One of Aristotle's more interesting biographical details is the amount of time he spent out in nature with living things. This factoid is often overlooked in debates about abstract topics of nature and metaphysics and the like, but I've always found it a crucial piece to understand where he was coming from.
Reality looks different when your key metaphors and concepts come from hands-on biology instead of bloodless mathematics. The same could be said for most all of the modern-era luminaries minus a few stand-out heretics.
Ah, a brief look into the fascinating mind of Professor Briggs.
Seems to me I recall, from my long ago school days, wasting inordinate amounts of time on the old conundrum, "the brain is not the mind, but, you can't have a mind without a brain".
I do strongly agree that "science", (without the quotes), should always be allowed to question. Everything. And science, sans questions, is not science, but dogma.
“the mind arises from its own form, and is not a brain-machine”
I draw the (imperfect, admittedly) analogy that analyzing the brain to discern the nature of mind is like analyzing a clock to discern the nature of time. Both have endless potential to disappoint.
Reductionism drives me crazy - and seems to be everywhere nowadays, weighted heavily, and thus doing disproportionate damage. As a book-junkie art-brained fellow, who took a hard-science (and no bullshit) trade when young (electronic repair) I've been playing out variations of Plato Vs Aristotle my whole life. The line smears into everything - philosophical political and even creative ideas seem to lean first one, and then the other way. (degraded forms vs ascendant substances?)
Can't tell you how much I appreciate you pointing toward the particular practical idealism built into Aristotle - not denying 'whole of organism' realities, just because they can't be proven from the theories of the various ingredients. That is, recognizing reality ahead of ALL models - the exact form of traditional modesty we moderns seem least able to even attempt! (puts the 're' in 'gressive)
Also weird - that realistic humility and (to some, offensively close to) religious concept, modesty of place of model, in the face of humblingly more complex and also USEFUL reality, (creation far more than the work of man, obvious even to an atheist) isn't a cop-out to irrationality OR faith - it is as instrumental as can be!
(especially insofar as one cannot make helpful use any observing instrument, without calibration against - a proven standard of reality!)
The point about understanding just enough to use, without asking after essence, reminded me of my time in community college. As a book nut, I needed to ask a hundred questions about the nature of the thing - like understanding the atomic lattice in a semi-conductor, and basically ignored the offered textbooks - because none of them went far enough (used them as guide to topics - read 10x more).
Of course, many mysteries remain, even in the super-exploited world of electronics - surprising aesthetics, too (a frequency modulation discriminator, despite being ubiquitous for decades, remains as close to beautiful, in conception and implementation, as anything I've seen built and robustly functional for purpose).
Lived my life on the left (the frothing tribal majority of which, hates me now, for still insisting on reason, fairness and principle). This feels like one more clue (of many) about the blindness and foolishness (counter wisdom) we enter into, when we find nothing else of wonder, beyond the confines of our narrow consumerist skulls.
BTW - if you don't already have a copy on your shelf, look for "Quantum Questions" which was compiled by Ken Wilbur, and includes many of the early greats, talking about the things they thought their theories implied, on a philosophical and metaphysical level - really wild stuff (like a poetry-jam for lab-bound geniuses).
Cheers for what you do, good sir - always appreciated!
Science- must remain open ended, there is no fixed end. Alway theory must remain open to question in order to correct and improve with available info both from new info and old. Otherwise it’s easy to co-opt to facilitate an agenda or in force personal ideologies ;).
Requires self evaluation and promotes self growth if approached with honest intent ❤️
Michael Polanyi was right onto this stuff, Gilbert Ryle too. EF Schumacher was a later populariser of neo-Aristotelianism (less recondite than Polanyi or Ryle). Pity that so few seem to have continued in their wake.
I have a metaphor, the mechanistic view of reality is like observing the snake eating it's tail, while obsessing about how small it becomes, as opposed to considering the nature of the snake as an entity.
Entanglement is more the act of creating two from one. It is taking leather and creating a pair of shoes, one left and the other right.
Entanglement is the perfect example of principle zero, "Everything adds up to nothing." It is no more mystical than my left hand being a mirror of my right.
Bell has not shown; he has claimed. Without evidence, and with a straw man argument. As better men than I have shown before, generally just before being canceled and silenced.
Koryzbski is the guy who coined the term "the map is not the territory" analogous to "the word is not the thing." General Semantics explores the limits of our perception and the problems we encounter communicating our ideas using language, foremost of which is our use of abstract nouns without defining (operationalizing) what we actually mean when we use them. For example: how would one go about defining 'emergence?'
Hofstadter introduces us to the problems and limitations inherent in formal systems, and most importantly, to Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the concepts of strange loops and self-referentialism as applied to the question of defining intelligence and our attempts to mimic it using computational systems.
McLuhan covered so much ground it's hard to summarize his many contributions to epistemology, but most significantly he identified the hidden ground of communication which is the medium we employ, such as spoken or printed words, sounds, images and moving pictures, and how these influence our basic thought patterns and attempts to communicate them to others.
Miller gave us a comprehensive introduction to complex systems, the exemplar of which is of course life itself. Here's a better summary of his work than I can provide:
The common thread in all these works is the notion of LIMITS. What we can and cannot know, and how to tell the difference between what we think we know and what is actually knowable.
Professor, I dig through the trash heap that is Twitter/X looking for treasure. Therein I found you which is like finding the goose who lays solid gold nuggets. I am halfway through Uncertainty and enjoying it immensely (although you teach at the upper bounds of my understanding - a good thing - so it is slow going). Keep it coming and I’ll keep buying!
yes, things take shapes that enhance flow. it is the fundamental law of nature, named "constructal" law by its discoverer, distinguished duke engineering professor adrian bejan
One of Aristotle's more interesting biographical details is the amount of time he spent out in nature with living things. This factoid is often overlooked in debates about abstract topics of nature and metaphysics and the like, but I've always found it a crucial piece to understand where he was coming from.
Reality looks different when your key metaphors and concepts come from hands-on biology instead of bloodless mathematics. The same could be said for most all of the modern-era luminaries minus a few stand-out heretics.
Ah, a brief look into the fascinating mind of Professor Briggs.
Seems to me I recall, from my long ago school days, wasting inordinate amounts of time on the old conundrum, "the brain is not the mind, but, you can't have a mind without a brain".
I do strongly agree that "science", (without the quotes), should always be allowed to question. Everything. And science, sans questions, is not science, but dogma.
“the mind arises from its own form, and is not a brain-machine”
I draw the (imperfect, admittedly) analogy that analyzing the brain to discern the nature of mind is like analyzing a clock to discern the nature of time. Both have endless potential to disappoint.
Really exquisite - thank you!
Reductionism drives me crazy - and seems to be everywhere nowadays, weighted heavily, and thus doing disproportionate damage. As a book-junkie art-brained fellow, who took a hard-science (and no bullshit) trade when young (electronic repair) I've been playing out variations of Plato Vs Aristotle my whole life. The line smears into everything - philosophical political and even creative ideas seem to lean first one, and then the other way. (degraded forms vs ascendant substances?)
Can't tell you how much I appreciate you pointing toward the particular practical idealism built into Aristotle - not denying 'whole of organism' realities, just because they can't be proven from the theories of the various ingredients. That is, recognizing reality ahead of ALL models - the exact form of traditional modesty we moderns seem least able to even attempt! (puts the 're' in 'gressive)
Also weird - that realistic humility and (to some, offensively close to) religious concept, modesty of place of model, in the face of humblingly more complex and also USEFUL reality, (creation far more than the work of man, obvious even to an atheist) isn't a cop-out to irrationality OR faith - it is as instrumental as can be!
(especially insofar as one cannot make helpful use any observing instrument, without calibration against - a proven standard of reality!)
The point about understanding just enough to use, without asking after essence, reminded me of my time in community college. As a book nut, I needed to ask a hundred questions about the nature of the thing - like understanding the atomic lattice in a semi-conductor, and basically ignored the offered textbooks - because none of them went far enough (used them as guide to topics - read 10x more).
Of course, many mysteries remain, even in the super-exploited world of electronics - surprising aesthetics, too (a frequency modulation discriminator, despite being ubiquitous for decades, remains as close to beautiful, in conception and implementation, as anything I've seen built and robustly functional for purpose).
Lived my life on the left (the frothing tribal majority of which, hates me now, for still insisting on reason, fairness and principle). This feels like one more clue (of many) about the blindness and foolishness (counter wisdom) we enter into, when we find nothing else of wonder, beyond the confines of our narrow consumerist skulls.
BTW - if you don't already have a copy on your shelf, look for "Quantum Questions" which was compiled by Ken Wilbur, and includes many of the early greats, talking about the things they thought their theories implied, on a philosophical and metaphysical level - really wild stuff (like a poetry-jam for lab-bound geniuses).
Cheers for what you do, good sir - always appreciated!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Will look up Wilbur.
I got my start in electronic repair, too. Watch it now for relaxation. Favorite is shango066 on YouTube.
Science- must remain open ended, there is no fixed end. Alway theory must remain open to question in order to correct and improve with available info both from new info and old. Otherwise it’s easy to co-opt to facilitate an agenda or in force personal ideologies ;).
Requires self evaluation and promotes self growth if approached with honest intent ❤️
We are embodied avatars of morphic fields.
Great article
Michael Polanyi was right onto this stuff, Gilbert Ryle too. EF Schumacher was a later populariser of neo-Aristotelianism (less recondite than Polanyi or Ryle). Pity that so few seem to have continued in their wake.
Quite interesting. Thinking about it.
I have a metaphor, the mechanistic view of reality is like observing the snake eating it's tail, while obsessing about how small it becomes, as opposed to considering the nature of the snake as an entity.
Nodding in agreement with every word … having not a clue
I’m long on cleansing fire 🔥
Entanglement is more the act of creating two from one. It is taking leather and creating a pair of shoes, one left and the other right.
Entanglement is the perfect example of principle zero, "Everything adds up to nothing." It is no more mystical than my left hand being a mirror of my right.
Bell has not shown; he has claimed. Without evidence, and with a straw man argument. As better men than I have shown before, generally just before being canceled and silenced.
I find it useful when discussing abstract ideas to identify the major influences that have informed my own understanding. They are:
Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics - Alfred Koryzbski.
Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid - Douglas Hofstadter
The Gutenberg Galaxy and Understanding Media - Marshal McLuhan.
All the above are available in PDF at https://oceanofpdf.com/
Living Systems - James Grier Miller
https://archive.org/details/livingsystems0000mill_e7d6
Koryzbski is the guy who coined the term "the map is not the territory" analogous to "the word is not the thing." General Semantics explores the limits of our perception and the problems we encounter communicating our ideas using language, foremost of which is our use of abstract nouns without defining (operationalizing) what we actually mean when we use them. For example: how would one go about defining 'emergence?'
Hofstadter introduces us to the problems and limitations inherent in formal systems, and most importantly, to Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the concepts of strange loops and self-referentialism as applied to the question of defining intelligence and our attempts to mimic it using computational systems.
McLuhan covered so much ground it's hard to summarize his many contributions to epistemology, but most significantly he identified the hidden ground of communication which is the medium we employ, such as spoken or printed words, sounds, images and moving pictures, and how these influence our basic thought patterns and attempts to communicate them to others.
Miller gave us a comprehensive introduction to complex systems, the exemplar of which is of course life itself. Here's a better summary of his work than I can provide:
https://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/a-general-theory-of-living-systems-james-grier-miller/
The common thread in all these works is the notion of LIMITS. What we can and cannot know, and how to tell the difference between what we think we know and what is actually knowable.
Thanks man.
Professor, I dig through the trash heap that is Twitter/X looking for treasure. Therein I found you which is like finding the goose who lays solid gold nuggets. I am halfway through Uncertainty and enjoying it immensely (although you teach at the upper bounds of my understanding - a good thing - so it is slow going). Keep it coming and I’ll keep buying!
Thanks for reading! See the Class here, which is on most Mondays, too.
yes, things take shapes that enhance flow. it is the fundamental law of nature, named "constructal" law by its discoverer, distinguished duke engineering professor adrian bejan
I was trying to read this but all I could think about was Carly Simon's magnificent boobs. That´s why I´m an idiot.