Reoplying to Søren, see interleavings:
He said:
>Dear Victoras and Stan
>
>I do not think it is consistent to discuss meaning of operations in a
>universe within a physicalistic paradigm. I admit that a thermodynamic
>paradigm is more advanced that a mechanistic one encompassing the basic
>evolutionary mechanisms and if you add a Wienerian cybernetic information
>theory and the inspiration from Schr�dinger, then you now have scientific
>concepts that can say something about systems building up structures and
>evaluate if they become more complex.
>
>But this objectivistic scientific philosophical framework - and I am
tempted
>to still call it physicalistic - does not have any theory of meaning, only
>of truth. Bateson developed a theory of ecological cybernetic mind as
>recursive loops folded into each other carrying differences, but it never
>said anything about qualia, free will and consciousness as a first person
>experience. I do not know if you want to use fraises like: "what is
the
>meaning of the computers work seen from the computer?"
This is an important point, for which I do, however, have an answer
within the framework I have been using. Of the four Aristotelian causes,
material/formal, efficient/final, it is no long leap to see that final
cause is of the same type as 'meaning'. And, of course, my point has been
that the Second Law provides a very general meaning to all activities.
There are, of course, other meanings as well, organized as {most primary
meaning {{{more superior meanings}}}}.
>My point is that you need to define a concept of meaning within your
>paradigm's ontology (including both a world view and a conception of the
>human) and relate your concepts of truth and meaning to that, to be able
to
>answer the questions you ask. This is why I found it necessary to go
>from a
>cybernetic informational world view to a Peircean semiotic one like Stan
>-although I think we have different versions. Your question cannot be
>answered on the thermodynamic level.
I agree that the most basic meaning in the Universe is not sufficient
to understand all events. It is restricted to the physical integrative
level in a whole series of integrative levels, as in: {physical {material
{biological {sociopolitical {personal}}}}} (I find semiosis at allthese
levels -- pansemiotics). But, in Natural Philosophy, we wish to capture
the broadest view, incorporating as much of Nature as we can, and so we can
bring in many things. In some cases, like human warfare pursued by modern
societies there does not appear to be a satisfactory understanding of it at
any level above the physical, and so we must be content with that, however
humiliating it is to see that modern society cannot rise above its lowly
basis. There is a way available actually -- the one China is now pursuing
-- that is, build, build BUILD, and build big, BIG enough to expend as much
energy in the doing as would be dissipated during warfare. The problem
with this is that its ultimate end is the destruction of our natural
environment. In warfare we only destroy our own things, in building we
destroy everything.
>Even on the semiotic it is very difficult. Is the goal of the universe or
>rather the Semios to evolve as much semiotic freedom as possible? Is it
the
>goal of living systems? Is free will the highest gift in the universe?
As we go up in the specification hierarchy above, the number of
meanings increases because this hierarchy (although not shown in the above
representation) is actually a tree with its root in the physcal. Thus, one
would have choose at, say, the sociopolitical level which of all the
numerous meanings have been constructed at that level would be "the highest
(most superior) gift".
>You can then easily add a spiritual dimension to your pan semiotic theory
>and include the idea of the mystical union. If so is the meaning of life
>then to unify mentally with the universe and its cause in a mystical union
>maybe on a transcendental level? If yes to these questions, then: why??
In the past some authors did indeed implicitly use te above format,
and ended with a mystical union as the most superior meaning. But, since
this end did not arise in more than on or two cultures, we can see that
there would be contention over this, which as we can see today within the
Abrahamic Faith Religions, since these meanings are non-negotiable, we are
soon back to warfare again, which will, once again, not be explainable
within these superior understandings.
>Even if the answer is: To obtain the highest love and happiness and wise
>conduct, you can ask again: Though love and happiness they feel nice and
>make us live in a better way together you can still ask why? To what
>purpose?
There will be answers at all integrative levels: {entropy production
{ATP utilization {reproduction{ self-realization}}}}. In ths case we seem
to have a satsfactory superior understanding, and so we can forget the
lower integrative levels.
>You can add heaven and hell or reincarnation with thousands of life cycles
>in learning to be good, wise and loving, and Buddha nature or a personal
or
>triune God - and the question still remains unanswered. What is the
purpose
>and meaning of God and what he does with us?? The answer is - even in the
>Bible - that only he/she knows.
Well, there are any answers -- as many as there are cultures with
religions.
>I am afraid that the condition of being inside a system does not allow us
to
>answer questions about its purpose and meaning.
That was one of the messages of the internalist session just finished
on this list.
>I will be grateful if anyone can provide a more satisfactory answer.
See above.
STAN
>
> Søren
>
>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>Fra: fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es
[mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es] P�
>vegne af Stanley N. Salthe
>Sendt: 7. maj 2005 18:46
>Til: fis@listas.unizar.es
>Emne: Re: [Fis] Economic Networks
>
>Victor wrote:
>
>>some questions to meditate on :-)
>>
>>whatever occurs there are two sorts of "things" always going
on:
>>A) production of entropy - 2nd law,
>>B) production of structure - (self)organization (???law).
>>
>>If we assume that whatever occurs, it does so in order to produce
entropy
>(A)
>> then (self)organization (B) is "just" a side-effect of
entropy
>production..
> SS: From the Universe's point of view that is exactly so. It can be
>justifed arithmetically by noting that effective (irreversible) works
>always lose half or more of the available energy tapped for them.
>
> >Otherwise whatever occurs, it does so in order to produce structure
(B),
>then
>>entropy (A) is "just" a side-effect of (self)organization...
> SS: This is the point of view of a local system. It cannot be justified
>arithmetically. As well, the Second Law, as a global tendency was in
>effect prior to any local system, all of which must serve it in order to
>develop and maintain themselves.
>
>>Which one of the two statements above is true ?
> SS: Both are true from different perspectives. As a natural philsopher
>interested in the Unity of Nature program, I take the Universe's point of
>view. (As well, I tend to favor the seeming underdog!)
>
>>Is it so that when I write the message (like this particular one) I am
>>driven by the final reason to produce entropy by increased usage of
>>electricity, making keyboard and processor of my PC a bit warmer and
>heating
>>some cables on the way to people I communicate with, in order to force
>>somebody's brain to burn more glucose in order to release more warm
into
>>environment thus increasing global warming and adding some more heat
into
>>the expanding Universe in order to drive it's state a bit further from
>>thermodynamic equilibrium then it is now ?
> SS: VERY well put!
>
>>Is the meaning of the message
>>encoded within grammatical language structures just a waste-product of
the
>>entropy production chain ? Whichever - entropy or (self)organization
is the
>>purpose and the driving force of whatever occurs ?
> SS: As I said, both. We can parse this nicely by using a
>specification hierarchy of final causes in the form of {physical process
>{chemical interaction {biological configuration {sociopolitical
intent}}}}.
>Thus, {entropy production {lowering free energy {muscle movement
>{writing}}}}. In the Unity of the Sciences we want to see the whole
>picture. As it was put by the systems scientist Hector Sabelli, {primary
>{superior}}. If you like the suprior, take it.
>
>>The same would be valid for any complex structure or system, would it
be
>>genetic code, living organism, ecosystem, or architecture, cities,
>countries
>> creations of science or art. In every process of (self)organization
there
>>are always two results produced - structure and waste (entropy).
Content of
>>energy is higher in wastes while content of information is higher in
>>structures. Whichever - energy or information - is more important in
this
>>context ?
> SS: Take your pick. As an example where the Universal point of view
>seems to emerge more cogently, perhaps, we can examine the following:
>{entropy production {animal agression {human warfare}}}. Universally we
>see all scripted cultures denouncing warfare, but all engaging in it as
>much as possible nevertheless. In that situation, we cannot find an
>informational content explanation/justification (stimulating the economy?
>-- why do that? S o our population can grow? Why do that?, etc.), and so
>it is easy to drop down to a lower integrative level. Well, here animal
>aggression does not really well explain modern warfare, although this is
>entrained by it in the young males usually assigned to carry out the
>destruction. However, we can easily see that entropy production for the
>Universe is a perfect explanation for it. We cannot resist warfare because
>we cannot resist the most prominent law of Nature.
>
>>So is the ENTROPY the final cause of (self)organization, or is it an
>>inevitable side-effect ?
> SS: It is one (the most general or primary) final cause of it. If you
>are interested in other causes, be my guest -- efficient, material, formal
>causes are all waiting for you to examine them. I am interesting in
>bringing final cause back into the fold of thinking.
>
>>Do we build our architecture (and overall
>>civilization) in order to produce waste and release more energy into
our
>>environment (***thus driving our civilization towards a sure death),
or in
>>order to build something that we could look at, walk through or live
in ?
> SS: As long as we engage in war while denouncing it at the same time,
>I am entitled to say that we build in order to burn so that we may rebuild
>again -- endlessly, with the ultimate result (after our superstructures
lie
>in the sand like the pyramids) of having satisfactorily contributed to
>Universal equilibration.
>
>>Are we having environmental problems because of all the waste (heat,
>>pollution released into our environment) we produce, or should we look
at
>>production of all that waste as the driving force and the final reason
of
>>emergence of our human civilization and all economies ?
> SS: As long as we pursue the fastest energy flowthrough in producing
>whatever we produce, we are first contributing to Universal equilibration,
>and building whatever in order to accomplish that. For example the
American
>love of heavy, fast cars makes no sense unless seen in this light. Here we
>have: {entropy production {nervous system thrill {car racing}}}.
>
>>If the Entropy is the final reason, then it also means that the final
>reason
>>of our civilization is its final death (refer to ***)...
> SS: One must conclude this when looking at, say, American history.
>
>STAN
>>
>>Best regards
>>Viktoras
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>fis mailing list
>>fis@listas.unizar.es
>>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>fis mailing list
>fis@listas.unizar.es
>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sun May 8 23:00:32 2005
