Posted on 10/20/2003 10:49:13 AM PDT by yonif
Yes, that is in essence what he maintains, if I'm reading him right. Further, he thinks man plays an absolutely critical role in the evolutionary process of the entire Universe.
Of course, it is always possible that certain Magyar terms are not aptly captured by the English terms in which Grandpierre's translator has chosen to express them. English words frequently used in his articles -- such as "collective" and "spiritual" -- may carry connotations for us that Grandpierre doesn't intend.
I've argued in the past that it is a general property and consequence of universal transaction theoretic (e.g. any effectively finite state) computational systems. There is a lovely explanation of the necessity of a trend towards high-entropy representations that can be made from transaction theory when dealing with finite state systems. But it isn't something I'll explain today (I may have done it in the past here), just mention in passing.
Or you could call it "the Life Fairy," but I'm not sure why you'd want to think of it that way. A more conventional view would be that self-reproducing behaviors lead to more self-reproducing behaviors. Without a designer (Gasp!) you might need a lot of dumb luck to get that first self-reproducer. The thing is, dumb luck happens, especially in chaos. Especially with lots of time. This "life principle" is something else. The choice would seem to be whether to conjecture up a thing never seen or observed directly at all or ... not.
I think there is a tendency among Darwinists to see living organisms as entirely discrete and distinct from each other. Certainly it looks that way. However, physicists tell us that all of nature is comprised of various morphogenetic (e.g., EM and quantum vacuum) fields. And fields are universal and common (or “collective”). Organisms that “set up” in fields are not, strictly speaking, entirely discrete. Particle exchanges go on incessantly, both within and between organisms. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that some kind of “life principle” exists that can bring all the relevant fields into resonant coupling for the purpose of expressing and sustaining biological life, both with respect to the entire biota, and also to particular organisms.
I'm not going to say anything against resonant coupling. Sounds like fun. Not exactly sure where you're going with it, though.
Nor will I dissect Grandpierre in detail, but he comes across as rather mystic. My guess is he overstates the difficulties and limitations of communications by ordinary sight, sound, smell, touch, and nerve impulse to enforce a need for something a little jazzier but only vaguely described.
His concept of "What is Life?" sits well with me, Platonist that I am. And I do not see a rock having consciousness per se either, though it would not surprise me if the rock were part of the life equation in a passive sort of way. LOL!
And yet you have never seen or observed directly -- ever -- any physical law or principle. Yet you believe there are physical laws all the same, don't you VR?
In a nutshell, whatever the "life principle" is in all its details, one thing we do know about it: It acts to counter the tendency of all physical systems to achieve the state of equilibrium. Equilibrium -- "heat death" -- is the death of a living organism's life.
Since organisms live and persist as long as they do despite the urgent physical "mandate" directing all physical systems toward a state of equilibrium (disorder), logically there must be some principle that accounts for such persistence. Ergo: the "life principle." That's what Ervin Bauer, a theoretical biologist, called it anyway, back in the '20s and '30s of the last century.
Oh I do agree, A-G! For one thing, rocks emit particles via natural radioactive decay that may become part of any living system. It has been said that ultimately, we living organisms -- and inorganic systems as well -- are all built up out of "star dust."
Laws and principles get observed all the time. At least, the useful ones have observable and predictable consequences. Gravity is nice and predictable (until just lately) and has observable consequences. The luminiferous ether (the stuff light waves supposedly wave in) proved in the Michelson-Morely experiment to have no observable consequences. Light didn't after all behave in the manner of waves in some static medium. This didn't so much mean that ether (an invisible and intangible fluid filling all of space) didn't exist as that it wasn't doing the job it was invented to do. Suddenly left with no role to fill, the ether was rejected as a useless idea.
In a nutshell, whatever the "life principle" is in all its details, one thing we do know about it: It acts to counter the tendency of all physical systems to achieve the state of equilibrium. Equilibrium -- "heat death" -- is the death of a living organism's life.
We see mechanisms which tend to stave off death in organisms, yes. Sounds almost like you're reinventing Darwin here. The better you stave off heat death, or "getting eaten" death, or whatever, the more likely you will reproduce successfully.
That may be true of something such as say a rubik's cube or some such known entity. However, here we have been speaking of consciousness, and of proving things about which we do not know how they work. In such cases there is no data on which to make a mathematical calculation. And this is indeed all that math can do, it can only calculate, it cannot give us the answers as to how to do things. It also cannot give us probabilities on questions for which there is no data.
Naw, it didn't. Light can be a particle (photon) or a wave, depending on the conditions of the observation. I don't think there is any kind of "static medium" anywhere in the Universe: Everything is moving, all the time. I think the ether theory was "credible" once upon a time; but it was subsequently falsified experimentally; and so no one credits it anymore. Science progressed when the ether was laid to rest, so to speak.
Science has always been willing to walk away from failed theories in the past.
In the pre-Michelson-Morley world, there had once been competing theories of light: the particle theory and the wave theory. I read somewhere that one of James Clerk Maxwell's students asked him, "What happened to the particle theory of light?" Maxwell said, "Everyone who believed in it died."
At one point, we could explain it all with waves. Then we got more data and we couldn't.
Ah, the joys of science!!! [ Seriously. :^) ] As new information/data become available, our theories get modified....
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.