BothAndBlog Forum

What is self-organization?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/814238

"So life controls itself in the form of the development and stabilization of density concentrations at the respective stage of evolution." ↪Wolfgang

If you want to study self-organisation more formally, SO in physics is best approached through dissipative structure theory, as part of thermodynamics. SO as life and mind is best described by biosemiosis. — apokrisis

Wolfgang seems to be talking about "self-organization" in a cosmic sense, to raise the question of how living creatures could be assembled out of non-living matter. He attributes that creative & organizing ability to the "four fundamental forces that govern the universe"*1. He didn't itemize those forces, but I assume he's referring to gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Those binding & repelling forces certainly have something to do with organization of matter into aggregations, but exactly how lumping & clumping results in the holistic function we call Life remains unclear.

A different life-force was recently proposed by an MIT physicist*2, but it does just the opposite of aggregating & organizing compulsions. Instead of those clumping forces, he postulates that unbinding & dis-organizing Entropy may have a role in releasing Life from bondage to lumps of matter. "Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, but until recently, physicists were unable to use thermodynamics to explain why it should arise in the first place" Apparently, Life emerges on the cusp between rigid order and random disorder, in "dissipative structures" that exist "far from equilibrium".

As you noted, another recent approach to the Life question is Biosemiosis (biology + semiotics ; lit. life-signs). This theory proposes that organisms exchange information via "pre-lingustic" signs & symbols. It assumes that some kind of Information carriers, like symbols or codes, exist in cellular biology. And DNA is one such corporeal repository of information that seems to be encoded with algorithms to organize proteins into forms that are suitable for animation. But it omits the Frankenstein lightning-bolt jolt that magically completes the circuit to animate dead flesh --- as-if raw energy was enough to do the job. If you describe that encoded matter as "Enformed Energy" though, you combine the jolt with the data.

That's why I prefer to go back to the beginning of the whole shebang, in search of the Life-source. It's what I call, in various contexts, "Primordial Energy" or "enforming energy" or "Causal Information" or "EnFormAction". That's not a physical substance, but merely a meta-physical (not-yet-physical) Potential. As we know, a complete electrical circuit does nothing until it is charged with electric Potential --- which again is not a substance, but a statistical tendency in a particular causal direction. I can't produce tangible evidence for such a Potential to Enform, but merely philosophical conjectures, analogies & metaphors. Yet a few avant-garde scientists have been expanding on Shannon's inert Information Theory --- e.g. dynamic or causal EnFormAction --- in order to explain such scientific & philosophical mysteries as Life & Mind.

In physicist Paul Davies 1989 book, The Cosmic Blueprint, he says "a completely new view of nature is emerging which recognizes that many phenomena fall outside the conventional framework". Yet he discusses several conventional candidates for causing self-organization. "The simplest type of self-organization in physics is a phase transition". Indeed a change of physical phase is an instance of almost instantaneous re-organization of a substance, such as H2O to water to gas to ice. And it might serve as a model for phase transition from protein cell to living organism to thinking thing. But by itself, it omits the enlivening force that causes such a major organizational leap.

Davies discusses many of the items considered by previous theories : fundamental forces, dissipative forces, cellular codes, and such. But he finally comes down to one key feature of those candidates : Disequilibrium*3, which is not a physical thing, but a relationship between things. We find that causal imbalance in all kinds of changes & transitions from Thermodynamics to Information Asymmetry. In my thesis I sometimes call that state of precarious tipping-point Potential : Platonic First Cause or Aristotelian Prime Mover. But in more technical terms, it could be called "Primordial Energy", or "Vacuum Energy", or simply "the generic power to transform & enform".


*1. The Four Fundamental Forces :
They understand that there are four fundamental forces — gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces — that are responsible for shaping the universe we inhabit.
https://universe.nasa.gov/universe/forces/

*2. A New Physics Theory of Life :
An MIT physicist has proposed the provocative idea that life exists because the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire lifelike physical properties.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-th ... -20140122/

*3. Davies on Self Organization :
"Disequilibrium, claims Prigogine, ‘is the source of order’ in the universe; it brings ‘order out of chaos’."
https://sciphilos.info/docs_pages/docs_ ... n_css.html

↪Wolfgang

Bollocks. Biophysics speaks directly to the issue. — apokrisis

Your snarky responses sound like you think Enformationism is contradictory to Biosemiotics or to Biophysics*1. But in my thesis & blog, I have referred to Biosemiosis*2 as an example of a possible information-processing mechanism in living organisms. The primary difference is that BS & BP are hypothetical mechanisms in Biology, while EnFormAction is a hypothetical organizing (enforming) process in Cosmology. So, although both are science-related philosophical theories, they are not competing against each other.

One of my favorite scientists (evolutionary biology + neuroscience), Terrence Deacon, has contributed several novel ideas that I adopted in my own philosophical theories. And he had this to say about Semotics*3 : "In this essay, I argue that we ultimately need to re-ground biosemiotic theory on natural science principles and abandon the analogy with human level semiotics, except as this provides clues for guiding analysis. But, to overcome the implicit dualism still firmly entrenched in the biological sciences requires a third approach that is neither phenomenologically motivated nor based on a code analogy". Deacon apparently sees "implicit dualism" in Semiotics, whereas Enformationism postulates an Information-based Monism/Holism.

The Information Philosopher, Bob Doyle*4, notes that, although Biosemiotic philosophy has been around for decades, it has not yet been generally accepted by empirical Biologists. The amateur Enformationism thesis has only been online for about 15 years, and it has not yet been accepted by professional Philosophers or Scientists. Yet, we slog on, pushing our little pet theories on an inconsequential forum of ideas.

The relevant question for Cosmology may not be amenable to empirical evidence. So we may have to get by with theoretical conjectures. Life is a late emergence in the 14 billion years of physical evolution. And materialistic physics has no place for minds & meanings. But biological beings seem to possess the non-physical quality of Agency (goal-setting & pursuing). So where did the cyphers for such emergent behaviors come from? Was the program for Life & Mind encoded in the original Singularity, or did such immaterial phenomena arise spontaneously from the Laws of Physics? If so, whence the pre-bang Laws for limiting & organizing physical evolution : innate or encoded?


*1. Biophysics : Biophysics is an interdisciplinary science that applies approaches and methods traditionally used in physics to study biological phenomena. Biophysics covers all scales of biological organization, from molecular to organismic and populations. ___Wikipedia

*2. Biosemiosis : Life Codes
Biology = empirical science of living matter
Semiotics = theoretical philosophy of linguistic analogies to explain how Life emerges from matter
BioSemiotics = Biology + Phenomenology
Enformationism = theoretical philosophy of cosmology to explain how Life & Mind emerge from matter, due to cosmic causes that are essentially Design (organizing) Information encoded into Causal Energy (EnFormAction). The process of Causation is traced back to a First Cause that precipitated the Big Bang. It's just a theory.

*3. Steps to a science of Biosemiotics :
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... osemiotics

*4. The Status Of Biosemiotics :
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... eport.html

Biosemiosis is based on the physics of dissipative structure. And dissipative structure is also the basis of cosmology. — apokrisis

You are talking about Physics, while I'm talking about Philosophy --- on a philosophy forum. That may be why we are not communicating. Physical Cosmology and Philosophical Cosmology are two sides of the same coin*1. But apparently you are not seeing my side : the non-physical metaphysical mental half of the universe that is meaningful only to rational philosophical animals, who think about ideas that are not physical things.

*1. Philosophy of Cosmology :
Cosmology deals with the physical situation that is the context in the large for human existence: the universe has such a nature that our life is possible. This means that although it is a physical science, it is of particular importance in terms of its implications for human life. . . . As recently as 1960, cosmology was widely regarded as a branch of philosophy. It has transitioned to an extremely active area of mainstream physics and astronomy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology/

You tell yourself whatever gives you comfort. But I will continue calling bullshit on your conflationary arguments about "information". — apokrisis

Apparently, something about my information-based worldview is discomfiting for you. Perhaps you feel that it denies a belief system that makes sense of the world for you. Yet, my philosophy encompasses a variety of perspectives. That's why I call it "BothAnd". It's both Realism and Idealism, both Reductionism and Holism, both Materialism and Informationism (which some may interpret as ancient Spiritualism). That doesn't mean all perspectives are true, but that the truth typically lies in the overlapping margins of Venn-diagram oppositions.

Anyway, It's not a question of comfort for me, but of making philosophical sense of Quantum Physics in terms of Information Theory. Besides, I'm in good company with several prominent philosophers and scientists. Yet, any comfort I might gain from that camaraderie is offset by the fact that they remain in the minority position among a plethora of pragmatic (and some dogmatic) Materialist scientists and philosophers, defending an outdated classical worldview.

So, I keep plugging away on this forum, refining and developing my understanding of the new directions in science, stemming from the post-classical philosophy of physics, better known as Quantum Physics. Of course, it's a free forum, so you are free to prefer the fragrance of your own deflationary BS.

Both/And Principle :
*** My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
*** The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in the universe of many parts.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Growth_of_info.png
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... formation/

I have no problem at all with either the metaphysics or physics of raw potential. Your problem is I understand all this stuff well enough to see that you don’t. — apokrisis

Is it possible that your "understanding" is out of date? Not wrong, just outmoded.

I expected posters on a philosophy forum to be well-informed about the evolution of Information Theory since Shannon's statistical definition for a specific purpose : data processing & communication. But I have been disillusioned.

Scientists now know that mathematical Information plays many roles at all levels of reality. It's no longer just inert Data ; it's also Meaning, Causation, Organization, etc. Wherever there is Mathematics or Logic, there is Information.


What is Information? :
Originally, the word “information” referred to the meaningful software contents of a mind, which were assumed to be only loosely shaped by the physical container : the hardware brain. But in the 20th century, the focus of Information theory has been on its material form as changes in copper wires & silicon circuits & neural networks. Now, Terrence Deacon’s book about the Causal Power of Absence requires another reinterpretation of the role of Information in the world. He quotes philosopher John Collier, “The great tragedy of formal information theory [Shannon] is that its very expressive power is gained through abstraction away from the very thing that it has been designed to describe.” Claude Shannon’s Information is functional, but not meaningful. So now, Deacon turns the spotlight on the message rather than the medium.
http://bothandblog4.enformationism.info/page26.html

Nope. The problem is you rabbit on about moddish stuff without having any technical understanding or metaphysical grounding. — apokrisis

I see. My lack of authoritative credentials is a stumbling block for you. But that's why I link to people who have credentials in relevant areas. I even include a pertinent excerpt along with the link, so you don't have to read a technical webpage. I don't know what else I can do to communicate some novel ideas in science & philosophy with you. Nevertheless, I'm still willing to reply to any comments you direct to me. You know how persistent rabbits are.

PS___Despite the failure to communicate, I have enjoyed the stimulation of your goading : it forces me to trim the fat from my thesis, and get down to the meat.

↪Metaphysician Undercover

This seems to be another one of those threads where posters, who are well read in certain areas of science & philosophy, end-up talking past each other from separate-but-adjacent wells-of-knowledge. Ironically, although he disparages my own unconventional worldview, a lot of what ↪apokrisis says in the vocabulary of his Biology-centric worldview, actually makes sense in terms of my own Information-centric worldview --- which goes back to a time before Biology emerged from Physics. Perhaps it's an accent thing --- like English & German languages, historically related, but we still need interpreters to facilitate communication. Here's a few quotes & notes from his post to you above :

*1. "Life is agency in that it harnesses chance".
Note --- To harness chance is to organize randomness. But natural or cosmic agency is a no-no in the accidental philosophy of Materialism. Yet, self-organization requires the ability to bring order out of chaos. However, to postulate a self-existent First Cause or uber-Agent --- who provides the Cause & Laws necessary to guide a randomized non-living system toward the emergence of living organisms --- sounds like woo-mongering to some on this forum.

*2. "The Universe wants to entropify. Life says here, let me help you over the humps. The second law gets served in the long run, but life gets to swim in negentropic loopholes it discovers."
Note --- Is this an extrapolation of the Gaian hypothesis, to assert that the natural universe is not only self-regulating, but also self-organizing, and has a Will, a Direction, a Goal, almost like a human agent? I sometimes refer to the Gaia hypothesis to illustrate how the universe functions as-if a living organism. Perhaps I don't take it as literally as he does. In place of "to entropify" I would use the term "to enform", and in place of "negentropy" I coined the term "EnFormAction". Different vocabularies for different folks.

*3. "So life as "agency" is about this Gaian wholeness."
Note --- Holism is an essential concept to explain how Generic Information changes Form via sequential Phase Transitions. And the power to transform matter into Life & Mind might pre-date or transcend the emergence of Gaia from non-living insentient matter in the Big Bang beginning. I guess it depends on just how Whole Gaia is assumed to be : encompassing even space-time?

*4. "It would woo to suggest that the Cosmos actually has a mind, or a designer. But Darwinian evolution is the agency that ensures life did keep stumbling towards the biggest entropic combination the Cosmos had to offer."
Note --- Is he implying that the mindless Darwinian mechanism functions as-if it was an intentional agent, or designer, manipulating matter & energy into living organisms, some with minds of their own? When I make similar inferences, the boo-woo-birds start squawking. Just how Holistic do you have to be to qualify as a wooer? Does Biosemiotics/Gaia hypothesis stop just short of the woo line?

*5. "Is this your confusion? Individual organisms might seem to answer to your simplistic definition of openness. They transact raw materials with their environments. But then the environment itself is a Gaian superorganism. Life is now woven into the material cycles of the planet itself."
Note --- Is a "super-organism" super-natural?
I can agree with some of those statements, but his disparaging attitude toward your & my -- not so different -- ideas indicates that he may have responded to harsh woo-bashing on this forum by withdrawing into a hard shell of doctrinaire Biosemiotics --- turning a theory into a dogma. Then wielding the woo-stick on other non-conformers.

If I may... Step 1 to understanding apokrisis is to swap the idea of "causes" for the idea of "prevents". — Srap Tasmaner

Although the basic idea of Positive vs Negative (absential)*1 Causation makes some abstract sense, I'm not familiar with the notion of active "Prevention" in supposedly Natural processes such as Self-Organization. In complex systems, random "interference" sometimes occurs, but non-random "prevention" seems to imply an active "intervention". Which could suggest some kind of Agency. For example, most of the search items (causation vs prevention) involve medical or psychiatric interventions or omissions*2 by human doctors.

As I understand the concept of Self-Organization, the only secondary causal agency is the Self : as in "self-causation". Which hints at some non-linear potential in the original causal input : e.g. the Big Bang. By "non-linear" I mean something like the codes of a guided missile that can change course along the way to the target.

Is there another external agency, that counters the Linear momentum of the initial Cause? In billiards, the pool shooter is the First Cause, and subsequent paths of the balls are the result of momentum & direction (vector) inputs. I suppose you could say that the perimeter of the table "prevents" the balls from exploring all paths in the universe. But the table is a man-made object, constructed with intent to prevent or constrain degrees of freedom.

In the context of Big Bang theory, any subsequent exchanges of causal energy are presumably due to exchanges of momentum, which are not intentional or preventional*3. Is ↪apokrisis postulating some Active Agent*2 changing the direction of causation by intentional prevention. Or am I missing the point?

*1. Absential Causation : Terrence Deacon term
Absential ~ Causality. a form of causality dependent on specifically absent features and unrealized potentials can be compatible with our best science
https://absence.github.io/3-explanation ... ntial.html

*2. Causation by Omission :
For example, to take fairly simple cases, 'causation' by omission involves a negative event 'causing' something, and prevention involves something 'causing' a negative event.

*3. The Philosophy of Prevention :
Prevention is an active process, prevention is a kind of practical as well as philosophical intervention.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Prevention

↪Metaphysician Undercover

Stop making excuses for yourself. It is your lack of credible analysis and understanding of the subject matter itself. — apokrisis

This thread --- on a philosophical question --- is beginning to devolve into a political or religious debate instead of a dispassionate dialog. Some indignant posters seem to be defending canonical positions instead of philosophical postulations. So, since the OP is of interest to me, I'll continue on, while trying to avoid the hostile dug-in posters with polarized worldviews and ad hominem arguments : attacking the messenger instead of responding to the message. . Fortunately, there are still a few calm open-minded thinkers on the forum.

Time to get hip to the latest trip? Information theory is so 1990s. These guys are the names you want to start dropping and quote-mining to make it sound like you are up with the game. — apokrisis

Sounds like you've got it all figured-out, while I'm still working-out the bugs in my own little homely theory of causal information. Therefore, I bow to your air of superiority --- as I did obeisance to 180's arrogance before*1. I can't even come close to such a sense of absolute certainty. So I'm not in a position to be condescending. And I'm not engaged in whatever mano e mano game you are playing.

For the record, I'm not really trying to play catch-up with your "hip" expertise. I'm content to just plod along, developing my personal & amateur Information-centric philosophical worldview. It keeps me amused. But I don't take it so seriously that I get offended by alternative perspectives on the world. I can even fit Biosemiotics --- as I superficially understand it --- neatly into the Enformationism thesis. Yet I make no claim to scientific rigor in my non-professional, non-academic retirement hobby. I leave that up to the pros. Hence, on this forum, I'll try to avoid a stare-down with those who are so far above my pay grade, and to limit my dialoging to other un-hip amateur philosophers closer to my own level.

PS___I see that you are viewing my thesis from the perspective of 1990s Information theory. But I'm incorporating 21st century Information theory into my world model, that you seem to be unaware of, and even disdainful of. That's OK though, I keep myself entertained with feckless Philosophy as a means, not to know-it-all, but to "know thyself".

*1. But I'm an independent-minded vassal, who sometimes mutters under his breath : "E pur si muove"