Even if we accept your idiosyncratic framing of causality as agency - an ontology of animism - the logic of systems still applies. — apokrisis
I fully agree with these remarks. Agency is only one part of the story. — Metaphysician Undercover
I get the impression that ↪apokrisis is not a fan of Agency in any case, especially top-down agency. So, just for you, here's some ideas from a new biological model of Self-Organization that doesn't mention outside Agency specifically, but does repeatedly mention the role of Information. Is "top-down" information a form of agency? If these information-biased excerpts from the article interest you, I'd like to hear your comments.
Designing Life :
"Synthetic Morphology" (due to intervention of human agents)
"spontaneously organize" (for no apparent reason ???)
"biological forms seem to have inevitable, unique target structures" (pre-programming??)
"they are able to make use of top-down information" (whence ???)
"Where does form come from? What rules has evolution developed for controlling it?" (Form = pre-coded information?)
"How does a featureless blob that is the early embryo know what to make and where to make it?" (formless potential transformed/enformed into cognizable objects)
"Morphogenesis is a subtle process involving the interplay of information at the scales of the whole organism." (some early theories of morphogenesis were rejected as mystical, because the "rules" were unknown, and the key feature was Holism . Yet Alan Turing postulated a mathematical Theory of Pattern Formation, that is now called a theory of Morphogenesis)
"Einstein . . . . what the real determinant of form and organization is seems quite obscure."
"global rules governing form" ( universal Generic Information ???)
"bioelectric signaling" (Biosemiotics??)
"morphological engineering . . . . desired structure" (natural morphology = design ??)
Scientific American magazine, may 2023, by Phillip Ball
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ife-forms/
TPF : What is Self-Organization
Re: TPF : What is Self-Organization
↪Gnomon
I'm interested in bottom-up agency. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK. Who or What is the bottom-line Agent/Agency? : Matter, Energy, Evolution, God, First Cause, "Idiosyncratic Causality", John Barrymore, Other?
Agency (philosophy) :
Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment . . . . Agency is contrasted to objects reacting to natural forces involving only unthinking deterministic processes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)
I'm interested in bottom-up agency. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK. Who or What is the bottom-line Agent/Agency? : Matter, Energy, Evolution, God, First Cause, "Idiosyncratic Causality", John Barrymore, Other?
Agency (philosophy) :
Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment . . . . Agency is contrasted to objects reacting to natural forces involving only unthinking deterministic processes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)
Re: TPF : What is Self-Organization
Even if we accept your idiosyncratic framing of causality as agency - an ontology of animism - the logic of systems still applies. — apokrisis
I fully agree with these remarks. Agency is only one part of the story. — Metaphysician Undercover
I get the impression that ↪apokrisis is not a fan of Agency in any case, especially top-down agency. So, just for you, here's some ideas from a new biological model of Self-Organization that doesn't mention outside Agency specifically, but does repeatedly mention the role of Information. Is "top-down" information a form of agency? If these information-biased excerpts from the article interest you, I'd like to hear your comments.
Designing Life :
"Synthetic Morphology" (due to intervention of human agents)
"spontaneously organize" (for no apparent reason ???)
"biological forms seem to have inevitable, unique target structures" (pre-programming??)
"they are able to make use of top-down information" (whence ???)
"Where does form come from? What rules has evolution developed for controlling it?" (Form = pre-coded information?)
"How does a featureless blob that is the early embryo know what to make and where to make it?" (formless potential transformed/enformed into cognizable objects)
"Morphogenesis is a subtle process involving the interplay of information at the scales of the whole organism." (some early theories of morphogenesis were rejected as mystical, because the "rules" were unknown, and the key feature was Holism . Yet Alan Turing postulated a mathematical Theory of Pattern Formation, that is now called a theory of Morphogenesis)
"Einstein . . . . what the real determinant of form and organization is seems quite obscure."
"global rules governing form" ( universal Generic Information ???)
"bioelectric signaling" (Biosemiotics??)
"morphological engineering . . . . desired structure" (natural morphology = design ??)
Scientific American magazine, may 2023, by Phillip Ball
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ife-forms/
4 days ago
I fully agree with these remarks. Agency is only one part of the story. — Metaphysician Undercover
I get the impression that ↪apokrisis is not a fan of Agency in any case, especially top-down agency. So, just for you, here's some ideas from a new biological model of Self-Organization that doesn't mention outside Agency specifically, but does repeatedly mention the role of Information. Is "top-down" information a form of agency? If these information-biased excerpts from the article interest you, I'd like to hear your comments.
Designing Life :
"Synthetic Morphology" (due to intervention of human agents)
"spontaneously organize" (for no apparent reason ???)
"biological forms seem to have inevitable, unique target structures" (pre-programming??)
"they are able to make use of top-down information" (whence ???)
"Where does form come from? What rules has evolution developed for controlling it?" (Form = pre-coded information?)
"How does a featureless blob that is the early embryo know what to make and where to make it?" (formless potential transformed/enformed into cognizable objects)
"Morphogenesis is a subtle process involving the interplay of information at the scales of the whole organism." (some early theories of morphogenesis were rejected as mystical, because the "rules" were unknown, and the key feature was Holism . Yet Alan Turing postulated a mathematical Theory of Pattern Formation, that is now called a theory of Morphogenesis)
"Einstein . . . . what the real determinant of form and organization is seems quite obscure."
"global rules governing form" ( universal Generic Information ???)
"bioelectric signaling" (Biosemiotics??)
"morphological engineering . . . . desired structure" (natural morphology = design ??)
Scientific American magazine, may 2023, by Phillip Ball
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ife-forms/
4 days ago
Re: TPF : What is Self-Organization
↪Gnomon
I'm interested in bottom-up agency. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK. Who or What is the bottom-line Agent/Agency? : Matter, Energy, Evolution, God, First Cause, "Idiosyncratic Causality", John Barrymore, Other?
Agency (philosophy) :
Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment . . . . Agency is contrasted to objects reacting to natural forces involving only unthinking deterministic processes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)
I'm interested in bottom-up agency. — Metaphysician Undercover
OK. Who or What is the bottom-line Agent/Agency? : Matter, Energy, Evolution, God, First Cause, "Idiosyncratic Causality", John Barrymore, Other?
Agency (philosophy) :
Agency is the capacity of an actor to act in a given environment . . . . Agency is contrasted to objects reacting to natural forces involving only unthinking deterministic processes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_(philosophy)
Re: TPF : What is Self-Organization
OK. Who or What is the bottom-line Agent/Agency? : Matter, Energy, Evolution, God, First Cause, "Idiosyncratic Causality", John Barrymore, Other? — Gnomon
That's the issue, we do not properly know the source of this form of agency. But evidence indicates that we ought to accept it as real. So to portray it as nonexistent just because systems theory doesn't provide the means for modeling it, is a mistake. — Metaphysician Undercover
A coy response. But not having empirical knowledge of the cosmic Agent hasn't stopped philosophers from describing its necessary properties, based on rational inference alone. Plato identified his abstract agency in terms of Causation, and Aristotle defined his Prime Actor in terms of Motion, both of which are forms of Change. And yet, such non-human pre-existing Agents are usually imagined as inherently uncaused, unmoved, and changeless ; all negative attributes. But nothing in the known (contingent ; space-time) Real World fits those speculative descriptions. So, anything we might say about the Agent/Agency --- including "real" --- is just an uneducated guess. Care to take a shot in the dark?
PS___I tend to define my conjectured "form of Agency" in terms of Organization (i.e Information), among other positive attributes : e.g. Enformer. However, since I "do not properly know", no personal characteristics or attributes are presumed.
What the First Cause Is :
Rather, the First Cause is uncaused, beginningless, initially changeless, has libertarian freedom, and is enormously powerful, that is, a transcendent immaterial Creator.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -94403-2_6
Note --- the Kalam argument is based on monotheist presumptions. Which inadvertently makes the First Person responsible for all the good and bad things in the world. Which may be why most monotheists prefer to offload the Evil stuff onto a personal Bad Guy. Ironically, that dualistic gambit seems to deny the mono of Monotheism.
That's the issue, we do not properly know the source of this form of agency. But evidence indicates that we ought to accept it as real. So to portray it as nonexistent just because systems theory doesn't provide the means for modeling it, is a mistake. — Metaphysician Undercover
A coy response. But not having empirical knowledge of the cosmic Agent hasn't stopped philosophers from describing its necessary properties, based on rational inference alone. Plato identified his abstract agency in terms of Causation, and Aristotle defined his Prime Actor in terms of Motion, both of which are forms of Change. And yet, such non-human pre-existing Agents are usually imagined as inherently uncaused, unmoved, and changeless ; all negative attributes. But nothing in the known (contingent ; space-time) Real World fits those speculative descriptions. So, anything we might say about the Agent/Agency --- including "real" --- is just an uneducated guess. Care to take a shot in the dark?
PS___I tend to define my conjectured "form of Agency" in terms of Organization (i.e Information), among other positive attributes : e.g. Enformer. However, since I "do not properly know", no personal characteristics or attributes are presumed.
What the First Cause Is :
Rather, the First Cause is uncaused, beginningless, initially changeless, has libertarian freedom, and is enormously powerful, that is, a transcendent immaterial Creator.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -94403-2_6
Note --- the Kalam argument is based on monotheist presumptions. Which inadvertently makes the First Person responsible for all the good and bad things in the world. Which may be why most monotheists prefer to offload the Evil stuff onto a personal Bad Guy. Ironically, that dualistic gambit seems to deny the mono of Monotheism.
Re: TPF : What is Self-Organization
The fact that The Agent (that's what I'll call it for you) cannot be known empirical, does not prevent us from knowing it. That's what's described by Aquinas, as knowing the cause by its effect. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes. That's why, although I lost faith in the bible stories about a father-like Creator, I couldn't deny the reverse logic --- from effect to cause --- that points back to an ultimate Causal Agent of some kind. Until 1931, most scientists apparently assumed that the universe "just-is", with no need for an origin explanation.
Yet, in the early 20th century, pragmatic Astronomers followed the trail of circumstantial red-shift evidence back to a sudden beginning in a mathematical Singularity --- at which the evidence vanishes. When a hunter-tracker, looking for the nest/lair (origin) of his prey, discovers that the trail of tracks suddenly vanishes, he may look up for signs of an eagle to explain the lack of tracks. Or, he can keep searching in the same direction, to see if he can pick-up the trail again.
The Multiverse theory (eternal physical causation) is of the latter kind. Based on the presumption of physical continuity, it assumes that there must be more of the same tracks out there somewhere. Yet, metaphysical Causal Agency theories tend to look-up for some kind of non-empirical Agent to explain the origin of a contingent Reality. Both approaches begin their philosophical search at the transition from empirical evidence to an abyss of Uncertainty. Then, Physicalists fill-in the blanks with hypothetical (presumably real) physical stuff. And Metaphysicalists project (necessarily Ideal) non-physical non-empirical non-stuff into the unknowable void. Or, at least the Potential for real stuff.
Which method is more likely to discover the true origin of Reality? Depends on whether you prefer Real (empirical) Truth or Ideal (logical) Truth. Either way, the search for ultimate truth is, as you say, complicated by the absence of evidence.
To understand the passing of time as non-empirical, yet having an empirical effect (change and activity), is a first step toward understanding how non-empirical causes may have empirical effects. — Metaphysician Undercover
Interesting notion : time (change) without a material substrate to evolve. How would you describe "non-empirical passage of time"? "Eternity" is usually defined as changeless by philosophers. But for religious purposes, Heavenly Eternity has been described as changeable, but never-ending. How would you define "non-empirical" (non-experiential)Time?
PS___I recently imagined a new way to think of Time in terms of Causal Energy*1. Not exactly "non-empirical" but knowable only by observing its Effects. Could that be a "step" toward "understanding how non-empirical causes may have empirical effects"?
*1. Time is Energy :
Time is merely how we measure the expenditure of Energy in the form of Entropy (negative trends). Since Energy itself is not a sensable phenomenon, we like to think of it, metaphorically, as a river flowing from a mountaintop into the valley. And yet along the way down, we get some value for the expenditure of Time. The cosmic payback is what we call Evolution, in the positive sense of living creatures descending from inert material.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html
Yes. That's why, although I lost faith in the bible stories about a father-like Creator, I couldn't deny the reverse logic --- from effect to cause --- that points back to an ultimate Causal Agent of some kind. Until 1931, most scientists apparently assumed that the universe "just-is", with no need for an origin explanation.
Yet, in the early 20th century, pragmatic Astronomers followed the trail of circumstantial red-shift evidence back to a sudden beginning in a mathematical Singularity --- at which the evidence vanishes. When a hunter-tracker, looking for the nest/lair (origin) of his prey, discovers that the trail of tracks suddenly vanishes, he may look up for signs of an eagle to explain the lack of tracks. Or, he can keep searching in the same direction, to see if he can pick-up the trail again.
The Multiverse theory (eternal physical causation) is of the latter kind. Based on the presumption of physical continuity, it assumes that there must be more of the same tracks out there somewhere. Yet, metaphysical Causal Agency theories tend to look-up for some kind of non-empirical Agent to explain the origin of a contingent Reality. Both approaches begin their philosophical search at the transition from empirical evidence to an abyss of Uncertainty. Then, Physicalists fill-in the blanks with hypothetical (presumably real) physical stuff. And Metaphysicalists project (necessarily Ideal) non-physical non-empirical non-stuff into the unknowable void. Or, at least the Potential for real stuff.
Which method is more likely to discover the true origin of Reality? Depends on whether you prefer Real (empirical) Truth or Ideal (logical) Truth. Either way, the search for ultimate truth is, as you say, complicated by the absence of evidence.
To understand the passing of time as non-empirical, yet having an empirical effect (change and activity), is a first step toward understanding how non-empirical causes may have empirical effects. — Metaphysician Undercover
Interesting notion : time (change) without a material substrate to evolve. How would you describe "non-empirical passage of time"? "Eternity" is usually defined as changeless by philosophers. But for religious purposes, Heavenly Eternity has been described as changeable, but never-ending. How would you define "non-empirical" (non-experiential)Time?
PS___I recently imagined a new way to think of Time in terms of Causal Energy*1. Not exactly "non-empirical" but knowable only by observing its Effects. Could that be a "step" toward "understanding how non-empirical causes may have empirical effects"?
*1. Time is Energy :
Time is merely how we measure the expenditure of Energy in the form of Entropy (negative trends). Since Energy itself is not a sensable phenomenon, we like to think of it, metaphorically, as a river flowing from a mountaintop into the valley. And yet along the way down, we get some value for the expenditure of Time. The cosmic payback is what we call Evolution, in the positive sense of living creatures descending from inert material.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page63.html
Re: TPF : What is Self-Organization
Time is other than change, for a number of reasons. — Metaphysician Undercover
Granted. The word "Time" has many shaded meanings, depending on context. But they all seem to refer to discernible Change of some kind. So I was talking about Time as we know it conventionally & empirically (by sensory experience of differences*1 between one observation and another : i.e. Change/Causation*2).
Obviously, only a fraction of the physical changes in the universe are observed or observable (by humans). And philosophers have examined the Epistemology & Ontology of Time from various perspectives : (1) fatalism; (2) reductionism and Platonism with respect to time; (3) the topology of time; (4) McTaggart’s argument; (5) the A-theory and the B-theory; (6) presentism, eternalism, and the growing block theory; (7) the 3D/4D debate about persistence; (8) the dynamic and the static theory; (9) the moving spotlight theory; (10) time travel; (11) time and physics and (12) time and rationality*3.
However, only the "Block Time" models involve something "other than change". And Block Time is simply a scientific term for traditional philosophical timeless/changeless Eternity. Are you referring to Events --- if that notion even makes sense in a timeless state of being -- in which nothing changes? In a physical Event, any difference/change is observable in the material form. But, what would constitute a metaphysical temporal Event? I suppose that Fatalism could be construed as a metaphysical concept of Time, in that the predetermined world of the gods, could be interpreted scientifically as a type of expanding Block Time*4.
In Block Time and Eternity theories, a traditional conventional term is used metaphorical & negatively, in order to indicate what Eternity (timelessness) is not. Can you give a positive example of Time that does not involve Change? If so, I may have to modify my essay on Time as Energy/Change, to add : "among other things".
*1. In my information-based thesis, Time is "the difference that makes a difference" (Bateson on Meaning). If time is "other than Change", does it make any Difference/Meaning to a sentient mind?
"What we mean by information - the elementary unit of information - is a difference which makes a difference, and it is able to make a difference because the neural pathways along which it travels and is continuously transformed are themselves provided with energy." https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/proj ... rence.html
*2. I suppose our sensory inputs at different points-in-time, would only be static snapshots, without rational (metaphysical) inference to link those instantaneous frames into a continuous movie. So, from that perspective, Time is not physical Change, but a mental construct that we interpret as Change.
*3. Time :
Those like Aristotle and Leibniz, who think that time is not independent of the events that occur in time, deny the existence of absolute time,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/
*4. What is the growing block theory of time? :
The growing block theory of time holds that the past and present are real, and the future is unreal. The passage of time comprises new things coming into existence: as the present moves forward, and what was once present becomes past, the 'block' of reality grows.
https://academic.oup.com/mind/article-a ... m=fulltext
Note --- The Christian concept of Eternity is not static, but more like a "growing block time", which is a process separated from the laws of Nature in a heavenly realm : outside of Time.
Granted. The word "Time" has many shaded meanings, depending on context. But they all seem to refer to discernible Change of some kind. So I was talking about Time as we know it conventionally & empirically (by sensory experience of differences*1 between one observation and another : i.e. Change/Causation*2).
Obviously, only a fraction of the physical changes in the universe are observed or observable (by humans). And philosophers have examined the Epistemology & Ontology of Time from various perspectives : (1) fatalism; (2) reductionism and Platonism with respect to time; (3) the topology of time; (4) McTaggart’s argument; (5) the A-theory and the B-theory; (6) presentism, eternalism, and the growing block theory; (7) the 3D/4D debate about persistence; (8) the dynamic and the static theory; (9) the moving spotlight theory; (10) time travel; (11) time and physics and (12) time and rationality*3.
However, only the "Block Time" models involve something "other than change". And Block Time is simply a scientific term for traditional philosophical timeless/changeless Eternity. Are you referring to Events --- if that notion even makes sense in a timeless state of being -- in which nothing changes? In a physical Event, any difference/change is observable in the material form. But, what would constitute a metaphysical temporal Event? I suppose that Fatalism could be construed as a metaphysical concept of Time, in that the predetermined world of the gods, could be interpreted scientifically as a type of expanding Block Time*4.
In Block Time and Eternity theories, a traditional conventional term is used metaphorical & negatively, in order to indicate what Eternity (timelessness) is not. Can you give a positive example of Time that does not involve Change? If so, I may have to modify my essay on Time as Energy/Change, to add : "among other things".
*1. In my information-based thesis, Time is "the difference that makes a difference" (Bateson on Meaning). If time is "other than Change", does it make any Difference/Meaning to a sentient mind?
"What we mean by information - the elementary unit of information - is a difference which makes a difference, and it is able to make a difference because the neural pathways along which it travels and is continuously transformed are themselves provided with energy." https://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/proj ... rence.html
*2. I suppose our sensory inputs at different points-in-time, would only be static snapshots, without rational (metaphysical) inference to link those instantaneous frames into a continuous movie. So, from that perspective, Time is not physical Change, but a mental construct that we interpret as Change.
*3. Time :
Those like Aristotle and Leibniz, who think that time is not independent of the events that occur in time, deny the existence of absolute time,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/
*4. What is the growing block theory of time? :
The growing block theory of time holds that the past and present are real, and the future is unreal. The passage of time comprises new things coming into existence: as the present moves forward, and what was once present becomes past, the 'block' of reality grows.
https://academic.oup.com/mind/article-a ... m=fulltext
Note --- The Christian concept of Eternity is not static, but more like a "growing block time", which is a process separated from the laws of Nature in a heavenly realm : outside of Time.
Re: TPF : What is Self-Organization
What I meant is causation stops at some point. After that the question becomes metaphysical such as first cause etc. — simplyG
Yes. In spoken or written language, Ellipsis is the intentional omission of information. But the intention is indicated by a series of dots, or perhaps a smile/smirk after the last word in an incompleted thought : as a clue, meaning "you fill-in the blanks".
In Cosmology, the history of the Self-Organization of the physical universe suddenly stopped at a point in time, where time itself vanished into eternity, defined mathematically as a Singularity. Hence, some cosmologists apparently inferred an ellipsis in the history of our world --- even though there were no physical dots to indicate an intentional omission of information about the provenance of Reality. Not even a "once upon a time". So, they imagined a Metaphysical or Metaphorical gap-filler to allow the story to continue indefinitely into the past.
The inquiring mind seems to know somehow, that logically there should be more to the story. So, Materialists fill-in the pre-history blank with an infinite regression of Multiverses, while Spiritualists infer the logical necessity for an intentional Original Organizer. Which raises the question of what were the "contextual clues" pointing beyond the empirical beginning toward a hypothetical Cause of the known events?
Perhaps, our experience with physical Impetus & Momentum has primed us to look beyond the initial Action for an Actor, responsible for the subsequent patterns of Self-Organization. How else could Time/Change/Evolution just -- suddenly & without warning -- start Ticking/Changing/Organizing for no apparent reason?
Ellipsis : the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues.
the-purposes-of-the-ellipsis-and-dashes_128144.jpg
Yes. In spoken or written language, Ellipsis is the intentional omission of information. But the intention is indicated by a series of dots, or perhaps a smile/smirk after the last word in an incompleted thought : as a clue, meaning "you fill-in the blanks".
In Cosmology, the history of the Self-Organization of the physical universe suddenly stopped at a point in time, where time itself vanished into eternity, defined mathematically as a Singularity. Hence, some cosmologists apparently inferred an ellipsis in the history of our world --- even though there were no physical dots to indicate an intentional omission of information about the provenance of Reality. Not even a "once upon a time". So, they imagined a Metaphysical or Metaphorical gap-filler to allow the story to continue indefinitely into the past.
The inquiring mind seems to know somehow, that logically there should be more to the story. So, Materialists fill-in the pre-history blank with an infinite regression of Multiverses, while Spiritualists infer the logical necessity for an intentional Original Organizer. Which raises the question of what were the "contextual clues" pointing beyond the empirical beginning toward a hypothetical Cause of the known events?
Perhaps, our experience with physical Impetus & Momentum has primed us to look beyond the initial Action for an Actor, responsible for the subsequent patterns of Self-Organization. How else could Time/Change/Evolution just -- suddenly & without warning -- start Ticking/Changing/Organizing for no apparent reason?
Ellipsis : the omission from speech or writing of a word or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues.
the-purposes-of-the-ellipsis-and-dashes_128144.jpg
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests