Sascha Ignjatovic wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Mario Vaneechoutte wrote:
>
> > That is what most of us on this list are trying, with very different
outcomes,
> > it appears.
>
> the goal is to find a way that we all can expiriance the same level of
> reallity
>
I find this to be a strange goal..where it has been achieved through the
scientific
method, it seems as if the achievement of sameness requires to much of the
reality
to be lost. When we allow our individuality to help us experience more, we
disdain
the "subjectivity".
> > > > you can not understand the existence of personality-comming out of
> > > > chemicals ?-if yes than try it do mix some chemicals and make some
living
> > > > entity .. good luck :-)
> >
> > Still, that is what evolution has achieved,
>
> i am more in favour of devolution concept-wich says that things are
> developed from top down but for us they look as they are developing
> botom up
what if neither of these is accurate? or both at different times? complex
systems
can not be simplified to such rules...they are context dependent,
irreducable....and
much much more
>
>
> i am always wondering how a lover level system is becoming complexer and
> gets "higher" without geting information and beeing a part of a "external"
> system ?
>
> where you get the "intelligence" for "selforganisation" out of your local
> system ?
since when does self-organization require intelligence? Oil and water self
organize
without any intelligence being involved. The simple and erroneous notions about
entropy and information come from spending to much time looking at very special
system...homogeneous, isolated, etc.
>
>
> in my understanding it is a "mystical" act for a lover level local system
> to evolve true evolution to a higher more complex system just by... what
> ever explanation you use
>
> every local system is a part of the higher level system and gets from them
> the needed information to work and to evolve
an organism needs no information from outside...only fuel
>
>
> what i have spocken about is the "highest posible system" for wich there
> is no scientific research done
>
and there will never will be. science is helpless with such questions
> > unless you claim that we have to throw
> > over board all knowledge gathered by evolutionary biology.
> > Mind exists only when biochemical processing is going on.
>
> as always it depends on wich level in the system you look at all this
> things it may look like from the point of a person who hase seen a other
> perosn sitting in the car and when this person is dont sitting more in the
> car you may think this person dont exists any more-but from the other
> point of view you may see this one person walking out of the car and goes
> the streets down and changes the car and drives away with other or flays
> away with the airplain but becouse the first person look is not beeing
> ablle to know thishe is thinking the other person disapears entyaerly
> it is a point of view
>
> > When this processing stops (death), there is
> > no more mind. At least that is the scientific approach and for the moment we
> > better stick to that. These are the only speculations
> > which can lead to valuable discussions. Ideas coming from subjective
> > mystical experiences are of limited use (although these mystic
> > experiences are truly experienced, no doubt).
>
> we have seen the limits of the "scientific" world view and the "tools"
> they are using to understand how this compex system material universe is
> working - it is a "problem" of conciesnes level and the point of view
> -for one person he is shure that when this person is not sitting in the
> car she dont exists any more
> -for other person he hase seeing him changing the cars and knows he is
> just out of our direct visual perception but with intelectual means
> you can understand becouse this person is not in my direct sight field
> dont means that this person don exists "any more"
>
> we put tomuch waight into the "power" of direct sensual expiriance and
> "one particular" point of viuew
>
> it is a tricky thing to place the "local single point of view" as the
> "ultimate alldeterminating point of view" - becouse "for you it looks
> complitely right..."
>
> no problem with evelotionary biology but as a part of a higher system
> and not as a "independent selfevolving and organizing system"
>
> from a lover level point of view it looks as this thing are evolvong by
> itself but from a diferent point of view you may see this system geting
> information from a higher level system you are not be ablle to see at the
> moment
>
> so this was my contribution
>
> the "wholle system aproach"
>
> > Why don't you try by studying evolutionary biology? That would be far more
> > simpler and far more efficient.
>
> becouse e-biology is "one point of view" and we will not be ablle to
> understand the "wholle system" from the standpoint of a single part of the
> system we even would not be ablle to understand the part system by
> studying itself allone
>
> > Each time science seems to reach some boundaries - at least according to the
> > interpretation of some, God comes in again. Quite an interesting phenomenon,
> > this recurrent need for some all mighty deity. Something for
> > memeticists.
>
> what i am trying is to bring us to the level of logical and
> systemtheoretical research wich will help us to overcome the boundaries of
> "direct sensual perception" and do our research by "our brain" instade by
> "our eyes"
yes.....this is important to realize. The empirical approach has severe
limitations
and has been totally adapted to the reductionist/mechanist world view. However,
the
way to go beyond this requires many new ways of looking at things. Each will
contribute another aspect.
>
>
> "what i direct can percieve is right and what not it dont exists"
>
> with our eyes we can not see the air but with some instruments we see
> its there
>
> so i am trying to help to develope instruments wich will enable us to
> "look deeper" into the system of the world
>
> and the system of mathematics and system theories wich are aplayablle to
> our physical living and societal systems seems the posible way to go
>
> > We all should try to be universalists, but we should work
> > systematically and use the vast knowledge already gathered by science,
> > instead of making just-so speculations.
>
> we should be universalists and work from both direction
>
> botom up and top down
>
> at the same time
> and meet in the middle :-)
>
> > Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.be
>
> thanks
> sascha
Besides Rosen, we have a list of books on our complexity page...may I reccommend
Bortoft: "The wholeness of Nature:......." see
http://views.vcu.edu/complexity/respectfully,
Don Mikulecky