Peter, I am not a determinist or a 'choicer'. I am a scientist
(50yearsinthetrenches). I have been able to reverse-engineer evolution by
applying developmental embryologic principles of cell-cell
communication/signaling to phylogeny, using the precept that evolution is
'serial pre-adaptations', or what SJ Gould called exaptations. Using that
approach, I have been able to trace vertebrate evolution back to the
unicellular state. Once there, the question was what was the pre-adaptation
for the cell? Based on the work of David Deamer and others who have
documented the origin of water on Earth as the product of snowball-like
asteroids that pelted the atmosphere-less planet, containing polycyclic
hydrocarbons (lipids) produced by Pulsars, when you immerse lipids in water
they will spontaneously form primitive 'cells' or micelles, i.e.
semi-permeable spheres. As important as the formation of a protected space
within them, the fact that lipids have 'memory' or hysteresis is literally
vital for life because without it evolution is impossible- having that
memory allows the organism to adapt based on its 'history' instead of
having to 'reinvent the wheel' which is too time/energy consuming to be
competitive.....picture those micelles floating in the ocean, warmed and
deformed by day, and reformed at night due to cooling....that's the memory
that gave rise to what I have called the First Principles of Physiology, at
a minimum being the product of negative entropy/Free Energy (Schrodinger,
What is Life?), chemiosmosis as the first source of bioenergy, and
homeostasis. The point I am leading up to is that the differential between
the internal and external entropy of the cell is an ambiguity (see
attached). Life resolves this ambiguity by endogenizing factors in the
external environment that pose an existential threat- oxygen, heavy metals,
ions, bacteria. That iterative process has formed our physiology, and
suffice it to say that the process is both deterministic
(negentropy/chemiosmosis) and probabilistic (homeostasis).....and mind you,
homeostasis is the homolgue of the recoil of the Big Bang, Newton's Third
Law of Motion (every action.....) dictating that there had to have been an
equal and opposite reaction....that is the homeostatic principle behind
both a balanced chemical reaction and physiologic traits generated by
cell-cell interactions alike. In either case, these mechanisms ascribe to
E=mc2, and by virtue of the fact that energy and matter are balanced in the
Cosmos, the chemistry and biology reconcile the dialectical imbalances
caused by the Big Bang....in other words, they, like the Redshift, are the
echoes of the Big Bang. Hope that made sense.....your thoughts? John

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 9:31 AM Peter Lloyd Jones <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Alexander, John, et.al.,
>
> I was wrong to infer that the determinism debate is between only those
> from the field of philosophy, though I am pursuing it as a philosophical
> question. Some today are using interpretations of scientific evidence as
> their argument.
> Maybe John is one who (partially) is a proponent of determinism, as per
> his last note?
> Sam Harris, famously, though painfully unscholarly he is.
> Galen Strawson says he isn’t a determinist but argues that we cannot
> escape the causes that have made us who we are, which is basically a type
> of determinism since for him it means that human autonomy is an
> impossibility because we can never step out from under past causes to be
> autonomous.
> John Searle, though he seems in the last decade to be hedging on
> determinism and starting to embrace quantum indeterminism as justification
> for free will
> Jerry Coyne,
> BF Skinner, who in his philosophy of behaviorism was a determinist.
> Dan Barker doesn’t see free will as a scientific truth or philosophical
> truth, but as a social truth. But I think he is still dealing with ghosts
> of his preacher past.
> It could be that I’m am wasting time on popular opponents of free will
> that would be best to leave behind.
>
> Please know that I am addressing this issue from the context of a
> 70-year-old tome of existential philosophy, comparing Sartre’s metaphysics
> to what some claim today about proofs of physics concerning the concept of
> human autonomy. And I have to do it in 3,000 words.
>
> Also, I use the word consciousness as does Sartre, who did not acknowledge
> subconscious states. He refers to behavior as being reflective or
> non-reflective, asserting that most of our behavior is non-reflective. Much
> of his writing about non-reflective behavior lines up with is being
> compatibly the subconscious. Sartre has plenty to say about motives and
> passions and desires, and it would be revealing to suss that out against
> the background of today’s advances in neuroscience.
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful questions that bolster my self-doubt. I do
> not say that in sarcasm but truly thrive on self-doubt. It makes me work
> harder.
>
> Best to all,
> Peter
>
>
> Peter Lloyd Jones
> [log in to unmask]
> 562-209-4080
>
> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.
>
>
>
> On May 21, 2019, at 6:45 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Peter, In the name of shameless self promotion, I have proposed that life
> is both deterministic and probabilistic based on experimental evidence for
> both cell physiology and its relationship to Quantum Mechanics (see
> attached). Perhaps you could comment? Best, John
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:51 PM Peter Lloyd Jones <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> John, Alexander, Gregg, and TOK,
>> It seems that we agree also that choice is better than free will because
>> the freedom we are taking about when using the rems “free will" is a doing,
>> not something to have. It is a verb, as John just said, and as Sartre has
>> said. Sartre of course worked this out deeply on the ontological level,
>> saying that freedom, choice, consciousness are all one and the same. His
>> thought is that the only practical way to look at consciousness is how we
>> are discussing looking at choice, that it is an action, not a container of
>> things, that we are temporal beings evolving minute by minute.
>> Consciousness is the life-long pursuit of being that is a doing and never
>> an inert thing to label.
>>
>> A few years ago I read an article by a doctor of medicine who proposed
>> that consciousness is change, a physical change within our brains, and that
>> using AI or computing metaphors only drives us away from understanding
>> consciousness. I wrote him asking if his paper was based on research he
>> might be able to share and he responded that it was just a hypothesis he
>> was pondering. Dang it. But another start.
>>
>> I am, so far, in agreement with Sartre, that we act within “a network of
>> determinants.” That though does not mean that our acts are determined and
>> unfree. So evolution, like conscious choice, is free to go in novel
>> directions in evolving novel environments, within the context of its
>> history.
>>
>> I am pondering whether determinism might not be a problem for
>> determinism. What I mean is, there are countless determinants competing to
>> influence our every choices, or our evolution, and how can it be
>> comprehensibly possible that it is already decided for all time which
>> determinant is going to be the alfa determinant in all events? Further,
>> this has to be taken on faith as it is unrepeatable and untestable. That
>> alone should put it outside the boundaries of science and philosophy.
>>
>> Alexander, I do think it is a waste of time to be arguing against
>> determinism, but, in philosophy, there is a whole movement right now
>> promoting determinism. My hope is to shoot it dead.
>>
>> I do like syndeterminism...
>>
>> Thank you all for your contributions here,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter Lloyd Jones
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 562-209-4080
>>
>> Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart.
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 20, 2019, at 4:55 PM, Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Peter
>>
>> I agree. Strongly. But why even pretend that determinism has a case any
>> longer? Why not go straight to the point and cut the chase and ask in what
>> way determinism predicted the big bang itself?
>> Now, if the big bang is an emergence proper, as the birth of physics
>> itself, we can then rethink history as emergences that create their own
>> vectors. This means there is fundamentally no difference between parallel
>> universes and the development of physics and later chemistry and later
>> biology and later mind and later culture. They are all vectors of
>> emergences in a fundamentally indeterminist metaverse.
>> Actually a human life can then be seen as vector of an emergence called
>> birth itself. Now that's what I call an emergence theory worthy of proper
>> complexity science.
>> The question is rather whether indeterminism is the appropriate term?
>> Perhaps syndeterminism is even better? Especially since we do not even need
>> chance or dices then either.
>>
>> Best intentions
>> Alexander
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> 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
> <1-s2.0-S0079610718300890-main.pdf>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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