Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Peter F. · Guest

In sci.physics.research "Oz" wrote: "Classical systems do have a space of
states.
Indeed much of physics is finding the states, and in particular
separating them into classes."

Extrapolating to evolutionary biology:
Our phylogeny has its fitness landscapes and, implicitly, the evolutionary
pressures that shaped their realized potentials.

Finding "the states" that directly pertain to evolutionary psychobiology
similarly requires "separating into classes".

I have found that an optimal approach for achieving a *supplementary* (or
complementary and hitherto largely missing) unifying understanding of our
psychological (and behavioural) current selves and the phylogeny of our
phenotype is to (similarly) 'separate out' a couple (or so) classes of
broadly thematic patterns of evolutionary pressures *impacting on (and
through) individuals*.

Characterisitc snapshots of different kinds of environmental (and all kinds
of *effectively endogenous*) selection pressures can, from the perspective
of individuals (of populations in the phylogeny of fauna), be classified as
sometimes predominantly of being of opportunity type, at other times of
predominantly adversity type, and at yet other times of a *mixture* of
significant "opportunity AND adversity type" (evolutionary pressures).

Evolutionary/life-situational adversity can in turn be classified so as to
reveal a type of evolutionarily as well as individually significant
situations that range from being slowly to rapidly traumatizing (or
"selective 'Hibernation' imploring").

The in the phylogeny of fauna significant life-situations that consisted of
*a mixture* of the last-mention subtype of adversity type
evolutionary/environmental/"effectively endogenous" pressures, and
evolutionary/environmental/effectively endogenous opportunity type
evolutionary pressures, are encapsulated and concEPTualized (with pragmatic
tenuousness) as "AEVASIVE".

That AEVASIVE also implicitly paints a both poignant and playful picture of
behavioral and neurophysiological correlates of this *de facto principle*
(an as if 'sub principle' to Darwin>s super principle "natural selection")
ought just to strengthen the appeal of this my "explanatory philosophical
term". %-}

Yours mainly seriously this time,

P

TomHendricks474 · Guest

<< Characterisitc snapshots of different kinds of environmental (and all kinds
of *effectively endogenous*) selection pressures can, from the perspective
of individuals (of populations in the phylogeny of fauna), be classified as
sometimes predominantly of being of opportunity type, at other times of
predominantly adversity type, and at yet other times of a *mixture* of
significant "opportunity AND adversity type" (evolutionary pressures).
[quote]
[/quote]

I think you are restating my 4 options.
Any single individual can

In relation to anything or any other individual outside of himself either
1. move toward what he wants and take
2. move against what he does not want and not take - protect from -

In relation to anything within himself he can
3. move toward and keep - nurturing
4. move against and not keep -excrete out waste - protection

These 2 sets of behaviors - one set concerning what>s outside the individual
and one set concerning what>s inside the individual cover everything. They
suggest 4 and only 4 specific ways an organism can evolve.

Tom

Peter F. · Guest

"TomHendricks474" <tomhendricks474@cs.com> wrote in message
news:br2a9h$3jf$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
[quote]Characterisitc snapshots of different kinds of environmental (and all
kinds
of *effectively endogenous*) selection pressures can, from the perspective
of individuals (of populations in the phylogeny of fauna), be classified
as
sometimes predominantly of being of opportunity type, at other times of
predominantly adversity type, and at yet other times of a *mixture* of
significant "opportunity AND adversity type" (evolutionary pressures).

I think you are restating my 4 options.
Any single individual can

In relation to anything or any other individual outside of himself either
1. move toward what he wants and take
2. move against what he does not want and not take - protect from -

In relation to anything within himself he can
3. move toward and keep - nurturing
4. move against and not keep -excrete out waste - protection

These 2 sets of behaviors - one set concerning what>s outside the
individual
and one set concerning what>s inside the individual cover everything. They
suggest 4 and only 4 specific ways an organism can evolve.
[/quote]
I am sure to be restating, in one way or another, your options - precisely
because they really are *so* generally applicable.

I am ready and willing to adopt any aspect of your thinking (or anyone
else>s for that matter) IF I see that it *reinforcingly* fits into my
'fuzzilogical' [in parts even 'fuzzsilly logical' but always EPT %-]
understanding of (and perversely philosophical undertaking to point-out and
uncover) "The Blindspot" of biological sciences and much human behaviours
beyond.

This far I have adopted your "energy moderator" concept - since it is as
good, or better, than most of its kind! :-)

Peter

John Edser · Guest

PF:-
I am sure to be restating, in one way or another, your options - precisely
because they really are *so* generally applicable.

JE:-
Precisely. TH cannot understand (and he is in good
company because most Profs and PhD>s cannot understand!)
that a general explanation that is "so good" that no
observation can be proposed that can refute
it, is NOT a good thing it is just TERMINAL to that
idea being a valid proposition of _science_.

People refuse to read Popper so they wrongly suppose
that their general dictates are just that, _dictates_,
and not testable theories. Do we have to fall
all the way back to the middle ages and start
burning witches at the stake all over again
just to rediscover that any general verifiable
but non refutable view is NOT a proposition
of SCIENCE?

Best Wishes

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@ozemail.com.au

Guy Hoelzer · Guest

in article br7nst$1ndj$1@darwin.ediacara.org, John Edser at
edser@ozemail.com.au wrote on 12/10/03 10:15 AM:

[quote]PF:-
I am sure to be restating, in one way or another, your options - precisely
because they really are *so* generally applicable.

JE:-
Precisely. TH cannot understand (and he is in good
company because most Profs and PhD>s cannot understand!)
that a general explanation that is "so good" that no
observation can be proposed that can refute
it, is NOT a good thing it is just TERMINAL to that
idea being a valid proposition of _science_.
[/quote]
I agree entirely with this statement. Science is a structured endeavor to
approach and understanding of physical Truth, and once an aspect of Truth is
"known" (unopposed by alternative models) there is no more that science has
to offer. This is why scientists should embrace our uncertainties. To
prematurely claim that an aspect of Truth is known is to interfere with
process of science. On the other hand, it is a waste of time for scientists
to seek false assumptions just to maintain the façade that there is
something for science to do. Scientists should be prepared to accept an
understanding of reality, which should inform the kinds of assumptions we
are willing to make in models of poorly understood phenomena, contingent on
the conceptualization of plausible alternatives.

Cheers,

Guy

Peter F · Guest

"John Edser" <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:br7nst$1ndj$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
[quote]

PF:-
I am sure to be restating, in one way or another, your options - precisely
because they really are *so* generally applicable.

JE:-
Precisely. TH cannot understand (and he is in good
company because most Profs and PhD>s cannot understand!)
that a general explanation that is "so good" that no
observation can be proposed that can refute
it, is NOT a good thing it is just TERMINAL to that
idea being a valid proposition of _science_.

People refuse to read Popper so they wrongly suppose
that their general dictates are just that, _dictates_,
and not testable theories. Do we have to fall
all the way back to the middle ages and start
burning witches at the stake all over again
just to rediscover that any general verifiable
but non refutable view is NOT a proposition
of SCIENCE?

[/quote]
Just a note to assure people that I am not another (you, John, being *the*
one) unrelenting relisher of refutability. ;-)

When it comes to the crunch I don>t know what you mean by "refutability" in
context of existing organisms (genophenotypes) being the ways they/we are as
a result of opportunity type evolutionary pressures producing patterns for
pruning by adversity type selection pressures.

In fact I am by now fairly sure that no-one else understands what you mean,
either.

Take something as verifiable but not realistically refutable (because it is
approximately reflects reality) as my "EPT" formulation of how especially we
human animals came to function and behave the ways we do; EPT being
essentially in rational alignment with relevant and scientifically (by
Science#) established: principles, theories, interpretations and concepts
whilst throwing a slither of new explanatory light on a previously largely
missed reasons, causes, and details of why and how we are the ways we are.

Why would you insist that rationally (mathematical or not) and conceptually
framed regular observations (reliable pattern recognitions) needs to be made
refutable?!

Best wishes,

Peter

--
# Science meant and seen holistically; as an historical process of involving
all kinds of human learning - only partly consisting of methodical checking
using controled variables - and gathering of an increasingly precise and
increasingly broad and richly cross-correlated knowledge about and insight
into What Is going on.

John Edser · Guest

[quote]PF:-
I am sure to be restating, in one way or another, your options - precisely
because they really are *so* generally applicable.

JE:-
Precisely. TH cannot understand (and he is in good
company because most Profs and PhD>s cannot understand!)
that a general explanation that is "so good" that no
observation can be proposed that can refute
it, is NOT a good thing it is just TERMINAL to that
idea being a valid proposition of _science_.
[/quote]
GH:-
I agree entirely with this statement. Science is a structured endeavor to
approach and understanding of physical Truth, and once an aspect of Truth is
"known" (unopposed by alternative models) there is no more that science has
to offer. This is why scientists should embrace our uncertainties. To
prematurely claim that an aspect of Truth is known is to interfere with
process of science. On the other hand, it is a waste of time for scientists
to seek false assumptions just to maintain the façade that there is
something for science to do. Scientists should be prepared to accept an
understanding of reality, which should inform the kinds of assumptions we
are willing to make in models of poorly understood phenomena, contingent on
the conceptualization of plausible alternatives.

JE:-
Does your agreement now mean that you agree that only
refutable ideas can be empirically separated from
each other so that non refutable ideas can never
be scientific views until they become refutable
as Popper argued? If so, you must put this view into
practice. You never replied to my reply, that stated
you cannot validly assume that both random and non random
processes can cause a non random pattern since when you
do, it becomes impossible to distinguish between them,
empirically.

Best Wishes,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@ozemail.com.au

John Edser · Guest

[quote]JE:-
In the case where the _perception_ of the pattern
is not just an inherited biological response
then "the probability of for the pattern",
(my interpretation: the probability that the pattern
is a significant _non_ random pattern) is
an _independent_ question that must be _firstly_
solved before the question re: any supposed
process caused that pattern.

BOH:-
But how do you solve this problem, without making any assumptions about
the process?

JE:-
The only assumption you need to make about
such a process is that a process caused the
pattern, i.e. the pattern did not just cause
itself.
[/quote]
GH:-
Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that this assumption is false in many
circumstances.

JE:-
I do not agree. It is "abundantly clear" that
this assumption is NOT VERIFIED in many circumstances.
We have travelled this route before. It appears you do
not discriminate between a non verification and a
refutation.

GH:-
This is what "self-organization" is all about. The
pattern/process dichotomy is a false distinction in the context of
dissipative systems, and the process/pattern does indeed cause itself.

JE:-
Any testable causal chain of logic requires a minimum of two
linkages that are non reversibly linked. The observation of magnetic
lines of force are not assumed to cause a magnet, the magnet is
assumed to cause the observations of lines of force. In this case,
one logical link is the black box: the magnetic process. The other is
what has come out of it: an observed magnetic pattern. The causative
assumption is that the process causes the pattern excluding
the reverse: the pattern causes the process i.e. it is _not_ just a
non testable tautological causative loop, it is a specific non reversible,
supposition of cause and affect within nature which has a causative
_antithesis_: the pattern causes the process. The antithesis
refutes the thesis and vice versa. No antithesis, no thesis.

In my view "self-organization" just means we have no testable
view of causation at the moment and NOT that it is now valid to
claim that something can be validly be supposed to just cause
itself. If you allow a tautology of causation into
the sciences then anything and everything becomes "science",
so science is destroyed.

GH:-
IMHO, the question on the table now is whether this is true of ALL systems
in the universe.

JE:-
This is not a rational proposition because
we must test all processes in the universe
to find out. A better assumption is that no
systems can self organise as a causative
tautology so that the burden of proof is
shifted to those who think it can. The
reason it is right and proper to
do so is because epistemologically,
no tautology can be tested. As an example,
we cannot rationally invest our limited
resources to test all the processes of the universe
to find out if any could provide energy
at a zero cost, i.e. a tautological supposition
of energy. We make the law that
no more energy can be extracted from a
system than exists within it. The burden
of proof is rightfully shifted on to those
who argue otherwise.

GH:-
I readily admit that patterns exist that did not
self-organize, but are generated by self-organizing systems (e.g. human
artwork or rocks); such structures, however, are not generative systems.
They are always degenerative systems.

JE:-
Why is it true that: "such structures, however,
are not generative systems. They are always
degenerative systems".

Best Wishes,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@ozemail.com.au

Guy Hoelzer · Guest

in article brcqk6$79d$1@darwin.ediacara.org, John Edser at
edser@ozemail.com.au wrote on 12/12/03 8:33 AM:

[quote]JE:-
Precisely. TH cannot understand (and he is in good
company because most Profs and PhD>s cannot understand!)
that a general explanation that is "so good" that no
observation can be proposed that can refute
it, is NOT a good thing it is just TERMINAL to that
idea being a valid proposition of _science_.

GH:-
I agree entirely with this statement. Science is a structured endeavor to
approach and understanding of physical Truth, and once an aspect of Truth is
"known" (unopposed by alternative models) there is no more that science has
to offer. This is why scientists should embrace our uncertainties. To
prematurely claim that an aspect of Truth is known is to interfere with
process of science. On the other hand, it is a waste of time for scientists
to seek false assumptions just to maintain the façade that there is
something for science to do. Scientists should be prepared to accept an
understanding of reality, which should inform the kinds of assumptions we
are willing to make in models of poorly understood phenomena, contingent on
the conceptualization of plausible alternatives.

JE:-
Does your agreement now
[/quote]
I would always have agreed with this statement. I don>t recall seeing you
post this view before without it being intertwined with other views that put
me off.

[quote]mean that you agree that only
refutable ideas can be empirically separated from
each other so that non refutable ideas can never
be scientific views until they become refutable
as Popper argued?
[/quote]
No.

[quote]If so, you must put this view into
practice. You never replied to my reply, that stated
you cannot validly assume that both random and non random
processes can cause a non random pattern since when you
do, it becomes impossible to distinguish between them,
empirically.
[/quote]
I have replied to it. Our posts must have crossed paths. I still disagree
with the very foundation of this view.

Best Wishes,

Guy

Guy Hoelzer · Guest

in article brcqk7$7a2$1@darwin.ediacara.org, John Edser at
edser@ozemail.com.au wrote on 12/12/03 8:33 AM:

[quote]JE:-
In the case where the _perception_ of the pattern
is not just an inherited biological response
then "the probability of for the pattern",
(my interpretation: the probability that the pattern
is a significant _non_ random pattern) is
an _independent_ question that must be _firstly_
solved before the question re: any supposed
process caused that pattern.

BOH:-
But how do you solve this problem, without making any assumptions about
the process?

JE:-
The only assumption you need to make about
such a process is that a process caused the
pattern, i.e. the pattern did not just cause
itself.

GH:-
Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that this assumption is false in many
circumstances.

JE:-
I do not agree. It is "abundantly clear" that
this assumption is NOT VERIFIED in many circumstances.
We have travelled this route before. It appears you do
not discriminate between a non verification and a
refutation.
[/quote]
If you agree that it would take only a single example of self-organization
to refute your position, then I assert that it has been refuted in spades.

[quote]GH:-
This is what "self-organization" is all about. The
pattern/process dichotomy is a false distinction in the context of
dissipative systems, and the process/pattern does indeed cause itself.

JE:-
Any testable causal chain of logic requires a minimum of two
linkages that are non reversibly linked.
[/quote]
Great. The cascade of interactions in self-organizing systems are
inherently non-reversible.

[quote]The observation of magnetic
lines of force are not assumed to cause a magnet, the magnet is
assumed to cause the observations of lines of force.
[/quote]
Sure, but a magnet and lines of force do not a system make.

[quote]In this case,
one logical link is the black box: the magnetic process. The other is
what has come out of it: an observed magnetic pattern. The causative
assumption is that the process causes the pattern excluding
the reverse: the pattern causes the process i.e. it is _not_ just a
non testable tautological causative loop, it is a specific non reversible,
supposition of cause and affect within nature which has a causative
_antithesis_: the pattern causes the process. The antithesis
refutes the thesis and vice versa. No antithesis, no thesis.
[/quote]
Your point is not in any way inconsistent with systems thinking. You are
just not thinking about systems.

[quote]In my view "self-organization" just means we have no testable
view of causation at the moment and NOT that it is now valid to
claim that something can be validly be supposed to just cause
itself. If you allow a tautology of causation into
the sciences then anything and everything becomes "science",
so science is destroyed.
[/quote]
You continue to miss the point of systems thinking. To put things into the
context that you defend so strongly, one could predict that a particular set
of conditions will cause a system to self-organize, and that a different
particular set of conditions will not. This would be the same kind of
one-way causation and irreversible logic you described for magnets and lines
of force. You could then do experiments to test the predictions.
Unfortunately, all of this leaves the critical causal aspects of internal
dynamics that actually cause self-organization in a black box. This is why
I think that direct explorations of these factors through computational
modeling is an important aspect of the scientific process in this area. The
use of computation is a rigorous scientific approach to discovery because it
obviates the problem of uncritical subjective induction in the process of
hypothesis formation. Popper never considered this aspect of the scientific
process because he could not conceive of the recently emerged field of
computational science.

[quote]GH:-
IMHO, the question on the table now is whether this is true of ALL systems
in the universe.

JE:-
This is not a rational proposition because
we must test all processes in the universe
to find out.
[/quote]
If this is true, then the Nobel committee made quite a blunder when they
awarded the Nobel prize for physics to three theoreticians who developed
renormalization group analysis, which represents a proof that your statement
is false.

[quote]A better assumption is that no
systems can self organise as a causative
tautology so that the burden of proof is
shifted to those who think it can.
[/quote]
That is like saying the burden of proof is on every biologist to show that
organisms actually exist. Biology came about because we observed the
existence of organisms and so on, which demanded an explanation. Similarly,
the study of self-organizing systems came about because we observed so many
of them. In essence, the proof you are calling for existed before the
models you eschew came into existence.

[quote]The
reason it is right and proper to
do so is because epistemologically,
no tautology can be tested. As an example,
we cannot rationally invest our limited
resources to test all the processes of the universe
to find out if any could provide energy
at a zero cost, i.e. a tautological supposition
of energy. We make the law that
no more energy can be extracted from a
system than exists within it. The burden
of proof is rightfully shifted on to those
who argue otherwise.

GH:-
I readily admit that patterns exist that did not
self-organize, but are generated by self-organizing systems (e.g. human
artwork or rocks); such structures, however, are not generative systems.
They are always degenerative systems.

JE:-
Why is it true that: "such structures, however,
are not generative systems. They are always
degenerative systems".
[/quote]
Let me start by admitting that I am being somewhat speculative on this
point. I should have indicated that initially. Nevertheless, I will try to
offer an answer.

Thinking about your question leads me to fall back a bit on my claim.
Humans, for example, build generative machines that do not self-organize
(e.g., cars), so it is clearly physically possible for such things to exist.
However, such machines are also constantly degenerating, requiring
maintenance and repairs from their external environment (e.g., humans) too
slow or temporarily reverse the inevitable path to degeneracy.
Self-organizing systems, like organisms for example, have mechanisms to
develop and heal themselves. This requires obtaining energy from the
outside environment, but not information about the pattern it will generate
or cause of such pattern. This information can emerge entirely from the
internal dynamics of the system. This is not to say that pattern cannot be
imposed (caused) from the outside, and I am particularly interested in
exploring how internally derived pattern causing mechanisms might interact
with the heterogeneity of the environment.

I hope this helps.

Cheers,

Guy

John Edser · Guest

[quote]PF:-
I am sure to be restating, in one way or another, your options - precisely
because they really are *so* generally applicable.

JE:-
Precisely. TH cannot understand (and he is in good
company because most Profs and PhD>s cannot understand!)
that a general explanation that is "so good" that no
observation can be proposed that can refute
it, is NOT a good thing it is just TERMINAL to that
idea being a valid proposition of _science_.
People refuse to read Popper so they wrongly suppose
that their general dictates are just that, _dictates_,
and not testable theories. Do we have to fall
all the way back to the middle ages and start
burning witches at the stake all over again
just to rediscover that any general verifiable
but non refutable view is NOT a proposition
of SCIENCE?
[/quote]
PF:-
[quote]snip
When it comes to the crunch I don>t know what you mean by "refutability"..
snip
[/quote]
JE:-
Then PLEASE read Karl Popper. The concept is very
simple. Any theory must provide at least one observation
that is absolutely excluded by that theory, i.e. always
excluded, no exceptions, period. To refute the theory, all
you have to is document that observation in NATURE,
just once, within to throw out the entire idea. Einstein
suggests nothing can mover faster than the speed of light,
c. Here the maximum speed of light in a vacuum is the
absolute assumption of this view. Everything becomes
relative to IT. Darwinism maintains that absolute Darwinian
fitness cannot be selected for, EVER, so like c, this
the absolute assumption of Darwinism. If c is exceeded or
Hamilton>s inclusive fitness forces absolute Darwinian fitness
altruism WITHIN NATURE but the population is NOT reduced, then
Darwinism is entirely refuted.

[quote]snip
Why would you insist that rationally (mathematical or not) and conceptually[/quote]
framed regular observations (reliable pattern recognitions) needs to be made
refutable?!

JE:-
If no point of refutation exists within the view
then no empirical way exists to separate it from
any other view.

Best Wishes,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@ozemail.com.au

Peter F. · Guest

"John Edser" <edser@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:brgdah$1ct0$1@darwin.ediacara.org...

[quote]PF:
Why would you insist that rationally (mathematical or not) and
conceptually
framed regular observations (reliable pattern recognitions) needs to be
made
refutable?!

JE:-
If no point of refutation exists within the view
then no empirical way exists to separate it from
any other view.
[/quote]
A way that the degree of truth or validity of a theoretical proposition or
hypthesis (#) can be assessed is for other people than the theory
proposer(s)/hypothesiser to attempt to try to see if they can observe (in
whatever ways and by whatever means available or obtainable) the same
patterns and patterns of patterning that the proposer suggests exist, or
existed, or can come to exist.

If a hypothesis goes: "Life (~= energy moderating and self-replicating
assemblies of molecules) arouse in this Universe", then trying to find a
point of refutation is futile.

But here is an example of a complex hypothesis or theory (not yet proven)
for which possible points of refutation exist:

"Life did arouse when specified concentrations of certain specified common
chemicals became mixed within a certain range of temperatures and
electromagnetic forces supplied by the sun>s rays and by thunderbolts
pounding that mix".

However, this theory (hypothetical recipe) for how life arouse on this
planet might have chance to be verified *even if it is wrong*, because of
some superfluous ingredient; or "refuted" but only refuted *as specified*
because it might be almost perfectly true except for one (or a few)
overlooked factors present in the original scenario in which life *did*
emerge.

[One could of course try to refute (or refuse to believe) that it did but
only at the risk of having some drastic remedy for irrational thought forced
upon oneself.. :-)]

Other more broadly explanatory (and unifying) descriptions of What Is going
on (such as EPT) can only be refuted if there is something within such an
encompassing philosophical treatise that has been stated inEPTly. ;-)

The problem with constructs such EPT (or a cognitive construct similar to
EPT only in its scope and its substantiation by Science) is that *other*
people [*than* the person who attempts to give others a treat (treatment) by
trying to convey his or her own insights in the form of a treatise] has to
come to recognize the existence of same patterns (and patterns of
patterning) that the encompassing philosophical treatise pertains to and is
an attempt to: point to, conceptualize, (thus) to grasp and (thus) to more
effectively understand.

P

--
# P.S.
My EPT definition/understanding of the meaning of the word "hypothesis" is:
"A suggestion of some cause and effect relationship *of lesser complexity*
than that of a *not yet* validated theory" -- this definition can be
supplemented by the view that an explanatory proposition in the form of an
encompassing philosophical treatise based on already thoroughly
scientifically established principles & theories is more complex and
encompassing than a "mere" theory or theoretical proposition.

John Edser · Guest

CORRECTION:
Please replace:
Darwinian fitness cannot be selected for, EVER..

WITH:-
A reduction in Darwinian fitness cannot be
selected for, EVER...

My apologies,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@ozemail.com.au

John Edser · Guest

[quote]JE:-
The only assumption you need to make about
such a process is that a process caused the
pattern, i.e. the pattern did not just cause
itself.

GH:-
Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that this assumption is false in
many
circumstances.

JE:-
I do not agree. It is "abundantly clear" that
this assumption is NOT VERIFIED in many circumstances.
We have travelled this route before. It appears you do
not discriminate between a non verification and a
refutation.
[/quote]
GH:-
If you agree that it would take only a single example of self-organization
to refute your position, then I assert that it has been refuted in spades.

JE:-
I do not agree, because the assumption that
a pattern can cause itself is just an empty tautology
that deletes the need for a causative process.
Anybody can validly suppose anything as science
if the assumption that a process does not have
to be assumed to cause any observed pattern. This
is because any WHY supposition is entirely contingent
on a supposition of a causative _process_.

[quote]GH:-
This is what "self-organization" is all about. The
pattern/process dichotomy is a false distinction in the context of
dissipative systems, and the process/pattern does indeed cause itself.

JE:-
Any testable causal chain of logic requires a minimum of two
linkages that are non reversibly linked.
[/quote]
GH:-
Great. The cascade of interactions in self-organizing systems are
inherently non-reversible.

JE:-
OK. Do you agree that a minimum of two
such linkages must be supposed?

[quote]JE:-
The observation of magnetic
lines of force are not assumed to cause a magnet, the magnet is
assumed to cause the observations of lines of force.
[/quote]
BOH:-
Sure, but a magnet and lines of force do not a system make.

JE:-
This seems to me to be obviously untrue. Magnetism is a
supposed process of the science of physics, i.e. it
is a testable supposition of a valid system within that
science. One theory suggests that aligned polar
iron atoms can amplify the tiny lines of force
that exist between the atoms. Magnetic force
lines are a valid part of one, supposed, magnetic process.
This process can produce a non random pattern when observed
using iron filings that are _randomly_ distributed over a sheet
of paper, which is held over the magnet. Note that if the iron filings
are not _firstly_ randomly distributed i.e. they firstly form a non
random pattern, then the only observation would be:
one non random pattern changing into another. This change would
not provide a valid verification of the supposed magnetic process.
To be verified, the supposed process of magnetism must produce an
_independent_ non random pattern, i.e. it must be observed to turn
just a random pattern into a non random pattern, all by itself.
This it can be observed to do. However, if a random process
can cause both random and non random patterns, as your
redefinition allowed, then nothing here remains testable
or even, explicable.

[quote]JE:-
In this case,
one logical link is the black box: the magnetic process. The other is
what has come out of it: an observed magnetic pattern. The causative
assumption is that the process causes the pattern excluding
the reverse: the pattern causes the process i.e. it is _not_ just a
non testable tautological causative loop, it is a specific non
reversible,
supposition of cause and affect within nature which has a causative
_antithesis_: the pattern causes the process. The antithesis
refutes the thesis and vice versa. No antithesis, no thesis.
[/quote]
GH:-
Your point is not in any way inconsistent with systems thinking. You are
just not thinking about systems.

JE:-
Please define a system.

If you do not deny that where no
antithesis exists, no testable
thesis can exist then where are
both within your explanation?

[quote]GH:-
In my view "self-organization" just means we have no testable
view of causation at the moment and NOT that it is now valid to
claim that something can be validly be supposed to just cause
itself. If you allow a tautology of causation into
the sciences then anything and everything becomes "science",
so science is destroyed.
[/quote]
GH:-
You continue to miss the point of systems thinking. To put things into the
context that you defend so strongly, one could predict that a particular set
of conditions will cause a system to self-organize, and that a different
particular set of conditions will not.

JE:-
As I understood it, you are supposed
to be attempting to defend the (untenable)
tautological view that a pattern can create
itself without any process being supposed to
cause it. When you argue that "external
conditions" can "cause a system to self-organize"
you are only using "external conditions" as a defacto
process to cause the observed pattern. The
conditions must be causative to the assumed
pattern and not the pattern itself so
you are you just contradicting your position?

GH:-
This would be the same kind of
one-way causation and irreversible logic you described for magnets and lines
of force. You could then do experiments to test the predictions.
Unfortunately, all of this leaves the critical causal aspects of internal
dynamics that actually cause self-organization in a black box.

JE:-
But, all suppositions of causation are "black
box" processes, i.e. you always have to use
your imagination to dream up a causative
theory; this is what science is all about. It
is an illusion to suggest that you can simply
perceive a process. Always, the process is just
a subjective, inductive guess derived form
the observation of a pattern. However, science
requires all such guesses to be testable.
When you throw out refutability you throw out
testability so that no science remains.

In the sciences the causative black box is firstly,
_either_ a random or a non random process. Because
all random processes are restricted by definition
to only produce a random pattern, it is possible
to refute the black box as just a random process
but it is never possible to verify it as such.
However, contesting propositions of non random
processes that constitute all the testable black
boxes on the table, now become empirically possible
because excluded events in one can become verified
events using another allowing one process to refute
in favour of another. However, if a proposed random
black box was allowed to form non random patterns,
it would become impossible to empirically test
between:

1) A random and a non random black box process.

2) Between non random black box processes.

Everything is destroyed by your supposition that a
random process can validly be redefined to cause
both a random and a non random patterns, or that
a pattern can be validly supposed to just cause
itself without any process being needed to be
firstly supposed to cause the observed pattern.

GH:-
This is why
I think that direct explorations of these factors through computational
modeling is an important aspect of the scientific process in this area. The
use of computation is a rigorous scientific approach to discovery because it
obviates the problem of uncritical subjective induction in the process of
hypothesis formation. Popper never considered this aspect of the scientific
process because he could not conceive of the recently emerged field of
computational science.

JE:-
The above constitutes a misuse of models.
IMHO Popper would have been horrified.
Models cannot substitute for valid
theories of nature, i.e. what you term "subjective
induction" (all induction is subjective but not
all subjective induction is testable) and
model pattern observation cannot substitute for
observations of the nature they are only attempting
to model. Models only have one legitimate purpose:
to act as an aid to test _theories_ of nature. They
cannot replace these theories. Simplified versions
of the theory, employed as a model of it, cannot contest
and win against the theory they were simplified from,
without turning the entire scientific method into
a Mad Hatter>s Tea Party.

[quote]GH:-
IMHO, the question on the table now is whether this is true of ALL systems
in the universe.

JE:-
This is not a rational proposition because
we must test all processes in the universe
to find out.
[/quote]
GH:-
If this is true, then the Nobel committee made quite a blunder when they
awarded the Nobel prize for physics to three theoreticians who developed
renormalization group analysis, which represents a proof that your statement
is false.

JE:-
They actually refuted Godel?

[quote]GH:-
A better assumption is that no
systems can self organise as a causative
tautology so that the burden of proof is
shifted to those who think it can.
[/quote]
GH:-
That is like saying the burden of proof is on every biologist to show that
organisms actually exist.

JE:-
The burden of proof is on very biologist
to show that the organism supposition is
both a verifiable and refutable proposition
of the science of biology. Only Darwin
allowed the organism proposition to be both
refutable and verifiable.

GH:-
Biology came about because we observed the
existence of organisms and so on, which
demanded an explanation.

JE:-
Biology came about because it was
argued that a fundamental difference
existed between living and non living
forms.

GH:-
Similarly the study of self-organizing systems came about because we
observed so many
of them. In essence, the proof you are calling for existed before the
models you eschew came into existence.

JE:
I respect any _attempt_ to remove the
barrier between living and non living
things but I have no respect for any
view that also requires Popperian
refutation to be thrown out to save
the attempt.

[quote]JE:-
The
reason it is right and proper to
do so is because epistemologically,
no tautology can be tested. As an example,
we cannot rationally invest our limited
resources to test all the processes of the universe
to find out if any could provide energy
at a zero cost, i.e. a tautological supposition
of energy. We make the law that
no more energy can be extracted from a
system than exists within it. The burden
of proof is rightfully shifted on to those
who argue otherwise.
[/quote]
JE:-
The above is one of the best examples
of how silly any causative tautology is
within the sciences. You have to prove that
your assumption of a pattern being allowed
to just form itself is not equally silly.

[quote]GH:-
I readily admit that patterns exist that did not
self-organize, but are generated by self-organizing systems (e.g. human
artwork or rocks); such structures, however, are not generative systems.
They are always degenerative systems.

JE:-
Why is it true that: "such structures, however,
are not generative systems. They are always
degenerative systems".
[/quote]
GH:-
Let me start by admitting that I am being somewhat speculative on this
point. I should have indicated that initially. Nevertheless, I will try to
offer an answer.

Thinking about your question leads me to fall back a bit on my claim.
Humans, for example, build generative machines that do not self-organize
(e.g., cars), so it is clearly physically possible for such things to exist.
However, such machines are also constantly degenerating, requiring
maintenance and repairs from their external environment (e.g., humans) too
slow or temporarily reverse the inevitable path to degeneracy.
Self-organizing systems, like organisms for example, have mechanisms to
develop and heal themselves. This requires obtaining energy from the
outside environment, but not information about the pattern it will generate
or cause of such pattern. This information can emerge entirely from the
internal dynamics of the system. This is not to say that pattern cannot be
imposed (caused) from the outside, and I am particularly interested in
exploring how internally derived pattern causing mechanisms might interact
with the heterogeneity of the environment.

JE:-
It seems obvious to me that non living systems
always form an internal pattern, that for a while,
just represent the _least_ line of resistance to energy
dissipation. Systems that form because energy is being
dissipated more efficiently and not imported more efficiently,
as measured by a net value over the systems life span,
have no logical similarity to each other, IMHO.

What logical similarity does the degenerative
system that takes over my dead body have to the
massively more complex system that attempted
to maintain it when I was alive?

Best Wishes,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@ozemail.com.au

edser@ozemail.com.au

Guy Hoelzer · Guest

in article brkrjs$2nui$1@darwin.ediacara.org, John Edser at
edser@ozemail.com.au wrote on 12/15/03 9:39 AM:

[quote]JE:-
The only assumption you need to make about
such a process is that a process caused the
pattern, i.e. the pattern did not just cause
itself.

GH:-
Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that this assumption is false in
many
circumstances.

JE:-
I do not agree. It is "abundantly clear" that
this assumption is NOT VERIFIED in many circumstances.
We have travelled this route before. It appears you do
not discriminate between a non verification and a
refutation.

GH:-
If you agree that it would take only a single example of self-organization
to refute your position, then I assert that it has been refuted in spades.

JE:-
I do not agree, because the assumption that
a pattern can cause itself is just an empty tautology
that deletes the need for a causative process.
Anybody can validly suppose anything as science
if the assumption that a process does not have
to be assumed to cause any observed pattern. This
is because any WHY supposition is entirely contingent
on a supposition of a causative _process_.

GH:-
This is what "self-organization" is all about. The
pattern/process dichotomy is a false distinction in the context of
dissipative systems, and the process/pattern does indeed cause itself.

JE:-
Any testable causal chain of logic requires a minimum of two
linkages that are non reversibly linked.

GH:-
Great. The cascade of interactions in self-organizing systems are
inherently non-reversible.

JE:-
OK. Do you agree that a minimum of two
such linkages must be supposed?
[/quote]
If you only allow yourself to draw one-way arrows, then yes.

[quote]JE:-
The observation of magnetic
lines of force are not assumed to cause a magnet, the magnet is
assumed to cause the observations of lines of force.

BOH:-
Sure, but a magnet and lines of force do not a system make.

JE:-
This seems to me to be obviously untrue. Magnetism is a
supposed process of the science of physics, i.e. it
is a testable supposition of a valid system within that
science. One theory suggests that aligned polar
iron atoms can amplify the tiny lines of force
that exist between the atoms. Magnetic force
lines are a valid part of one, supposed, magnetic process.
This process can produce a non random pattern when observed
using iron filings that are _randomly_ distributed over a sheet
of paper, which is held over the magnet. Note that if the iron filings
are not _firstly_ randomly distributed i.e. they firstly form a non
random pattern, then the only observation would be:
one non random pattern changing into another. This change would
not provide a valid verification of the supposed magnetic process.
To be verified, the supposed process of magnetism must produce an
_independent_ non random pattern, i.e. it must be observed to turn
just a random pattern into a non random pattern, all by itself.
This it can be observed to do. However, if a random process
can cause both random and non random patterns, as your
redefinition allowed, then nothing here remains testable
or even, explicable.

JE:-
In this case, one logical link is the black box: the magnetic process. The
other is what has come out of it: an observed magnetic pattern. The causative
assumption is that the process causes the pattern excluding the reverse: the
pattern causes the process i.e. it is _not_ just a non testable tautological
causative loop, it is a specific non reversible, supposition of cause and
affect within nature which has a causative _antithesis_: the pattern causes
the process. The antithesis refutes the thesis and vice versa. No antithesis,
no thesis.

GH:-
Your point is not in any way inconsistent with systems thinking. You are
just not thinking about systems.

JE:-
Please define a system.
[/quote]
Here are two relevant definitions from Webster>s dictionary:

- a group of things or parts connected in some way to form a whole (the
solar system or a school system_

- the body, or a number of bodily organs, functioning as a unit

[quote]If you do not deny that where no
antithesis exists, no testable
thesis can exist then where are
both within your explanation?
[/quote]
I presume you are referring to my claim that self-organization can happen in
nature. The antithesis is that it cannot.

[quote]GH:-
In my view "self-organization" just means we have no testable
view of causation at the moment and NOT that it is now valid to
claim that something can be validly be supposed to just cause
itself. If you allow a tautology of causation into
the sciences then anything and everything becomes "science",
so science is destroyed.

GH:-
You continue to miss the point of systems thinking. To put things into the
context that you defend so strongly, one could predict that a particular set
of conditions will cause a system to self-organize, and that a different
particular set of conditions will not.

JE:-
As I understood it, you are supposed
to be attempting to defend the (untenable)
tautological view that a pattern can create
itself without any process being supposed to
cause it.
[/quote]
You continue to miss my point. I will focus on what Prigogine called
dissipative structures, because they are the most relevant to this
discussion and this focus should help me to answer some of your questions.
In such systems, pattern and process cannot be disentangled. It is not that
pattern came about without a process. It is that the process and pattern
are not really different things, and the process is inherent to the
structure under study; not outside of it. A convection cell is a non-random
pattern of fluid movement, the pattern/process is self-generating and
consumes (dissipates) externally derived energy to pay for its construction
along the way.

[quote]When you argue that "external
conditions" can "cause a system to self-organize"
you are only using "external conditions" as a defacto
process to cause the observed pattern.
[/quote]
No. Did your last meal cause you to have a nose (a non-random pattern)? I
think not. Yet you could not have a nose without consuming external energy.
If this mode of thinking were in fact non scientific, then science would be
a waste of time (which it is not).

[quote]The conditions must be causative to the assumed pattern and not the pattern
itself so you are you just contradicting your position?
[/quote]
No. The conditions are NOT causative to the observed pattern, which need
not be assumed. The structure of the internal dynamics causes the pattern.

[quote]GH:-
This would be the same kind of
one-way causation and irreversible logic you described for magnets and lines
of force. You could then do experiments to test the predictions.
Unfortunately, all of this leaves the critical causal aspects of internal
dynamics that actually cause self-organization in a black box.

JE:-
But, all suppositions of causation are "black
box" processes, i.e. you always have to use
your imagination to dream up a causative
theory; this is what science is all about. It
is an illusion to suggest that you can simply
perceive a process. Always, the process is just
a subjective, inductive guess derived form
the observation of a pattern. However, science
requires all such guesses to be testable.
When you throw out refutability you throw out
testability so that no science remains.

In the sciences the causative black box is firstly,
_either_ a random or a non random process. Because
all random processes are restricted by definition
to only produce a random pattern, it is possible
to refute the black box as just a random process
but it is never possible to verify it as such.
However, contesting propositions of non random
processes that constitute all the testable black
boxes on the table, now become empirically possible
because excluded events in one can become verified
events using another allowing one process to refute
in favour of another. However, if a proposed random
black box was allowed to form non random patterns,
it would become impossible to empirically test
between:

1) A random and a non random black box process.

2) Between non random black box processes.

Everything is destroyed by your supposition that a
random process can validly be redefined to cause
both a random and a non random patterns, or that
a pattern can be validly supposed to just cause
itself without any process being needed to be
firstly supposed to cause the observed pattern.
[/quote]
I am sorry if nature doesn>t fit your desires as a theoretician.

[quote]GH:-
This is why I think that direct explorations of these factors through
computational modeling is an important aspect of the scientific process in
this area. The use of computation is a rigorous scientific approach to
discovery because it obviates the problem of uncritical subjective induction
in the process of hypothesis formation. Popper never considered this aspect
of the scientific process because he could not conceive of the recently
emerged field of computational science.

JE:-
The above constitutes a misuse of models.
IMHO Popper would have been horrified.
Models cannot substitute for valid
theories of nature, i.e. what you term "subjective
induction" (all induction is subjective but not
all subjective induction is testable) and
model pattern observation cannot substitute for
observations of the nature they are only attempting
to model. Models only have one legitimate purpose:
to act as an aid to test _theories_ of nature. They
cannot replace these theories. Simplified versions
of the theory, employed as a model of it, cannot contest
and win against the theory they were simplified from,
without turning the entire scientific method into
a Mad Hatter>s Tea Party.

GH:-
IMHO, the question on the table now is whether this is true of ALL systems
in the universe.

JE:-
This is not a rational proposition because
we must test all processes in the universe
to find out.

GH:-
If this is true, then the Nobel committee made quite a blunder when they
awarded the Nobel prize for physics to three theoreticians who developed
renormalization group analysis, which represents a proof that your statement
is false.

JE:-
They actually refuted Godel?
[/quote]
They might have refuted a piece of Godel>s claims; I am not sure. I do know
that much of what Godel had to say underpins the complex systems view.

[quote]GH:-
A better assumption is that no
systems can self organise as a causative
tautology so that the burden of proof is
shifted to those who think it can.

GH:-
That is like saying the burden of proof is on every biologist to show that
organisms actually exist.

JE:-
The burden of proof is on very biologist
to show that the organism supposition is
both a verifiable and refutable proposition
of the science of biology. Only Darwin
allowed the organism proposition to be both
refutable and verifiable.
[/quote]
No biologist, including Darwin, ever tested or considered testing the null
hypothesis that organisms don>t exist.

[quote]GH:-
Biology came about because we observed the
existence of organisms and so on, which
demanded an explanation.

JE:-
Biology came about because it was
argued that a fundamental difference
existed between living and non living
forms.

GH:-
Similarly the study of self-organizing systems came about because we observed
so many of them. In essence, the proof you are calling for existed before the
models you eschew came into existence.

JE:
I respect any _attempt_ to remove the
barrier between living and non living
things but I have no respect for any
view that also requires Popperian
refutation to be thrown out to save
the attempt.

JE:-
The
reason it is right and proper to
do so is because epistemologically,
no tautology can be tested. As an example,
we cannot rationally invest our limited
resources to test all the processes of the universe
to find out if any could provide energy
at a zero cost, i.e. a tautological supposition
of energy. We make the law that
no more energy can be extracted from a
system than exists within it. The burden
of proof is rightfully shifted on to those
who argue otherwise.

JE:-
The above is one of the best examples
of how silly any causative tautology is
within the sciences. You have to prove that
your assumption of a pattern being allowed
to just form itself is not equally silly.

GH:-
I readily admit that patterns exist that did not
self-organize, but are generated by self-organizing systems (e.g. human
artwork or rocks); such structures, however, are not generative systems.
They are always degenerative systems.

JE:-
Why is it true that: "such structures, however,
are not generative systems. They are always
degenerative systems".

GH:-
Let me start by admitting that I am being somewhat speculative on this
point. I should have indicated that initially. Nevertheless, I will try to
offer an answer.

Thinking about your question leads me to fall back a bit on my claim.
Humans, for example, build generative machines that do not self-organize
(e.g., cars), so it is clearly physically possible for such things to exist.
However, such machines are also constantly degenerating, requiring
maintenance and repairs from their external environment (e.g., humans) too
slow or temporarily reverse the inevitable path to degeneracy.
Self-organizing systems, like organisms for example, have mechanisms to
develop and heal themselves. This requires obtaining energy from the
outside environment, but not information about the pattern it will generate
or cause of such pattern. This information can emerge entirely from the
internal dynamics of the system. This is not to say that pattern cannot be
imposed (caused) from the outside, and I am particularly interested in
exploring how internally derived pattern causing mechanisms might interact
with the heterogeneity of the environment.

JE:-
It seems obvious to me that non living systems
always form an internal pattern, that for a while,
just represent the _least_ line of resistance to energy
dissipation. Systems that form because energy is being
dissipated more efficiently and not imported more efficiently,
as measured by a net value over the systems life span,
have no logical similarity to each other, IMHO.

What logical similarity does the degenerative
system that takes over my dead body have to the
massively more complex system that attempted
to maintain it when I was alive?
[/quote]
The degenerative SYSTEMS, like decomposing bacteria, are logically identical
to the complex systems that maintained it while you were alive. Stochastic
(non-systematic) factors that cause your body to decompose are logically
rather different in that they are not self-organizing. They are only
logically similar in that they also contribute to the universal tendency
toward degradation demanded by the second law of thermodynamics.

Cheers,

Guy


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Biological Evolution Forum
Page 1 of 1