<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear Stuart Kauffman, dear all,</p>
<p>I joined a month ago. Thanks for the learned exchange! I agree
with Stuart (and Katherine). Here some - quite random - follow
ups. In my view...<br>
</p>
<p>1) Darwinism - in it's 'essence' or at least in its
gene-Darwinian variant - is atomistic, both in regard to the
acknowledged entities as well as processes. <br>
2) Therefore it celebrates "the passive" (natura naturata), not
"the active" (natura naturans). <br>
3) English empiricism likewise has emphasised only on the passive
side, originally with almost theological overtones, but
philosophically got into some troubles (eg. Hume). <br>
4) I think, an extended evolutionary synthesis needs to
increasingly overcome the (eliminative) entity-reductionism and
process-reductionism and acknowledge the active side as well,
without giving up the good sides of explanation. (By the way, I am
not sure, whether the 'mind' is passive, or not also acting, as
you may agree)<br>
5) In my view, we need a) to continue to reconsider existing
evolutionary theory with more theoretic scrutiny and not count
everything as (strictly) Darwinian, b) perhaps to draw on some
evolutionary (earlier) romantic traditions (despite its own
dangers), c) to acquire a more precise mathematical understanding
of basic notions and processes (deduction and Bayes' law - per se
- is not enough) and link the biological discourse to physics,
dynamic systems theory, information etc.). Address simultaneously
very basic issues in philosophy/psychology/philosophy of science
as well. Sorry, if I preach to the choir. Much stuff to continue
learned exchanges anyway. ;-)<br>
</p>
<p>Best wishes Momme (von Sydow)</p>
<p><font face="calibri,candara,helvetica,arial,veranda"><font
size="1"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Momme@von-Sydow.de">Momme@von-Sydow.de</a>, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.von-sydow.de__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XDoLGNDSkJ7VbtGNtohL1Qssa3ZOHOsj9SvvT1JV5nmideuHYTMYx7Sc8bj93h4wiO8f8se3SZQRCfmoenb3Yw$">www.von-sydow.de</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Momme-Sydow__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XDoLGNDSkJ7VbtGNtohL1Qssa3ZOHOsj9SvvT1JV5nmideuHYTMYx7Sc8bj93h4wiO8f8se3SZQRCfl0PcAWGQ$">https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Momme-Sydow</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lmu-munich.academia.edu/MommevonSydow__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XDoLGNDSkJ7VbtGNtohL1Qssa3ZOHOsj9SvvT1JV5nmideuHYTMYx7Sc8bj93h4wiO8f8se3SZQRCfm_vH_xCQ$">https://lmu-munich.academia.edu/MommevonSydow</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.mcmp.philosophie.uni-muenchen.de/people/external_members/von-sydow_momme/index.html__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XDoLGNDSkJ7VbtGNtohL1Qssa3ZOHOsj9SvvT1JV5nmideuHYTMYx7Sc8bj93h4wiO8f8se3SZQRCfnHk_tJAQ$">https://www.mcmp.philosophie.uni-muenchen.de/people/external_members/von-sydow_momme/index.html</a><br>
</font></font><font
face="calibri,candara,helvetica,arial,veranda"><font size="1"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://fakultaetentag-psychologie.de/ueber-uns/geschaeftsstelle__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XDoLGNDSkJ7VbtGNtohL1Qssa3ZOHOsj9SvvT1JV5nmideuHYTMYx7Sc8bj93h4wiO8f8se3SZQRCflMynTBew$">https://fakultaetentag-psychologie.de/ueber-uns/geschaeftsstelle</a><br>
</font></font></p>
Am 23.01.2024 um 04:06 schrieb Stuart Kauffman:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:E975F9E3-E1DF-4FAE-80C4-B4E7725F7BDC@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Bless you Pedro.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Some not quite random comments:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) Descartes got us started thinking about a “mind in a vat”
wondering if it were being deceived. This mind never acts in the
world, it only observes. Science is knowledge, not action,</div>
<div>2) living organisms are open non-equilibrium systems so we
all must interact with the rest of the world, e.g. to eat, to
sense food, avoid poison That is all life must ACT or Do. My
wife, Katherine Kauffman, rightly adds life must sense the
world, then FIND and CARE, or Orient and Evaluate Good or Bad
for me, then choose and act. Value enters here, she rightly
says. </div>
<div>3) Essentially all British empiricism is about knowing the
world, not acting in it. </div>
<div>4) The understanding of “mind” as “representing the world",
also all of AI, is latter day Descartes. There is no doing in
the world. There is mere synthetics, no semantics. Again, Andrea
and I have struggled as have others, Kalevi Kull and
biosemiotics. </div>
<div>5) “Doing" in the world includes finding novel affordances
that cannot be deduced. This is Orienting or FINDING. This is
jury rigging,. How does that arise? </div>
<div>…………….</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please turn to Kauffman Roli "The Third Transition", and
Kauffman Roli, “Is the emergence of life’…..”</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) It really is true that living entities are Kantian Wholes
that achieve Catalytic Closure, Constraint Closure, and spatial
Closure.</div>
<div>2) Therefore cells really do construct themselves. Cells to
not deduce themselves.</div>
<div>3) It is really true that the reproduction of a cell has
nothing to do with a <i>separable</i> set of Instructions that
are carried out. See Aristotles 4 causes below where the s<i>eparate
instructions</i> can be followed or carried out by <i>indefinitely
many <b>sufficient but not necessary </b></i> means. </div>
<div>4) In evolution, leave MIND out of this for now, it is really
true that evolving organisms create ever novel adaptions by
creating their ever- novel adjacent Possibles and seize SOME of
these by heritable variation and genetic drift.</div>
<div>5) It is really true that these do constitute newly POSSIBLE
ways to co-exist.</div>
<div>6) This IS, in one sense, <b>the creation of new
possibilities in the universe</b>. ii. The new possibilities
are <i>NEW information</i>. iii This new information did <i>not
require </i>MIND or consciousness. Think of the evolution of
the heart or loop of Henle in the kidneys.</div>
<div>7) The Newtonian Paradigm requires a fixed phase space where
no new possibilities can come to exist. So does Boltzmann and so
does Shannon. This is profoundly inadequate - Andrea Roli and I
wrote “The world is not a theorem.” There is no <i>creation </i>of
information in all of physics. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) What about MIND, Free Will, Consciousness? Well….</div>
<div>2) Think about Aristotle’s Four Causes: Formal, Efficient,
Material, Final.</div>
<div>3) E.g., the blueprint is the <i>formal cause</i>. The <i>indefinite
diversity</i> of different materials, bricks, wood, stones,
iron, that are used to construct the house are the <i>material
cause</i>. But no one of this set of <b>sufficient</b>
material causes is also NECESSARY. (Given a function, it can be
realized in idenfintely many ways. The house is build via <i>Efficient
cause, </i>again indefinite in variety, electric tools, sharp
sticks. Each suffienct but not necessary. <i>Final cause,</i>
“I sure want a house. We seem to be talking about a science of<i>
propagating sufficient but not necessary conditions. </i>This
is neither Classical nor Quantum Physics. (So also the evolution
of morphologies without mind above.).</div>
<div>4) Given MIND, Free Will, Consciousness and Responsible
Choice Aristotle’s four cases make sense. They do NOT make sense
for the Cell constructing itself. So what is going on? </div>
<div>5) Mind, Responblible Free Will and Choice among more than
one ontologically real possibilities makes sense and seems to be
one clear sense of information that is different from the cell
constructing itself. In both cases there is something about <i>alternative
sufficient but not necessary conditions.</i> Both can be new
in the universe information, ie a new plurality of possibles and
information guides choice among them. We do Jury rig. Inventions
are novel over the prior art. Jury rigging is not deductive, nor
is invention. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So somehow there seem to be more than one way new in the
universe possibilities can come to exist and unleash, or better,
enable the next actuals and possibles. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Pedro, there is a lot once beyond the Newtonian Paradigm and
strong reductionism. The world really is not (only) a theorem. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But sometimes it is a theorem eg Classical and Quantum
Physics. Odd.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Stu</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Jan 22, 2024, at 9:32 AM, Pedro C. Marijuán
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com"><pedroc.marijuan@gmail.com></a> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title>An Unbeatable Tradition?</title>
<div>
<p>Dear All,</p>
<p>While watching the evolution of our discussions in
this NY Lecture focused on the "Third Transition" I
have the impression that physics becomes an inexorable
attractor, the necessary end of any civilized
discussion on information. Precisely, the initial
arguments were about living organisms creating ever
new ways of "getting to exist", adaptively
constructing new-in-the-universe possibilities--with
their exploration of the adjacent-possible going
outside of the Newtonian paradigm... Fine, very fine.</p>
<p> My contention is that in the last decades we have
heard many times that rejection of the Newtonian but
seemingly we cannot advance in the development of
truly independent views, post-Newtonian and
non-physicalist anchored (about information). Not
aspiring to any universality about the conceptions of
this independent informational exploration of life--at
least shouldn't it be attempted?? Once some basics
could be cohered and decently developed, it might
provide some interesting complementarity with the
endless conundrums on its and bits by physicist and
computerist colleagues. Michael Conrad (who in the 70s
and 80s was already arguing about the unpicturability
of enzyme function) put an interesting comment: <i><u>"When
we look at a biological system we are looking at
the face of the underlying physics of the
universe"</u></i> (in BioSystems, 38, 1996,
p.108). Quite enigmatic. So, an unexpected convergence
might be found finally--but not mandating it at the
very beginning.<br>
</p>
<p>As I briefly argued days ago, the adjacent possible
may be considered in a variety of time-scales. The
infamous "What is it to be done?" (in Spanish, the
concise "Qué hacer?" ) may be repeated for cells, for
organisms, for humans, for societies... Or in other
more frivolous words, "Qué será, será... the future's
not ours to see". No wonder that all these kinds of
informational creatures are endlessly looking for
"signals", to march towards truly adaptive adjacent
possibles. Our new knowledge on Prokaryotic signaling
systems, on how they are intertwined with the
advancement of the life cycle, points exactly in that
direction: exploring the external/internal environment
so to self-orient towards adaptive outcomes. They were
the First Ones. Our own nervous system continuously
scans the external and the internal, and mixes up with
an elaborate arrangement of emotional resources and
socialization cues so to do more or less the same,
achieving viable life courses, etc.etc. Our own
societies are involved in dire prospects and strange
policy navigation towards the adjacent--what?
Possible? Impossible? Disastrous? Inevitable?</p>
<p>The lack of an informational cosmovision is patent.
It was already evident for Ortega y Gasset in the
1930s: <i>"The confusion on the terrible public
conflicts of the present stems </i><i>in good part
</i><i>from the incongruence between the perfection of
our ideas on physical phenomena and the painful
back-warded state of the 'moral sciences'--</i><i>about
that, </i><i>both the politician and the physicist
are at the very height of the barber" </i>(in
Revolt of the Masses, 1930s).</p>
<p>Before putting an end, I have found pretty
interesting (maybe converging) recent comments on
logics by Joseph, Eric, Plamen... Unfortunately the
"reality" of the life cycle is always maintained
perfectly invisible (or partially entered via some
sanitized surrogates).<br>
</p>
<p>Thanking your attention,<br>
</p>
<p>Best --Pedro<br>
</p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2"><br>
<table style="border-top: 1px solid #D3D4DE;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width: 55px; padding-top: 13px;"><a
href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Rf7U94d6MrR4Ofy1SS8jHmdL3Sk4dzXYz3mEwa1TRooeL_p8hLP3KE-qpDIpWVfUvwWzbyGVrXhY54XKy5cAN-0SEU3W$"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://s-install.avcdn.net/ipm/preview/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
alt="" style="width: 46px; height: 29px;"
moz-do-not-send="true" width="46"
height="29"></a></td>
<td
style="width: 470px; padding-top: 12px; color: #41424e; font-size: 13px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Libre
de virus.<a
href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Rf7U94d6MrR4Ofy1SS8jHmdL3Sk4dzXYz3mEwa1TRooeL_p8hLP3KE-qpDIpWVfUvwWzbyGVrXhY54XKy5cAN-0SEU3W$"
target="_blank" style="color: #4453ea;"
moz-do-not-send="true">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<a
href="x-msg://113/#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2" width="1"
height="1" moz-do-not-send="true"> </a></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
----------<br>
INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de
correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>
Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n sobre como tratamos
sus datos en el siguiente enlace:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>
Recuerde que si est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud.
puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el
momento en que lo desee.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listas.unizar.es">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>
----------<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a>
----------
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a>
Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://listas.unizar.es">http://listas.unizar.es</a>
----------
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>