Peter, btw, did Kaori Ihida-Stansbury work with you?

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 2:13 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Just for fun I looked up the dictionary definition of 'determinism': the
> doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined
> by causes external to the will- which is essentially the way I was using
> the term......j
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 1:53 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Peter and TOK, I see your point. I am not a philosopher, so please
>> forgive my terminology. I am using the term 'determined' relative to 'Free
>> Will' or 'Choice'. As I had indicated previously, I have formulated the
>> First Principles of Physiology based on the reverse-engineering of
>> evolution. Those principles must be adhered to, and for example I think
>> that's why we return to the unicellular state over the course of the life
>> cycle as the reference point, or 'point source' (actually, I don't think we
>> leave it because it is necessary that we adhere to the ontologic origins of
>> life). Perhaps comparison with Pauli Exclusion Principle would be helpful-
>> there are 4 variables for calculating the spin on an electron; the first
>> three are fixed, whereas the fourth one is probabilistic....I have
>> expressed the idea that this is homologous with the First Principles of
>> Physiology, negentropy and chemiosmosis being 'fixed', whereas homeostasis
>> is probabilistic.  In biology, the term 'constrained' is often used, so
>> perhaps that's more like what I am referring to. I would appeciate your
>> thoughts. Best, John
>>
>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 11:17 AM Peter Lloyd Jones <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> John, and TOK,
>>> Thank for for your exceptionally thoughtful and inspiring note. I’m
>>> hopeful that you can continue to afford my questions. I am out of my ilk
>>> here.
>>>
>>> Can you please tell me if you think we might be using the term
>>> “determinism” or “deterministic" differently from each other? Events can
>>> have causes, and some events have definitive causes, but does that ever
>>> mean that the outcome is determined as in predetermined to only have one
>>> possible outcome.
>>>
>>> For example, a system of negentropy provides a predetermined *type* of
>>> result, as in the ordering of a solar system and, as you mentioned, the
>>> evolution of organisms. But can the specific results--how many planets are
>>> formed, how many of them are gas giants, and so forth--not remain beyond
>>> prediction and be not predetermined?  In other words, is there space
>>> between a "determined type” of result, such as an ordered solar system, and
>>> a specific result, such as planet Earth?
>>>
>>> Thank you again for your patience with me,
>>> 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 9:57 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Schrodinger, What is Life?
>>>
>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> 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