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