[Fis] January Lecture--Information and the Forces of History

[HowlBloom at aol.com]

Pedro,
 
re:  Do we need a new interpretation of history, info based?
 
hb: we definitely need a few new tools with which to see the patterns of  
history.  whether those patterns are informational or not, I'm not  sure.  I 
lean toward the tools you cite, the ones emerging from  biology.  
superorganism, ideas, and the pecking order, for example, come  from evolutionary 
biology.  so do hormonal interpretations of history, some  of which are in my 
books.
 
the real challenge is in the puzzle you pose:  how do we make insights  
that come from  "inspiration and metaphor" more rigorous.  one tiny  
suggestion.  forget mathematics.  it has been consistently misleading  in the realm of 
the living.
 
instead look at the example of darwin.  darwin used a metaphor--the  sort 
of selection a pigeon breeder uses to achieve new characteristics.  he  
imagined nature as the picky, choosy selector, not the pigeon  breeder.  so he 
called his metaphor "natural selection." 
 
yet he used not a single equation.  the validity of his metaphor was  
judged by the number of facts it explained.  and by the extent to which  facts 
fit into another of his tools, one his grandfather had pioneered, an  
evolutionary story, a timeline, that began with a big bang (his grandfather's  
starting point) and worked its way up to the present.
 
if the timeline fit the facts and the facts fit the timeline, the  timeline 
was worth employing as a tool.  in the 157 years since  Darwin's 
publication of On the Origin of Species, more and more facts have  fit.  And more and 
more predictions based on the timeline have proven  true.
 
I'd suggest the same approach to concepts like the secular trio of the  
forces of history, the unholy trinity of the lucifer principle: superorganism,  
ideas, and the pecking order.  the pecking order, in fact, can be traced  
back to hierarchies within atoms 380,000 years after the big bang and to the  
hierarchies within galaxies and solar systems 400 million years after the 
big  bang.  
 
emergent group identities, the pre-biotic equivalent of superorganisms, can 
 be traced back to the first quark trios in the initial 10(-32) of a second 
of  the cosmos existence, and to the first galaxies, solar systems, stars, 
and  planets.
 
replicators are totally unique to life.  and ideas are totally unique  to 
minds.
 
my insistence on finding the basic patterns in the abiotic cosmos that  
reappear in the forces of history is my humble attempt to do a darwin--to see  
what basic organizing principles emerge from the timeline of the cosmos'  
existence, from the big bang to what you and i are doing at this minute in our 
 exchange.
 
information may or may not be a primary tool of this understanding.   but 
surely communication, which has been around from the instant when  the first 
quarks precipitated from a speeding, expanding  space-time manifold 10(-32) 
seconds into the cosmos' existence, is  crucial.
 
which puts us back to where we left off in my previous  email:  does 
abiotic communication qualify  as information?  and if it is disqualified, are 
those performing the  disqualification weakening the potential explanatory 
power of their  chosen discipline?
 
with warmth and oomph--howard
 
____________
Howard Bloom
Author of: The Lucifer Principle:  A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces 
of History ("mesmerizing"-The  Washington Post),
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The  Big Bang to the 21st 
Century ("reassuring and sobering"-The New  Yorker),
The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of  Capitalism ("A 
tremendously enjoyable book." James Fallows, National  Correspondent, The Atlantic),
The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos  Creates ("Bloom's argument will rock 
your world." Barbara  Ehrenreich),
How I Accidentally Started the Sixties ("Wow! Whew!  Wild!
Wonderful!" Timothy Leary), and
The Mohammed Code ("A  terrifying book…the best book I've read on Islam." 
David Swindle, PJ  Media).
www.howardbloom.net
Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate  Institute; Former Visiting 
Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York  University.
Founder: International Paleopsychology Project; Founder, Space  Development 
Steering Committee; Founder: The Group Selection Squad; Founding  Board 
Member: Epic of Evolution Society; Founding Board Member, The Darwin  Project; 
Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab; member: New York Academy of  
Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American  
Psychological Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and  Evolution 
Society, International Society for Human Ethology, Scientific Advisory  Board 
Member, Lifeboat Foundation; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Space  
Philosophy; Board member and member of Board of Governors, National Space  Society.


In a message dated 1/13/2016 3:38:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es writes:

Thanks  for the positive comment, Marcus. Actually there is another book 
from the 90s  too by Hobart and Schiffman ("Information Ages", John Hopkins, 
1998) that also  focuses on a new vision of history, pretty much 
informational we could say.  The problem with theses exploratory attempts, and here we 
may include Jared  Diamond on social complexity and the two books supporting 
Howard's NY lecture  (Lucifer Principle and the Global Brain), is that they 
should mostly rely on  inspiration and metaphor. The difference with 
previous mechanical metaphors  for social change (e.g., Marxian) is evident, and 
nowadays most of the  scientific sources and paradigm loans are taking from 
the biological, and I  think that's more useful a strategy. But going from an 
individual's  "exploration" to disciplinary "colonization" is always a 
problematic  transition--somehow we are trying to do it now in the discussion. Is 
it  possible a more rigorous or systematic parallel between biological 
evolution  and social history? Is this the nucleus of an informational approach 
to  history? Do we need a new interpretation of history, info based? 
Personally I  respond YES to the three questions.  
Best regards--Pedro
 
____________________________________
  
De: Fis [fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] en nombre de Marcus  Abundis 
[55mrcs at gmail.com]
Enviado el: domingo, 10 de enero de 2016  5:49
Para: fis at listas.unizar.es
Asunto: [Fis] January  Lecture--Information and the Forces of History




Hi Pedro,  


Thank you for your well crafted (typical Pedro)  synthesizing statement, it 
was a pleasure to read. Thanks also for the  reminders of J. Diamonds work. 
It has been ages since I read it, but it was  certainly a treasure (hmm, 
now where I put my copy . . . )


Your note:
> Bob has drafted the universal drama, where the  elements of the two 
different scenarios AP & LP mix<
I am not sure I have seen the draft referenced here, or if I missed it in  
an earlier post – details?
In acquainting myself with the IS4IS community I recall seeing some  
references to your AP, but in my quick survey I never came across anything of  
depth. I assumed such work existed, but I did not stumble upon it. Can you  
point me to a particular piece that you feel gives a good representation? Your  
posts have rekindled my curiosity.











_______________________________________________
Fis  mailing  list
Fis at listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160114/2ee24d5d/attachment.html>