This is a response to Alexei's comment about my thought experiment on
epistemology relating to will:
Yes, it was one of his recent popularizations titled "Full House" in which
he argues the statistical certainties theme using an analogy with baseball.
Personally, I think it applies more appropriately with baseball, but even
that tends to deny genuine human effort to improve the play, looking
instead at the statistical liklihood that any number of baseball games have
filled the set of all possible high scores, and thus explaining the
apparent "improvement" in games by the simple statistic that some of the
high score possibilities have not yet occurred. The players, however, do
not think that what they are doing is random, and the statistical outcomes
Gould discusses probably miss some creative improvements at the personal
level.
The example of gas rather misses the point too. Take instead the concept of
gravitational force. Can you provide a basis for that? The concept is
defined in terms of a Newtonian worldview (which is fine in its realm), in
other words it is defined according to how it behaves, not according to
what it is. Will can also be described behavorially, however this cannot,
as you lament, convey its true nature. Only direct experience can do that.
With regard to the gas molecules, the Newtonian interpretation is indeed
the more useful for predicting the behavior of gass, which we do not
consider to be very much alive. Classical concepts however do not help us
predict quantum behavior or psychological behavior, and as is being
discovered in other fields, perhaps a whole range of phenomenon associated
with things that are more alive. Many authors have cited the similarities
between quantum behavior and aspects associated with life and particularly
psyche. It is not that these must necessarily share the same cause, but it
is very much that these share a non-classial nature that is NOT describable
by the concepts you cite. Hence, while one MIGHT describe the behavior of a
classical gas in terms of will, it would be inappropriate to do so because
at the classical/macroscopic level the gas molecules do not display these
behavioral properties that defy classical interpretation.
Now I know this is problematic and we don't collectively know how to deal
with it, but I don't think the answer is to ignore it on principle.
Can you, for example, provide a clear definition for what is "alive," i.e.,
one that captures both behavioral and experiential aspects? Or is direct
experience not relevant either? And if this definition is unclear, should
we then ignor the concept of "alive?"
At 02:27 PM 1/15/98 -0500, you wrote:
>>Let's take as a basic question the evolution of complexity and the
>>evolution of consciousness (whether they are related or not). S.J. Gould
>>(recent book) maintains that there are no evolutionary drives toward
>>complexity - that it is a statistical certainty based on the greater number
>>of complex niches available compared to simple ones.
>
>The notion of "drive" or "will" is not clearly defined. Thus,
>I don't see any ground for discussion. For example, pressure
>is a statistical consequence of molecule collisions with the wall.
>But the same pressure can be interpreted as a will of the gas to
>expand. I don't see any contradiction here. These are just 2
>interpretations of the same phenomenon, one of which considers the
>mechanism and the other does not. The second interpretation
>may be useful for practical purposes but the first gives more
>information, and thus it is preferred.
>
>I disagree that "will" is located in those areas that are not
>described by science (singularities).
>
>Can you give me the reference to the book of Gould? His idea is
>nice (actually, I reinvented it myself).
>
>-Alexei
>-------------------------------------------------
>Alexei Sharov Research Scientist
>Dept. of Entomology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061
>Tel. (540) 231-7316; FAX (540) 231-9131; e-mail sharov@vt.edu
>Home page: http://www.gypsymoth.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/alexei.html
>
>
-----------------------------------------------
John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
(303) 497-6900 (phone)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)
jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)