Gregg:
Okay -- so how is "The other is Life as an inFORMational processing
system" *not* a "metaphysical" statement (of one sort or another) . .
. ??
Physical reality has no "systems" -- humans had to make-up that idea.
Physical reality has no "information" -- humans had to make-up that idea.
Physical reality has no "processing" -- humans had to make-up that idea.
"Life" doesn't care what you (or I) think about it or how we describe
it. Only humans do (and, for that matter, only *literate* humans,
which is to say post-500BC.)
Sorry, there is no way out. The only thing that humans can "know" (in
this sense) is what they conceptualize (i.e. "make-up") -- all the
rest is beyond our comprehension. Whenever we talk about any of this
we are using "metaphysics" -- whether we admit it or not. Coherent or
incoherent. No other option.
Btw, there has been 2000+ years discussion on all this in the West
(and the same in the East, all occurring post-Axial Age), much of it
conducted by people smarter than me (and possibly you as well.) When
you roll all this out to a wider public, perhaps taking what they said
into account would be useful . . . <g>
Mark
P.S. Wittgenstein went nuts over all this. Kant was actually a
"mystic" (of the "Jakob Boehmean" variety, as was his mother) and was
only telling us what was possible without *direct* supernatural
communications in his "Critiques." No one has ever escaped. Not a
single one.
Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi Mark,
>
> I agree with what you write below. I will continue with my argument.
>
> What I am doing here is arguing/raising the point/question that
> there are actually two ways of thinking about formal cause, in a way
> that might bridge the four causes with the ToK more directly.
>
> First, one meaning of formal cause corresponds to what I mean by the
> metaphysical system. This refers to the concepts and categories that
> humans use to carve up the world. Matter is a concept I apply to the
> world. That gives it its "form" or functions as its formal cause.
> The book I am working on right now, The Problem of Psychology and
> Its Solution, argues that psychologists LACK a system of concepts
> and categories that is up to the task. The (formal) forms in
> psychology are mush, which is why it is not nearly as advanced as
> chemistry in terms of its scientific status.
>
> So, one meaning of "forms" and formal cause is that it refers to how
> humans conceptually carve up reality.
>
> What I am getting at is that there is another meaning of the term,
> that applies to living entities in general (including monkeys). In
> contrast to human metaphysical systems, it emerged ~4billion years
> ago. It relates directly to the claim that there are qualitatively
> different dimensions/levels of complexity in nature as depicted by
> the ToK and clarified by the Periodic Table of Behavior.
>
> In his book Origin Story, Dave Christian makes the point that what
> is crucial about the Life threshold is that, in contrast to atoms
> and stars, organisms are "informavores"
> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Informavore&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Tsy8wXXLEwD5OFp3FX_SUTH7_8wp7curNOxJghAGmhA&s=EYiypwhiM3HApwkMFeXgi3SpuXDrMRrppQDB2gnQRmc&e=). This now is a pretty
> common claim made by biologists these days.
>
> A quote from Nick Lane's book, The Vital Question (on the origin and
> nature of Life), makes a similar point:
>
> "For many people, life is all about information copied in DNA. The
> origin of Life is the origin of information (processing)." He goes
> on to characterize RNA and DNA as informational coding systems. Lane
> argues, however, that a key concept needs to be added to this, which
> is the flow of energy in the context of structural arrangement of
> particular substances. His book is about how alkaline hydrothermal
> vents provide that structure that set the stage for the energy flow
> that set the stage for cells that have a structure that stores and
> processes information.
>
> What do I fundamentally mean by Life existing at a different
> dimension of complexity? I mean that it operates off of a different
> causal process, a different "plane" of cause and effect.
> Specifically, it operates off of information processing and
> communication and feedback loops. I consider this to be a novel
> dimension of causation, one that cannot be reduced, even in
> principle to the material dimension, because the language of the
> matter dimension does not incorporate this concept. Making the
> connection to formal causation direct, I might now say that that
> cause is inFORMational. Whereas physics can get away with
> action/reaction, biologists (and scientists 'above' them like
> psychologists and socioloigsts), need a "stimulus-organism-response"
> equation because the organism is responding to more than just
> substance and kinetic causation, but as an informational storage and
> computation system. Cells respond to informational forms in the
> environment in a way that atoms do not.
>
> So, what I am saying is that I think there are two meanings of
> 'form' and its 'cause.' One is the human metaphysical conceptual
> meaning. That meaning connects to what Kant meant when he talked
> about foundational concepts and categories. And what I mean when I
> say psychologists lack a coherent metaphysical system for its
> subject matter
>
> The other is Life as an inFORMational processing system. I think
> that physics and chemistry can get away with (the forms of)
> substance and kinetic causation. There is no inFORMational
> processing/communication causation at the first dimension of
> behavioral complexity we call matter. However, that changes at the
> level of Life, which in many ways can be defined as entities that
> are informavores. And, according to the ToK, a qualitative shift
> happens at the level/dimension of Mind and again at the
> level/dimension of Culture, precisely because new inFORMational
> processing and communication systems developed.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tree of knowledge system discussion
> <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Mark Stahlman
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 9:53 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: formal causes
>
> Gregg:
>
> That's an interesting observation . . . !!
>
> Formal *causes* cause "forms." So, whatever has a "form" must have a
> "formal cause" which "formed" it (i.e. caused it to have "form.")
> "Informing" and "conforming" &c are just versions of the same word
> -- prefix applied to root. Understanding "form" (or, in Greek,
> "morphos") is needed to make sense of any of the derivative terms.
>
> Aristotle's "Metaphysics" is based on the hylozoic fusion of "matter"
> (potential) and "form" (actual.) Without "form," it seems to me,
> that "matter" is formless (and, as a result. of no interest to
> humans other than as something that potentially has form.) Is an
> "atom" (which, of
> course, is a human concept, not a physical reality) without "form"?
> Is an String Theory equation (again, just another human concept)
> without "form"?
>
> As soon as we start studying "matter" we supply it with "forms."
> "Substance" (also a concept, not a physical reality), also has form,
> so it also has its "formal cause" (i.e. that-which-gave-it-form.) In
> other words, we humans can't understand "matter" *without* "forms."
> Okay, people who take a lot of LSD would likely disagree . . . !!
>
> "Material science" is a description, not actual physical reality.
> It is a human activity studying "matter" (making it something
> conceptualized by humans.) String-theory, quantum physics &c, are
> *all* human "forms" which have been imposed on reality so that we
> humans can better understand it. These "forms" require humans to
> exist. If no one came up with the "form," then it wouldn't be "real."
>
> As a result, *all* four of Aristotle's "causes" are required for
> humans to understand anything -- including "substance." On the
> other hand, if we were monkeys, then none of the causes would be
> needed at all . . . <g>
>
> Btw, this is why Eric McLuhan opened his "On Formal Cause" essay
> (EME, 2005, reprinted in "Media and Formal Cause," 2011) with --
>
> "Of the four, Farm'l Cows is the fundamental one and it contains all
> the udders . . . "
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. It was Plato who believed that there are "Forms" without
> needing any humans. Aristotle spent his entire life disputing that
> as a "silly story." As a result, Plato dominates in the modern West
> (but not before "modernity") -- particularly for the past 400+ years
> (i.e.
> since PRINT), when Aristotle has been "buried." We are now digging
> him up. Yes -- this would only be possible if we were already in a
> the *new* DIGITAL paradigm.
>
> P.P.S "Complexity Science" was originally called "Chaos Science." It
> starts with something that is "formless" (i.e. "chaos") and then
> posits a "form" for this formless-whatever-it-is based on the
> principles of "emergence." So, in this approach, Aristotle is
> totally ignored (as usual) and another "theory" has been proposed,
> along with its "forms." There is no need for "causes," which is why
> this approach is ELECTRIC (i.e. a product of the same
> psycho-technological environment that earlier eliminated causes.)
>
> It was invented to design nuclear weapons at Los Alamos -- which are
> thought of as "tiny stars." Perhaps "complexity science" is good
> for that purpose but it is useless for explaining
> Life/Psychology/Culture, as has been shown by its complete failure
> over the past 30+ years. As a result, we think it should be buried
> now that we are DIGITAL (which we told the Santa Fe types last year
> and they tossed us out for our remarkable *heretical* impiety.)
>
> Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>> Hi Mark and Jeff,
>>
>> Thought you might be interested to see this little clip on Jordan
>> Peterson talking about the "spirit father":
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3Dn2h1ilrrrOg&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=veUR5TFVyhA6ciEiy1LDSaJ-IUU7i_2FA0kLLm5BGYc&s=NtzX4o4KpONMwDyRiK-8k7XkczoOKNun1XBrcEeElD4&e=.
>>
>> I continue to work on the linkages between my conception of emergent
>> dimensions of causality and the concept of formal cause. To the extent
>> that they are linked, it means that there is no formal cause for
>> entities at the material dimension (i.e., atoms, molecules, stars and
>> planets), only for cells/organisms, animals and people (each of which
>> respond to different kinds of "informational forms").
>>
>> Does that jive with your/Aristotle's conception of formal cause?
>> Namely, that we can explain change in the material sciences via
>> substance and kinetic causation, but we need formal cause to explain
>> the behaviors of living entities.
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> 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
>
> ############################
>
> 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
|