMpplljc&e=>
>>    , *especially
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_especially&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=ZDJl6BIVxkxSw-xeljxgZWBt4_b3uFDi_-Sc90bHMcs&e=>*
>>     (now often pejorative
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_pejorative&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=NDQCNiGwMEjvS0083cRR6SDGDG_5WLCOqQEZeKBr8Q8&e=>
>>    ) a pattern
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_pattern&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=O0AI2__8dl5U0tKfA8Dc4BpMdv3AyiNKkzPFxMQ63HY&e=>
>>     of thought
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_thought&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=kxtXV951MHNWpdAAGyVigpP-pscfVZ5Nkg86vVZp6Cs&e=>,
>>    a system
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_system&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=upS3wT1oxKcdpUl7ONNU_b2cczosWkTKNi3SHlbk_8A&e=>
>>     of beliefs
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_belief&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=ertP49naCJQKqm4DtutObn8GGKQWDIiyNjxmMrF-oRg&e=>,
>>    a conceptual
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_conceptual&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=c7p-zt-G0yDVc5bMO8kGS-Qb5dTG_Jju6zkCplD_New&e=>
>>     framework
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_framework&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=YJCvDUJExhfrCXE3GIkeGKXpYpdIxyHXavZdsPraEBA&e=>
>>    .Synonyms: model
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_model-23English&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=PX7vYmckhOlsZNrHcCgjEAj5_NB_-TsMmSKS0lOuuY0&e=>
>>    , worldview
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_worldview-23English&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=Cvw_BlCKlfAd9xBcVilX12YC0mKf1k9t7A3K0So0NcI&e=>
>>    Thomas Kuhn's landmark “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” got
>>    people talking about *paradigm* shifts, to the point the word itself
>>    now suggests an incomplete or biased perspective.
>>    2. An example
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_example&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=SF4NfM4_JB3v5eGL1U2RpmEJdceVBKbqdhkyBYoUDw4&e=>  
>> serving
>>    as the model
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_model&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=xq_HGAqraTNpjkWSpEuIx8MqqVbRr9-ObFp1iEa3oo8&e=>
>>     for
>>     
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiktionary.org_wiki_such&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=bCavyhiTimak73nfdRxSOq2ha7M9RCNTO9jKESyZkT0&s=nxPoE1z11gE4-XfoKyoS2OXdhRfF3hXVewtFNDUqXdQ&e=>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> [Message clipped]
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1