Posted on 11/25/2009 5:15:33 AM PST by nysuperdoodle
So, how many millions of lives do you think have been lost to your abolitionist buddy’s ideas?
I'll have to take exception here. I dont believe that anyone who has invoked evolutionary theory to justify mass murder is revealing his true motive. Rather, I think the theory is used as a convenient cover story for the real motive.
Whatever one's view on the subject, it has nothing to do with the validity of the theory. Scientific theories are liable to abuse. So is the Bible.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
I came to this conclusion by your statement; "all know life is cybernetic, yet self-ordering, limited by physical laws, are not capable of cybernetic programming, program for a potential function, control and regulate integrated formal functions, produce prescriptive information, or manifest utility, and other characteristics of complex functioning biological machines.
I could be wrong by coming up with my assertion, maybe I'm not reading your essay correctly. In any case, it sounds like you have something, I'd like to see how it plays out.
I see where your coming from now. It would be more accurate to say, nature cannot make the watch, therefore, someone had to make the watch. If you find a broken watch, you can say, the watch broke becuase of natural forces, but would it be appropriate to say, the same force that broke the watch, created the watch?
I am not a theist, but I do not accept any current evolutionary hypothesis, apparently for different reasons from yours.
For example:
“.. considering bona fide self-organization is physically impossible ..”
First, do you regard any of these as physical: life, consciousness, volition?
If you believe life is a physical attribute (not the organism, but the attribute that makes an otherwise non-living entity into a living one), since life is self-oranizing, it would obvious not be a “physical impossibility.”
If you do not believe life is a physical attribute, then the question of what is “physically” possible is irrelevant. It is only necessary for the attribute of life to be present for self-organization to be possible. Since an organism is a physical entity capable of having the attribute “life,” physicalness is certainly no limit to self-organization.
Your argument, to me, seems to addresses nothing at all. Even if it did, there is no basis for the assertion. Consider a flame. It may not be self-initiating, but it is certainly self-organized, sustaining itself, and even reproducing.
Hank
Very good Dr. ;)
“First, do you regard any of these as physical: life, consciousness, volition?”
No, they are all formal, but how do you make the jump from physicodynamic to formalism?
“If you believe life is a physical attribute (not the organism, but the attribute that makes an otherwise non-living entity into a living one), since life is self-oranizing, it would obvious not be a “physical impossibility.””
Life is not self-organizing. Bona Fide self-organization has never been observed.
“It is only necessary for the attribute of life to be present for self-organization to be possible.”
Please be more clear.
“Your argument, to me, seems to addresses nothing at all.”
The purpose was to examine self-organization and self-ordering phenomenon in order to clarify the differences. Self-ordering and self-organization are not interchangeable.
“Consider a flame. It may not be self-initiating, but it is certainly self-organized, sustaining itself, and even reproducing.”
A flame is an example of self-ordering. A flame does nothing useful. A flame does not produce any kind of useful utility or formal function, it’s merely acting in accordance of physical law, it’s purely physicodynamic. You erroneous use the term self-organizing in place of self-ordering.
Also remember that formal choices instantiate themselves into a physical matrix. There is only one way this happens; formal to physical.
“self-organization has never been observed”
So, there is no basis whatsoever for assuming there is such a thing.
I do not think you are going to get very far as long as you insist in making your arguments in terms of your own private language. What for example to you mean by “self-organization,” “self-ordering,” and your very bizarre use of the word, “formal.”
And what in the world does this mean? “Life is not self-organizing.” Ah, what attribute of a tree exactly is responsible for the tree’s form, growth, and reproduction? What is it that “organizes” all the elements into a living tree and sustains it, if not the life of the tree.
Hank
“So, there is no basis whatsoever for assuming there is such a thing.”
Correct.
“I do not think you are going to get very far as long as you insist in making your arguments in terms of your own private language. What for example to you mean by “self-organization,” “self-ordering,” and your very bizarre use of the word, “formal.””
Ugh? You don’t understand the meaning of those terms? “Bizarre”
Very interesting.
“And what in the world does this mean? “Life is not self-organizing.””
Living organisms do not organize themselves internally, they only find themselves in a already organized organism.
“Ah, what attribute of a tree exactly is responsible for the tree’s form, growth, and reproduction?”
Pre-programmed choices, which are instantiated into the physical world.
“What is it that “organizes” all the elements into a living tree and sustains it, if not the life of the tree.”
There is no mechanism for self-organization; “life” is not a mechanism for self-organization. What is the relevance of life?
“What is the relevance of life?”
To what?
Hank
What is the relevance of life in a discussion concerned with self-organizing and self-ordering?
“What is the relevance of life in a discussion concerned with self-organizing and self-ordering?”
Since you’ve not bothered to differentiate between self-organizing and self-ordering, according to whatever you mean by those terms, there is no relevance.
But life differentiates an entire class of existents from the mere physical, and is relevant to everything that has to do with living.
Have a pleasant evening friend.
Hank
How many times have you been banned now?
Courtesy ping to the above post.
“Since you’ve not bothered to differentiate between self-organizing and self-ordering, according to whatever you mean by those terms, there is no relevance.”
The whole essay was concerned with self-ordering and self-organizing, yet you say I did not bother to tell the difference between the two. Very interesting.
“But life differentiates an entire class of existents from the mere physical, and is relevant to everything that has to do with living.”
True, what does life have to do with self-ordering and self-organizing?
Here is another draft, still needs some work.
The scientific community has mistakenly called self-ordering phenomena, self-organizing. A self-ordered phenomenon is not to be confused with self-organized. Self-order are events determined by the laws of nature. Bona fide self-organization, on the other hand, is the ordering of physical elements in such as way that yield complex formal function, requiring choice with intent. Self-organization and self-ordered should be thoroughly examined to correct the current paradigm. Many scientific papers have been published that presuppose self-organization as observed fact, despite the absences of empirical support; only self-ordering has been observed.
Stand-alone physicodynamics has never been observed to give rise to sophisticated formal function nor a formal utility of any kind, yet scientist hold the metaphysical belief that unaided physicodynamics can give rise to complex formal function; this is lacking empirical support. Self-ordering events are in accordance with physical law. No known law has been observed to give rise to formal self-organization, laws do the same thing every time: they are forced behaviors, they do not program at any level, nor generate the organization, coordination, and cooperation required by complex formal function. When we, as intelligent humans, organize something, we do so with a choice in mind; mere chance and combinatorial complexity is not organization. Organization does not take place, in the absence of someone making the correct choices. Randomness of physical elements cannot self-organize, however, they can self-order.
One of the requirements of organization is true decision nodes at every level, pre-programmed to make the correct choice that steer toward a formal function. All know life is cybernetic, yet self-ordering, limited by physical laws, is not capable of cybernetic programming, program for a potential function, steer toward pragmatic benefit, controlling and regulating integrated formal function, produce prescriptive information, or manifest useful utility, and other characteristics of complex functioning biological machines. In other words, self-ordering events do nothing useful; there is no goal, only an agent can do this.
We cannot self-organize ourselves internally, we only find ourselves in a already organized organism. Self-organization cannot happen in accordance with physical law, because physical laws of themselves do nothing. Self-organization can only take place if free from physical laws; natural forces do not make choices with intent, a requirement of formal self-organization, but even free of physical constraint does not program any kind of sophisticated formal function.
The current paradigm is what most scientists believe, not what is true. Most scientists believe self-organization has been observed, but in reality self-order is being observed. Self-ordered phenomenon is purely physicodynamic, not formal. Formal choices are instantiated into a physical matrix when you perform an action, which is not determined by natural laws. When you do something, such as build a car, you are instantiating your thoughts (non-physical) in the physical world by dynamically inert configurable switches. Configurable switches bridges formal to physicality and are only set my formal choices; unaided physicodynamics cannot set the switch. Physical law will not built the car, it is only when you make the choice and intend to carry out that decision, will the car be built. There is a one-way flow, that is formal toward physicodynamic. Self-organization requires freedom from constraints of natural laws, and is always the result of choice with intent.
Dear Dr. John,
Thank you for taking the time to make your very long response. I honestly admit I find much of what you have written incomprehensible. I think you have unwittingly “made up” concepts without explaining them. If that is my shortcoming, so be it.
Philosophy has been one of my fields of study for over 55 years, so I do know a little about it. (My other fields are literature, history, religion, electronics, computer science, physics and chemistry. Characters like me used to be called polymaths, but most people today would not even know what the word means. Most all of us are also autodydacts, another word most people would not recognize.
I doubt very much much if you and I would agree on much, but if you are interested in investigating philosophy (admittedly mine), you might begin here:
http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/philosophy/philosophy_index.php
This is somewhat early material, but my views have not changed much from any of what is presented in these notes.
Thank you for your response.
Here is my current WEB page, by the way:
http://usabig.com/iindv/jrnl.php
All my best.
Hank
“I think you have unwittingly “made up” concepts without explaining them.”
Thanks for the feedback. Fortunately, I have already been told this. On my final draft,however, I will incorporate the definitions in the essay, at least some of them.
Your website it very interesting. Is the body/mind problem still alive?
“Is the body/mind problem still alive?”
Well, it’s always there in some philosophical discussions. Today, since most people have swallowed the physicalist pill, meaning they believe the physical is all there is, the problem of volition in a physical (deterministic) world comes up, and you have the absurd suggestion that such things as quantum uncertainty are the way out of the dilemma.
For me there is no dilemma because there is obviously more than the physical.
Not sure I’ve answered your question. You can let me know if I haven’t.
Glad you found my website interesting and thanks for that comment.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.