Don Mikulecky replies:
Tom Abel wrote:
> As an anthropologist it is interesting to see all this discussion in my In
> box. I guess it is more us anthropology folk--who's business it is to
> think about historic and present cultures--that are especially sensitive to
> the shaping influence that our culture has on us. But do most people
> believe that they're perception of the world is the "real" perception of
> the world--shared by everyone (or at least all "educated", or "muslim", or
> "croatian", or "streetwise", pick your own group)? This is as would be
> expected, because that's what culture does, it shapes our perceptions for
> us into a mostly coherent, reasonable, model of the world, a view of the
> world that seems "natural". Once the world is held constant, I suppose
> someone can talk about "free will". But that misses a hell of alot.
>
> So if "free will" is the question, my answer is "don't care". It is FAR
> more interesting to study the constraints, to study the structure of our
> cultural milieu that shapes the way we see the world. It is then far more
> interesting to study WHY our cultural milieu is the way it is. In other
> words, to study the way particular cultural systems have evolved.
In particular, the cultural basis for the "discovery" of complexity is a key
item. I will be speaking about this at the New England Complexity meeting in
a week and a half( self reference: for cultural reasons my talk won't be on
the program, but will be announced to some attendee's privately or by flier.
) The issue of cultural reasons for what we believe as scientists is a hot one
and I will have some fun with this. What I try to stress to the PCP group is
that the influence of the Newtonian, Reductionist, Mechanist belief structure
is far more pervasive and limiting than they imagine. Since we all were shaped
by it it is hard to see that.
> To me,
> that's where complex systems theory can be productive. Biological
> evolutionary dynamics, cultural evolutionary dynamics, ecosystem dynamics,
> these are where the action is. Does indeterminancy play a role--chance,
> surprise? Absolutely. That's the lesson from studies of the dynamics of
> ecosystems, for example. And it's, no doubt, an important part of the
> process of cultural change. But whether this equates to "free will" is not
> important to my mind. The philosophers can keep that one.
>
> TA
>
> **************************************************************
> Tom Abel Wk: 352-392-4684
> University of Florida Fax: 352-846-1726
> http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/abeltd/
> **************************************************************
The free will issue is but one example of the impredicativities raised by the
mind/brain question. We don't need it to make the point, but since it has been
raised, why not use it?
The real issue is the epistemology of the mechanistic vs the complex
interpretations of mind.
Respectfully,
Don Mikulecky
--------------77FDB8954E0787710A5618E5
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Don Mikulecky
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Don Mikulecky
n: Mikulecky;Don
org: Department of Physiology, MCV/VCU
email;internet: mikuleck@hsc.vcu.edu
title: Professor
note: First International Laboratory for the Application of Analysis
Situs to P hysiology(FILASAP)
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard
--------------77FDB8954E0787710A5618E5--