TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

September 2018

TOK-SOCIETY-L@LISTSERV.JMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:34:12 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (256 lines)
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2