Gregg:
Thanks for your "Mapping Behavior" draft but I'm still not clear on
what you mean by "dimensions of complexity" . . . !!
In the article you cite F. Spier's "Big History and the Future of
Humanity" (2010, now in its second 2015 edition) but, as you know,
"dimensions" do *not* appear in that book. Indeed that failure is why
you have to assert your own ideas, while still not (as far as I can
tell) explaining what it means.
Furthermore, Speir can't even resolve the meaning of "complexity" in
anything other than an "intuitive" fashion --
"Unfortunately, no generally accepted definition of 'complexity'
appears to exist either. As a result, there is no established way of
determining different levels [i.e. magnitudes, not dimensions] of
complexity. Yet it surely makes sense to call certain configurations
of matter more complex than others . . . " (p.48)
Really? Why more-and-less "complex"? Why not just "different"?
Yes, I understand that you posit different "information processing
systems" that are "ontologically distinctive" (i.e. they clearly don't
do the "same" thing): genetic, neuronal and language. Yes, these are
certainly distinct but how can these distinctions be related to
"dimensions of complexity"? Why are they "dimensions" of anything
(and particularly of something that cannot itself be defined) . . . ??
As you probably know, it has taken massive effort to "decode" the
genome for wheat -- reflecting the reality that this is not a crop
that has ever been "engineered" the way that corn or even apples have
been (let alone cats and dogs.) Does that mean that wheat is "more
complex" than humans (as it appears to be on the "genomic" scale)?
"Complexity" has only entered into our lexicon as it has because of
the *failure* to understand causality -- foisted on us all by
centuries of anti-Artistotlean "science." First eliminating "formal"
cause (because it was Aristotle, not Plato) and pushing "final" cause
into the shadows in the 17th century, 20th century science also
eliminated "efficient" cause (replacing it with probability) --
leaving only "material" cause (from Aristotle's original four) which
has now morphed into "complexity" (via the religious devotion to
"chaos" in our hyper-imaginary, hallucinating times.)
Complexity/chaos/emergence seems to be a useful way (according to
those involved) to think of stars and nuclear bombs -- but why Life or
Mind or Culture? I've asked the man who chaired the Santa Fe
Institute this and his answer was "because the DoE is willing to pay
us to think that way." Bill Gates put "Big History" on the map with a
$1M check. I personally know Bill Gates. He never finished college.
He has no serious clue about any of this.
The "dimensions" you describe (and the "informational processes" you
enumerate) have, of course, long been studied. What do we gain by
positing that they are all somehow tied together via "complexity"? Is
this a plan to undermine all the others who use "complexity" without
ever mentioning dimensions? It this an attack on a citadel that has
ramparts staffed by thousands of PhDs and has considerable power as an
"academic gang" (who will fight you to the death)? Or, is this a
Trojan Horse strategy to "infiltrate," sneaking up on them and taking
advantage of other people's confusions?
My "job" around here is to try to make sure that you don't wind up
another Don Quixote jousting at windmills. How am I doing . . . ??
Mark
P.S. While I'm very hard to upset, I must admit that calling what Jeff
and I have been contributing "versions of reality" is insulting.
Perhaps there is a better "language game" to be playing,
inter-subjectively speaking (since we're all committed to ending
"micro-aggressions" nowadays) . . . <g>
############################
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
|
