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