Second Order Cybernetics

[gnuneo]

Cybernetics had from the beginning been interested in the similarities between autonomous, living systems and machines (see history of cybernetics). In this post-war era, the fascination with the new control and computer technologies tended to focus attention on the engineering approach, where it is the system designer who determines what the system will do. However, after the control engineering and computer science disciplines had become fully independent, the remaining cyberneticists felt the need to clearly distinguish themselves from these more mechanistic approaches, by emphasizing autonomy, self-organization, cognition, and the role of the observer in modelling a system. In the early 1970's this movement became known as second-order cybernetics.
They began with the recognition that all our knowledge of systems is mediated by our simplified representations--or models--of them, which necessarily ignore those aspects of the system which are irrelevant to the purposes for which the model is constructed. Thus the properties of the systems themselves must be distinguished from those of their models, which depend on us as their creators. An engineer working with a mechanical system, on the other hand, almost always know its internal structure and behavior to a high degree of accuracy, and therefore tends to de-emphasize the system/model distinction, acting as if the model is the system.

Moreover, such an engineer, scientist, or "first-order" cyberneticist, will study a system as if it were a passive, objectively given "thing", that can be freely observed, manipulated, and taken apart. A second-order cyberneticist working with an organism or social system, on the other hand, recognizes that system as an agent in its own right, interacting with another agent, the observer. As quantum mechanics has taught us, observer and observed cannot be separated, and the result of observations will depend on their interaction. The observer too is a cybernetic system, trying to construct a model of another cybernetic system (see constructivism). To understand this process, we need a "cybernetics of cybernetics", i.e. a "meta" or "second-order" cybernetics.

These cyberneticians' emphasis on such epistemological, psychological and social issues was a welcome complement to the reductionist climate which followed on the great progress in science and engineering of the day. However, it may have led them to overemphasize the novelty of their "second-order" approach. First, it must be noted that most founding fathers of cybernetics, such as Ashby, McCulloch and Bateson, explicitly or implicitly agreed with the importance of autonomy, self-organization and the subjectivity of modelling. Therefore, they can hardly be portrayed as "first order" reductionists. Second, the intellectual standard bearers of the second order approach during the 1970's, such as von Foerster, Pask, and Maturana, were themselves directly involved in the development of "first order" cybernetics in the 1950's and 1960's. In fact, if we look more closely at the history of the field, we see a continuous development towards a stronger focus on autonomy and the role of the observer, rather than a clean break between generations or approaches.

Reference:

Heylighen F. & Joslyn C. (2001): "Cybernetics and Second Order Cybernetics", in: R.A. Meyers (ed.), Encyclopedia of Physical Science & Technology , Vol. 4 (3rd ed.), (Academic Press, New York), p. 155-170


----------------------------

this is for redstar and other marxist materialist objectivists. Read and weep, ye victorian fanatics, read and weep.

[redstar2000]

As quantum mechanics has taught us, observer and observed cannot be separated, and the result of observations will depend on their interaction.

Left something out, didn't you?

Come on...think!

At the quantum (sub-atomic) level!

Large atoms have actually been photographed. They look "fuzzy". That's not because they're "out of focus", that "fuzziness" is the remnant of quantum uncertainty.

Long before you reach anything large enough to even see with the naked eye, the uncertainties cancel each other out and the object behaves independently of the observer.

There have been some very elaborate experiments to demonstrate the observer effect at the macro level...but in the normal course of events, we never notice it. It's too unimaginably tiny to make any difference.

We can observe objective phenomena "as if" it were completely independent of us and get the right answer. Or at least an answer that's close enough to being right as to make no measurable difference.

Your example of "meta-cybernetics" is really irrelevant. Who would contest the proposition that someone constructing a model of a system would bring their own preconceptions to the construction of that model? Or that those preconceptions might interfere with the construction of a correct model?

But if you want to argue that the system being observed independently alters itself as a consequence of the observer's preconceptions so as to "fit" the model "better"...that is "first order" metaphysical nonsense.

The macro-system is not sentient...it has no way of "knowing" that it's being observed unless the observer physically interferes with it.

Only at the "quantum level" can you change things by (apparently) just looking at them.


This is for redstar and other marxist materialist objectivists. Read and weep, ye Victorian fanatics, read and weep.

My eyes remain dry.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Here is the site that this cat cut and pasted his intrudoction from.

cybernetics (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SECORCYB.html)

[gnuneo]

Your example of "meta-cybernetics" is really irrelevant. Who would contest the proposition that someone constructing a model of a system would bring their own preconceptions to the construction of that model? Or that those preconceptions might interfere with the construction of a correct model?


so where is your beloved 'objectivism' then?

as for the rest, ie your observations that the universe isnt sentient, if i had the time i would find nils bohr's specific comments disagreeing with that. Have you even heard of nils bohr?

comrade RAF - the link was easy enough to find, simply put the first lineinto google. i didnt, becuase i had used it some time ago for a geography exam, and i couldnt be assed to find the link again.

but was it necessary? if i put a definition from dictionary.com, do have to put that up as well?


The macro-system is not sentient...it has no way of "knowing" that it's being observed unless the observer physically interferes with it.

wrong. it has been demonstrated repeatedly in a laboratory that even macro systems change under observation.

[redstar2000]

So where is your beloved 'objectivism' then?

It remains in the system being modeled, of course.

Your model may be a good one -- it behaves the way the system is observed to behave -- or it may be a poor one -- it fails to behave as the system behaves.

But the system does not change its behavior so as to "fit" your model "better". It is objectively independent of both your observations of its behavior and your efforts to model its behavior.


As for the rest, i.e., your observation that the universe isn't sentient, if I had the time I would find Niels Bohr's specific comments disagreeing with that. Have you even heard of Niels Bohr?

Niels Henrik David Bohr (1885-1962) was one of the brightest stars of a brilliant cluster of physicists in the 1920s and 30s that discovered and theorized the "quantum universe". A native of Denmark, his interpretation of quantum reality is still known as the "Copenhagen school" and is still probably the majority view of contemporary physicists (as I noted, there are seven other competing schools).

But if even he, as brilliant as he was, ever said anything as stupid as "the universe is sentient", then I will nevertheless disagree!


It has been demonstrated repeatedly in a laboratory that even macro systems change under observation.

How do you think it "strengthens" your pathetic "argument" to repeat what I already conceded as if it were a "fresh point"?

Here is what I wrote: "There have been some very elaborate experiments to demonstrate the observer effect at the macro level...but in the normal course of events, we never notice it. It's too unimaginably tiny to make any difference."


Comrade RAF - the link was easy enough to find, simply put the first line into google...

I could be wrong, but I suspect Comrade RAF was drawing attention to an all-too-common phenomenon on internet message boards.

Namely, the practice of those with weak arguments "copying & pasting" a more "professional" and "articulate" summary of those weak arguments in the attempt to intimidate their opposition. (No credit is given to the original source, of course.)

It's something that happens frequently in Opposing Ideologies, so it's no surprise that Comrade RAF, the mod of that forum, recognized the tactic immediately.

I naively thought, of course, that you were using your own words.

But it does not matter whose words you use...you're still wrong!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

the practice of those with weak arguments "copying & pasting" a more "professional" and "articulate" summary of those weak arguments in the attempt to intimidate their opposition. (No credit is given to the original source, of course.)


well...


Reference:

Heylighen F. & Joslyn C. (2001): "Cybernetics and Second Order Cybernetics", in: R.A. Meyers (ed.), Encyclopedia of Physical Science & Technology , Vol. 4 (3rd ed.), (Academic Press, New York), p. 155-170

I'm staying out of this one, but I thought I'd at least set the poster's credibility back. ;)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 08:48 PM

the practice of those with weak arguments "copying & pasting" a more "professional" and "articulate" summary of those weak arguments in the attempt to intimidate their opposition. (No credit is given to the original source, of course.)


well...


Reference:

Heylighen F. & Joslyn C. (2001): "Cybernetics and Second Order Cybernetics", in: R.A. Meyers (ed.), Encyclopedia of Physical Science & Technology , Vol. 4 (3rd ed.), (Academic Press, New York), p. 155-170

I'm staying out of this one, but I thought I'd at least set the poster's credibility back. ;)
Perhaps you have a point and perhaps not.

Usually, the term "reference" refers not to the source of the main document but rather to a portion that is quoted within the document. The term "source" is generally preferred when the whole document actually comes from someone besides yourself.

But I concede that gnuneo may have intended that his post be read as a document from an external source.

Happy?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Namely, the practice of those with weak arguments "copying & pasting" a more "professional" and "articulate" summary of those weak arguments in the attempt to intimidate their opposition. (No credit is given to the original source, of course.)

It's something that happens frequently in Opposing Ideologies, so it's no surprise that Comrade RAF, the mod of that forum, recognized the tactic immediately.

I naively thought, of course, that you were using your own words.



That is precisely what I figured. Good call RS.

[DaCuBaN]

But I concede that gnuneo may have intended that his post be read as a document from an external source.

Happy?

Woohoo! concessions from RS! RAF take note ;)
Careful, you'll be a reformist before you know it :lol:

[gnuneo]

OK this went nowhere fast , i'll add another thought to the brew - "Does the *fact* that our apprehension of the universe is necessarily Subjective, deny the existence of an Objective universe?

[gnuneo]

David Lindley explains why quantum seems both to oppose the logic of classical physics and to seem, using a word which quantum physicists have adopted, so weird:

This is the heart of the fundamental issue. In classical physics, we are accustomed to thinking of physical properties as having definite values, which we can try to apprehend by measurement. But in quantum physics, it is only the process of measurement that yields any number for a physical quantity, and the nature of quantum measurements is such that it is no longer possible to think of the underlying physical property (magnetic orientation of atoms, for example) as having any definite or reliable reality before the measurement takes place. [ Note 3 ]


http://www.humanevol.com/doc/doc200302100430.html








The Needle's Tip that we would call infinitesimal, is, in its "scanning electron micrograph," the corbelled and tunneled and buttressed and corrugate Tower of Babel as Bruegel envisioned it under construction
Albert Goldbarth

More and more sophisticated radio, microwave and optical telescopes proved Einstein's Theory of relativity correct and through the century they detect pulsars or heard the background radiation that is the very echo of the universe's birth. With each discovery we have realized more and more the range of the universe and the awesome nature of it. However, when we look in the opposite direction so to speak, as we look into the world of the particle, the wonder grows even more. Since the renaissance, when an early science began to peer into a microscope, we discovered surprise after surprise. The microscope reached its limits and we resorted to other tools and methods to explore smaller and smaller scales. Only then did the world that we perceive began to break down and the constituents of matter and their behavior seemed not to pare with the everyday macro world in which we lead our lives. In short, as scientists developed a thorough and all encompassing theory of the of the micro-world, our building blocks became more and more non sense. In this chapter we will look at some of the most astonishing and mind-bending discoveries science made during this century. These discoveries deal, not as Einstein's, with the place we inhabit, but with the world is made of. Quantum deals with the atom and its particles.

As we have seen from the previous chapter, at the end of the nineteenth century, physics worked within certainties. The Newtonian model of the universe presented certain paradoxes which were difficult to solve but which also most scientists believed would be solved without disturbing Newton's framework radically. As conservative as Einstein and many other scientists were, their findings at the beginning of this century did not merely revolutionized physics and science, but actually shifted the paradigms within which science worked. As we have seen, Einstein's relativity did just that. The general theory argued that galaxies, stars and planets are free-falling through a four dimensional space-time which was curved in the fourth dimension.

While Einstein's conclusions seem somehow mind-boggling, Einstein himself as well as many of his contemporaries did not only try to solve the cosmological paradoxes they inherited from classical mechanics, but also worked with some of the paradoxes and problems that arose in the study of the atom and its components. In fact, if any branch of science would challenge common sense and to an extent revolutionize our conception of the world we live in, quantum mechanics would do it to boot. Quantum mechanics is so puzzling in its assertions that both scientists and philosophers have either rejected or shrugged at its findings. Einstein's famous remark that God does not play dice with the universe was a direct response to one of Quantum's most cherished premises. The Columbia University philosopher David Z. Albert has written that quantum is " an unsettling story," "the most unsettling story, perhaps, to have emerged from any of the physical sciences since the 17th century." [ Note 1 ] Similarly, in his book Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics, Nick Herbert argues that with quantum, scientists "lost their grip on reality." [ Note 2 ]

In one of the best popularizations of the subject, David Lindley explains why quantum seems both to oppose the logic of classical physics and to seem, using a word which quantum physicists have adopted, so weird:

This is the heart of the fundamental issue. In classical physics, we are accustomed to thinking of physical properties as having definite values, which we can try to apprehend by measurement. But in quantum physics, it is only the process of measurement that yields any number for a physical quantity, and the nature of quantum measurements is such that it is no longer possible to think of the underlying physical property (magnetic orientation of atoms, for example) as having any definite or reliable reality before the measurement takes place. [ Note 3 ]

The difficulty or weirdness of quantum stems from the fact that the physical reality it describes cannot be measured because once the measurement is done that reality has changed. Like most of quantum, the latter statement seems paradoxical. More paradoxical, however, is the fact that if one looks at the different branches of science and attempts to pinpoint the most precise by the way each science is able to predict exact outcomes, then quantum is the most exact of science. The rub, of course, is that whatever precision quantum yields, it does so only to defy our common sense.

In this chapter we will attempt to make some sense of quantum mechanics: what it studies, what its conclusions are and see how these conclusions tie up with the macro-cosmos which we dealt with in the previous chapter. Quantum studies the behavior of the atom and its particles. It does so by predicting the probabilities of possible results. In other words, an analogue discipline to quantum in the macro-world would be ballistics. Ballistics takes a projectile, a launcher, friction, gravity, etc. as its variables and through formulas calculates the way in which the missile will travel and where it will land. In other words, ballistic takes certain variables and converts them into possible results. Similarly, quantum takes an atom and calculates the probability of its charge or color. The difference here, of course, is that ballistics functions in a classical universe. Ballistics experts have to consider two things, matter, the substance of projectile and launcher and fields, in this case the earth's gravitational field. The bullet is made out of metal, matter, follows a trajectory due to inertia and if not stopped, eventually lands because the earth's gravitational field pulls it. Quantum is not that simple.

When people talk about quantum they are often talking about the various interpretations which scientists have tried to frame in order to describe or explain what quantum is saying. For instance, Niels Bohr, who is known for the Copenhagen interpretation, would argue that quantum tells us that there is no deep reality. Like the Bishop Berkeley three centuries before him, Bohr argued that the world we see around us might be real enough, but its components, what is built on, is not real. It follows then, that the second premise of the Copenhagen interpretation pivots around the idea that, since there is no deep reality, what the scientist observes is a phenomenal reality. Phenomenal reality argues that in the absence of an observer phenomena do not exist. In other words, the scientist creates reality as he determines the electron's spin or momentum.



ibid.

[redstar2000]

Phenomenal reality argues that in the absence of an observer phenomena do not exist. In other words, the scientist creates reality as he determines the electron's spin or momentum.

So it would seem according to the Copenhagen interpretation; as I noted earlier, there are (at least) seven others (all of them, of course, are mathematically equivalent).

But the Copenhagen "philosophical extension" of quantum mechanics has a nasty little problem all its own.

If phenomenon do not exist in the absence of the observer, what happens when no one is looking?

For example (at the macro level), we've only recently developed the technology to observe young galaxies at the very edge of the visible universe...did they "spring into existence" when our telescopes first photographed them?

But how could that be? Their light has been traveling for billions of years before it reached us...in fact the earth and the solar system (and possibly even our own galaxy) didn't even exist when that light departed from those young galaxies.

Consequently, at the macro level, those young galaxies existed regardless of whether or not we were "looking". We didn't "create" them by looking; they were there all along.

But if they were "there" at the macro-level, then does it not follow that they were also "there" at the quantum level? I realize that the word "there" has a completely different meaning at the quantum level than it does at the macro-level...but, in a quantum sense, those young galaxies were also "there" long before our planet even existed.

I'm certainly willing to "concede" that "objective reality" has a very different meaning at the quantum level than it does at the macro-level...and the "why" of that has proven thus far to be an intractable problem (hence the multitude of "interpretations").

But your enthusiastic embrace of the Copenhagen interpretation simply reveals your own prejudice in favor of a world "forever unknowable" even in principle.

We are not bound by your post-modernist prejudices.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 22 2004, 12:32 PM--> (redstar2000 @ May 22 2004, 12:32 PM)
Large atoms have actually been photographed. They look "fuzzy". That's not because they're "out of focus", that "fuzziness" is the remnant of quantum uncertainty.
[/b]

Actually, I don't think that's quite accurate if you're meaning what I think you're meaning. I'm no expert, and assuming this is an electron microscope foto we're talking about, what we're seeing is the fuzziness to do with the interaction of the electron microscope with the outer electrons of the atom in question. The electrons are travelling too fast to be "pinned down" in any foto at that frequency (they're knocking/scattering the 'objective' beam electrons in predictable distributions, captured on photo-sensitive receptors like a camera, etc.).

Where the quantum uncertainty comes in is in our actually being able to calculate where OR at what velocity/momentum those persnicketty point particles, electrons, are at, at any particular moment -- which just happens to correspond neatly with the vague distribution you see in the (constantly improving) fotoz.
The awesome powers of quantum prediction!

With some super-duper ultra-high-energy gamma-ray gun, you'd probably actually be able to "see" these point particle(??) electrons (at least 'pin-point' their position; but forget about the nucleus, which is a whole other kettle of fish...) -- but not be able to calculate their velocity -- thus their momentum. But then maybe I'm just hallucinating on mushrooms here and you can just ignore me...



[email protected] 22 2004, 12:32 PM

Long before you reach anything large enough to even see with the naked eye, the uncertainties cancel each other out and the object behaves independently of the observer.



I'd say this is more the case of emergent, dialectical behavior, as various hard-to-pin-down discrete particles combine with each other and pin each other at more and more discrete energy levels -- till we get to the point where they emerge as "solid" in our cruder macro sense.

But then again, maybe it's just the psilocybin talking.

[Guest1]

Wow... I can grasp what you guys are talking about, very vaguely and superficially, but I was a social science student and plan to be again come december. So you can understand, this is still a little fuzzy to me.

My question is off topic, sorry... how the hell can you type on psilocyben?

[gnuneo]

LOL, i've tried it on acid - and its seriously not easy, however a damn sight easier than playing 'risk' on acid :D


redstar: one of the neatest solutions to the conundrum you have posed, and one that you have already stated you cannot accept (religious reasons?), is that *the universe is conscious of itself*.


BTW - this does *not* mean one has to then accept the ridiculous anthropomorphic notions of 'gawd' peddled by the various JCM mindfuck paradigms, as i suspect they annoy you almost as much as they do me.

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 6 2004, 07:16 AM
My question is off topic, sorry... how the hell can you type on psilocyben?
It's easy.
I'm friends with my computer -- so I just ask it to type this insanity in for me, and it complies.
;P

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 02:05 PM
LOL, i've tried it on acid - and its seriously not easy, however a damn sight easier than playing 'risk' on acid :D


As a past Risk "Master", I can appreciate that difficulty...
(Remember: AUSTRALIA (or South America) IS KEY..! ASIA IS THE CERTAINTY!! HOLD THE CHOKEPOINTS!!)

For that matter, I once had a incredible insight -- on acid -- into the functioning of transistors to produce amplification: all levers and tipping points, and such; real Rube Goldberg stuff... but then I realized it must have been the effects of listening to the Grateful Dead at the same time.
;P

Then there was the time when I first heard Willie Nelson and Julio Eglesias singing "To All the Girls We've Loved Before" -- first time it was played on the radio... I really, truly thought it was a put on. I couldn't stop rolling around on the floor -- especially when Eglesias started crooning right after Willie's twanging.... Still can't help myself.

Acid can be a gas (when not a liquid or a solid).
;P

[redstar2000]

redstar: one of the neatest solutions to the conundrum you have posed, and one that you have already stated you cannot accept (religious reasons?), is that *the universe is conscious of itself*.

Well, that's a "hypothesis" that is so far "out there" that I can't imagine any way of testing it.

I don't "rule it out"...but it would take extraordinary evidence to even begin to make me take it seriously.

How would the behavior of a "conscious" universe differ from the behavior of the apparently non-living, unconscious universe that we observe now?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 01:40 AM

Well, that's a "hypothesis" that is so far "out there" that I can't imagine any way of testing it.

I don't "rule it out"...but it would take extraordinary evidence to even begin to make me take it seriously.

How would the behavior of a "conscious" universe differ from the behavior of the apparently non-living, unconscious universe that we observe now?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

That's just more mysticism and Gaia/God type bunkum.

There're plenty of thinkers who point out that bigger ain't necessarily more sophisticated/intelligent/alive (Only one that comes to mind might be Daniel Dennett). Think of the Sun. It is intelligent because it is bigger than us? Not at all -- it's just a big ball of gas. It may have more matter in it than any of us -- or all of us -- do, but it does not have as complicated a structure as even a baby! Or even a nematode, at that.

Couple that heresy with the utter relativism of space-time as demonstrated by Herr Doktor Professor Einstein, and you get a universe that communicates about as much as our ancestors in the Cambrian Explosion communicate with us... (just think about it)

This is what you get with idealism, when you are not anchored to the earth with hard material facts.

[gnuneo]

Well, that's a "hypothesis" that is so far "out there" that I can't imagine any way of testing it.

I don't "rule it out"...but it would take extraordinary evidence to even begin to make me take it seriously.

you dont have to take it "seriously" - merely hold it as a hypothesis (instead of denying due to religious reasons), and see how well events/data fits it.

it *does* however have quite a body of evidence to support it, which you may not have encountered, and that it is a hypothesis that unites modern quantum theories (see above re: copenhagen interpretation) with millenia yr old theories of conciousness worked on over those thousands of years with as much genius as the west has put into its philosophy (in the classical sense of the word), may at some point in your life start to make more sense.

we can find 'evidence' to support *any* position - entire continents and lands for centuries beleived the earth was flat, some today still beleive that marxism-leninsim or maoism will make the earth a better place. We see the 'evidence' we look for, this may hurt your beleifs about 'science', but it has been amply demonstrated that 'scientists' are still vulnerable to this, including social scientists.

and the point?

all i ask is that you keep an open mind on the matter.




How would the behavior of a "conscious" universe differ from the behavior of the apparently non-living, unconscious universe that we observe now?

for us? presumably very little. However just like the now-famous butterfly and storm, some theories can explain a higher reality than 'common sense' materialism.

how would two red blood cells suddenly becoming aware they were part of a cybernetic, self aware organism in any way change their lives?


That's just more mysticism and Gaia/God type bunkum.

thank you.


There're plenty of thinkers who point out that bigger ain't necessarily more sophisticated/intelligent/alive (Only one that comes to mind might be Daniel Dennett). Think of the Sun. It is intelligent because it is bigger than us? Not at all -- it's just a big ball of gas. It may have more matter in it than any of us -- or all of us -- do, but it does not have as complicated a structure as even a baby! Or even a nematode, at that.

i cant recall anyone claiming that the universe was concious because it was bigger than us - i must have missed that post. I'm sure that you wouldnt be trying something like putting words in my mouth, right? That wouldnt be very nice :(


Couple that heresy with the utter relativism of space-time as demonstrated by Herr Doktor Professor Einstein, and you get a universe that communicates about as much as our ancestors in the Cambrian Explosion communicate with us... (just think about it)

indeed - and thankfully relativism came after quantum, expanding from the materialism of pure newtonianism and quantum to the cutting edge of relativity. <_<

guys, move forward. look out for a book called "the tao of physics", by capra, its available from kazaa or emule if you want it electronic, (personally i prefer paper, but electronic is good to C/P quote), and highly unusually for a book that questions basic metaphysical concepts, the authors actual &#39;physics&#39; knowledge and understanding in the book has never been questioned.

look at it with an open mind.




This is what you get with idealism, when you are not anchored to the earth with hard material facts.

ahhhh - the classic cartesian dualism of idealism v materialism.... man this is SO outdated. Enlightenment dualism was savagely hacked at in pirzigs seminal "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance", and entirely killed in the followup "LILA".

everyone with any interest in moving beyond the philosphical medieval times should read those books.

no offense intended.


GAGG: we played a home adapted version of risk - more countries, more routes, and the key to the whole thing: attack/loss ratios. If the attack is over water, ie england N.eu, the attacker would lose two uinits for every lost roll - ie to attack with 3 dice, you would need 7 units in the country (one left behind).
to attack across land but continent (ie egypt - ME), also two per dice.
but accross continent AND water, ie iceland groenland, costs the attacker 3 units per loss - requiring 10 units to attack with 3 dice.

the defender loses the normal one per dice always.

also, the cards always went up, fromt he first set 4,6,8,10,12,15,20,25,30....., meaning very quickly victories become essential, forcing attacks.

combined with extra routes (Nzealand (added) to chile, britain - e.usa, madagascar- w-ausgreenland - siberia (the one right at the top), japan - tasmania(?), and a couple of others i cant remember right now - its been 8yrs since i last played it :&#39;( ), this made a very strategic game, far more so than the basic rules.

defence is easier at borders, but if you put all your units in defence of your continent... you cant attack out to make victories, and become barricaded in etc.

anyay, sorry for the tangent, but if you have a bunch of risk addicts around still, give it a whirl.






it wont make the universe appear sentient though, not even on acid ;)

[Gringo-a-Go-Go]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 01:55 PM

you dont have to take it "seriously" - merely hold it as a hypothesis (instead of denying due to religious reasons), and see how well events/data fits it.
And I can hypothesize that the Moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon) is made of Soylent Green (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green).
RedStar2000 is not denying your claims on religious grounds. He is denying them on scientific grounds. That he hasn&#39;t done any of this work himself is irrelevant. And that&#39;s the whole point of Science: it&#39;s the common sharing of non-subjective information about the universe. It&#39;s self-correcting and far beyond religious "belief".

Point is -- there&#39;s no point to entertaining mysticism anymore. We live in a world of Science -- and I don&#39;t mean of the vulgar type. But you seem to constantly imply that marxism is science of the vulgar type -- which is why it&#39;s hard to take you seriously beyond a certain point.

As for being open-minded about this "Galactic Gaia" theory: I don&#39;t see that there&#39;s any evidence to support this whatsoever. Why don&#39;t you enlighten us?? Besides: if the Universe really were the equivalent of some sort of organism (leave out sentience&#33;), it would follow that such an entity is working against Entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy).
Demonstrate to me just where in the universal scheme of things that is happening anywhere -- other than in at least one specific biosphere, at relatively LOW temperatures, subject to a very specific, discrete gravity well??

The movement of the Universe resembles nothing so much as the movements of the Air-Ocean-Mantle system of the Earth. Before you begin hypothesizing about some possible Galactic Gaia, encompassing us all in some Mystical Unity, you should first have to begin making some sense about the more terrestrial Goddess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_(science))...


it *does* however have quite a body of evidence to support it, which you may not have encountered, and that it is a hypothesis that unites modern quantum theories (see above re: copenhagen interpretation) with millenia yr old theories of conciousness worked on over those thousands of years with as much genius as the west has put into its philosophy (in the classical sense of the word), may at some point in your life start to make more sense.
You mean like that Fred Allen Wolf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Allen_Wolf) mystical quantum voodoo nonsense? No wonder you swallow whole that bourgeois-idealistic "Copenhagen Interpretation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation)" of quantum physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) guff. Maybe because of Star Drek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek) too...

The point of our "modern" age is that -- in spite of the genius of past generations -- we&#39;ve just recently in human history honed the process of accurate discovery down to a fine science. Past geniuses may have discovered a lot about the Reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality) all on their own; and they may even have passed this wisdom on down thru generations of Little Grasshoppers -- but cold, dispassionate, cruel Science leaves them all in the dust. Whatever these past geniuses have discovered, AFAIK most of it has already been incorporated in our modern system of knowledge. You seem to be overlooking all this. And again -- don&#39;t point to lousy science or scientists as an excuse not to accept.


we can find &#39;evidence&#39; to support *any* position - entire continents and lands for centuries beleived the earth was flat, some today still beleive that marxism-leninsim or maoism will make the earth a better place. We see the &#39;evidence&#39; we look for, this may hurt your beleifs about &#39;science&#39;, but it has been amply demonstrated that &#39;scientists&#39; are still vulnerable to this, including social scientists.
Yes indeed -- there&#39;s something very wrong with your stance.
FYI, "evidence" has to be REAL evidence, friend -- ever heard of the terms "demonstrable" or "falsifiable"? -- not just flights of fancy and disconnected "facts" taken out of context. For instance, here you use the word "evidence" in at least two different senses -- yet I detect no cognition on your part that you are truly aware of the actual important distinction between them (at least as you are making up this stream-of-consciousness dreck).

Nothing you say here contradicts well-proven fact that marxism is real science (just not "bourgeois-approved" science), &#39;Science&#39; is science -- and that there is also a lot of looney "science" out there masquerading as the Real McCoy. That too many scientists are not so good at their work is, IMO, a complete canard, and has very little to do with this particular thread -- except to serve a foil for your attempt to confuse what is, or isn&#39;t, science.


and the point?

all i ask is that you keep an open mind on the matter.
It always amuses me when non-marxists get a chance to utter this.


for us? presumably very little. However just like the now-famous butterfly and storm, some theories can explain a higher reality than &#39;common sense&#39; materialism.
You forgot the &#39;dialectical&#39; part. Again -- you are trying to push some sort of mysticism here AFAIC. Let me point out that non-linear dynamix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory) is applied dialectical-materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism). You are actually on shaky ground here. Clearly, your understanding of what marxism is is defective.


how would two red blood cells suddenly becoming aware they were part of a cybernetic, self aware organism in any way change their lives?
A completely useless and misleading thought experiment.
Ya, indeed: nothing would change, of course -- right away. But how could "aware" red blood cells not behave differently from the present dumb-as-shit ones?? So is it a REALISTIC SCENARIO??
There is no useful extrapolation from the above fanciful allusion to our own actual situation AFAIC. This is mere scholastic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism) wankerism, AFAIC.


i cant recall anyone claiming that the universe was concious because it was bigger than us - i must have missed that post. I&#39;m sure that you wouldnt be trying something like putting words in my mouth, right? That wouldnt be very nice :(
Well damn, but isn&#39;t the Univese bigger than us, then??
I&#39;m claiming that -- since the Universe is bigger, Relativity Theory MIGHTILY suggests that it is completely decentralized. Which implies that it is NOT organized in ANY way which satisfies your mystical needs.
Go look for God elsewhere.

I&#39;ll break off here -- and cover the rest of the post later, since this is a long reply already.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by gnuneo
...with millenia yr old theories of consciousness worked on over those thousands of years with as much genius as the west has put into its philosophy...

Whoops&#33; We&#39;re going to drag in eastern mysticism to "explain" quantum reality?

I hate to sound like a "vulgar materialist", but is it not the case that all those "eastern geniuses" just made stuff up?

Rather like our western mystics, in fact.

As it happens, I&#39;ve read a small amount of the "wisdom of the east"...it is intellectual cotton-candy. It sounds impressive...until you actually try and derive some real meaning from it. Then, it just melts away.

Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :lol:


We see the &#39;evidence&#39; we look for, this may hurt your beliefs about &#39;science&#39;, but it has been amply demonstrated that &#39;scientists&#39; are still vulnerable to this, including social scientists.

No question about it...any individual claim to Olympic impartiality is immediately suspicious.

Science is a collective activity...what actually happens with any significant scientific claim is that a struggle takes place over its validity. Argument and counter-argument, evidence and counter-evidence, etc.

Eventually, the weight piles up on one side while the other side fades into obscurity...and even that&#39;s not "permanent" because new evidence can emerge to bring an old theory "back from the dead".

It doesn&#39;t happen very often...but it does happen.

For example, Marx&#39;s "laws" of capitalism look better now than at any time since 1930. :D


However just like the now-famous butterfly and storm, some theories can explain a higher reality than &#39;common sense&#39; materialism.

I never liked that analogy (or metaphor or whatever it&#39;s supposed to be).

It always seemed to me that with billions or trillions of butterflies in the world, their flutters would cancel each other out and have no influence on the weather at all.

When the National Hurricane Center in Miami models storm formation, I don&#39;t think they include a butterfly census in their equations.

They can make very accurate predictions without taking butterflies into consideration.


Everyone with any interest in moving beyond the philosophical medieval times should read those books.

Oh, you&#39;re so "cool", so "with it", so "up-to-date", so, so...post-modern. :lol:

Scraps and tatters of eastern mysticism plus western marketing...what a winning combination&#33;

A retreat into obscurantism is generally a pretty good sign of a dying social order.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[gnuneo]

ZAMM (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553277472/qid=1098373531/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-7017949-3923162)

LILA (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553299611/qid=1098373507/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-7017949-3923162)

Tao of Physics (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1570625190/qid=1098373708/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/104-7017949-3923162)

explanations of these bourgeoue, post modernist books, if youre interested.

i&#39;ll answer your points when next i have time to do so.

[gnuneo]

here&#39;s another angle on the same discussion on U-P (http://www.utopia-politics.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14832&hl=)