Don mikulecky sticks his nose in again...
Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> Norman K. McPhail wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Gary Boyd wrote:
> > >
> > > At 11:54 25/06/98 -0700, you wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Gary:
> > > >
> > > >Surely, you are aware that some of the best physicists postulate
> > > >non-physical phenomena to help them deal with those "subtle and strange"
> > > >physical unknowns. If they can do it, why can't we?
> > > >
> > > >What's more, we don't discount the fact that we may be able to reduce it
> > > >all down to physics. So please feel free to add your voice to those who
> > > >argue for a purely physical explanation. You may be on to something.
> > > >
> > > >Norm
> > > Righto , norm.
> > > It is just that aesthetically
> > > the simplest possible account often is heuristically the best lead,
>
> I agree Gary. But to my way of thinking, including the non physical
> aspects in the account is the simplest and thus may be the best
> heuristically.
> and it may be the way to crack the fabrication problem! I have a taped
> interview from Rosen. He talks about holding back work from publication
> because of the ethical issues involved. He discounts the impact of what he
has
> published on his conscience because so few of us take him seriously. I've
> passed that point and I find this issue VERY scary.
> > and
> > > more urgently;
> > > I have a sense of "Rome burning,
> > > while cyberneticists & systems thinkers fiddle
> > > with notions which are unlikely(?) to yield any real leverage
> > > to help us steer or halt the techno-pollutive firestorm on planet Earth.
> > > Eh?
>
> I agree that we must understand the physical systems aspects of the
> "techno-pollutive firestorm" as an essential ingredient of guarding the
> long term future well being of planet earth. And I also agree that this
> work can probably be accomplished without the non physical notions we
> are working on.
I think you have missed something VERY important here. I have played around
with
the relational approach to the earth as a system. I come to the same end point
Rosen did with the question of what makes organisms different from machines.
The
answer (in part) lies in using entailment as the question
generator...here..."why
is earth able to sustain life?" the answer (in part) is in it's ability to form
cloosed loops of efficient cause. What you fear is that we we will be able to
destroy these loops. It is possible. Physical reasoning alone won't get us to
this point in understanding!
>
>
> My concern centers around why we humans seem prone to create these
> synthetic bust time situations in the first place. This is not new.
> Our forebears had this bad habit of ruining their food supplies and
> habitat long before civilization. So my question is what can we do to
> keep from killing each other and turning our beautiful blue planet into
> a junk yard?
>
> This involves more that just understanding the chemical and biological
> aspects of our environment and ecosystems. In my opinion, we must also
> have a much better understanding of the beast behind these self
> destructive acts. To me this means understanding what I refer to as
> human understanding.
>
You give the human too much importance...as we all generally do. Bacteria will
probably survive anything we can do! Most of the species that have been here
are
now extinct.
> I am convinced that until we have a much better understanding of our
> selves, we will just be applying band aids to the symptoms of our
> destructive actions. More important, I am also convinced that we cannot
> understand ourselves without dealing with the non physical aspects of
> our human understanding.
>
> This is why all the talk about experience, awareness, consciousness,
> values, memes, instincts, evolution, data, life systems and brain
> processing etc. is so crucial. We are trying to learn how to understand
> our selves and our social, cultural, political and economic systems
> better.
>
> I, for one, think we are beginning to understand our understanding much
> better. And with this understanding, we will gain a much better
> understanding of our selves, each other and our surroundings. To me,
> this is the best and fastest way to deal effectively with the
> "techno-pollutive firestorm" we all ought to be worried about.
>
> Norm McPhail
The issues you raise are certainly beyond the scope of classical science.
Whether the new results from relational thinking help or not requires that more
people try to evaluate them. I think they are crucial, but I have certainly
been
wrong often enough.
Human's role in all this is a big question. If Rosen HAS cracked the
fabrication
problem, this takes on an entirely different meaning!...In his words...It makes
the Manhattan project look like child's play. May I am saying too much
already. Can such knowledge be used for good? Even if it can...who says it
will? Enough.
Best wishes,
Don
--------------9FD43316D560C2A690ADECD8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Don mikulecky sticks his nose in again...
Norman K. McPhail wrote:
Norman K. McPhail wrote:
>
> Dr. Gary Boyd wrote:
> >
> > At 11:54 25/06/98 -0700, you wrote:
> > >
> > >Gary:
> > >
> > >Surely, you are aware that some of the best physicists postulate
> > >non-physical phenomena to help them deal with those "subtle and strange"
> > >physical unknowns. If they can do it, why can't we?
> > >
> > >What's more, we don't discount the fact that we may be able to reduce it
> > >all down to physics. So please feel free to add your voice to those who
> > >argue for a purely physical explanation. You may be on to something.
> > >
> > >Norm
> > Righto , norm.
> > It is just that aesthetically
> > the simplest possible account often is heuristically the best lead,I agree Gary. But to my way of thinking, including the non physical
aspects in the account is the simplest and thus may be the best
heuristically.
and it may be the way to crack the fabrication problem! I have a taped interview from Rosen. He talks about holding back work from publication because of the ethical issues involved. He discounts the impact of what he has published on his conscience because so few of us take him seriously. I've passed that point and I find this issue VERY scary.
I think you have missed something VERY important here. I have played around with the relational approach to the earth as a system. I come to the same end point Rosen did with the question of what makes organisms different from machines. The answer (in part) lies in using entailment as the question generator...here..."why is earth able to sustain life?" the answer (in part) is in it's ability to form cloosed loops of efficient cause. What you fear is that we we will be able to destroy these loops. It is possible. Physical reasoning alone won't get us to this point in understanding!> and
> > more urgently;
> > I have a sense of "Rome burning,
> > while cyberneticists & systems thinkers fiddle
> > with notions which are unlikely(?) to yield any real leverage
> > to help us steer or halt the techno-pollutive firestorm on planet Earth.
> > Eh?I agree that we must understand the physical systems aspects of the
"techno-pollutive firestorm" as an essential ingredient of guarding the
long term future well being of planet earth. And I also agree that this
work can probably be accomplished without the non physical notions we
are working on.
You give the human too much importance...as we all generally do. Bacteria will probably survive anything we can do! Most of the species that have been here are now extinct.My concern centers around why we humans seem prone to create these
synthetic bust time situations in the first place. This is not new.
Our forebears had this bad habit of ruining their food supplies and
habitat long before civilization. So my question is what can we do to
keep from killing each other and turning our beautiful blue planet into
a junk yard?This involves more that just understanding the chemical and biological
aspects of our environment and ecosystems. In my opinion, we must also
have a much better understanding of the beast behind these self
destructive acts. To me this means understanding what I refer to as
human understanding.
The issues you raise are certainly beyond the scope of classical science. Whether the new results from relational thinking help or not requires that more people try to evaluate them. I think they are crucial, but I have certainly been wrong often enough.I am convinced that until we have a much better understanding of our
selves, we will just be applying band aids to the symptoms of our
destructive actions. More important, I am also convinced that we cannot
understand ourselves without dealing with the non physical aspects of
our human understanding.This is why all the talk about experience, awareness, consciousness,
values, memes, instincts, evolution, data, life systems and brain
processing etc. is so crucial. We are trying to learn how to understand
our selves and our social, cultural, political and economic systems
better.I, for one, think we are beginning to understand our understanding much
better. And with this understanding, we will gain a much better
understanding of our selves, each other and our surroundings. To me,
this is the best and fastest way to deal effectively with the
"techno-pollutive firestorm" we all ought to be worried about.Norm McPhail
Human's role in all this is a big question. If Rosen HAS cracked
the fabrication problem, this takes on an entirely different meaning!...In
his words...It makes the Manhattan project look like child's play.
May I am saying too much already. Can such knowledge be used for
good? Even if it can...who says it will? Enough.
Best wishes,
Don
--------------9FD43316D560C2A690ADECD8--