Another view of Leonard Peikoff

[Paul Mawdsley]

It is usually a whole within an entity.

I've been called that before.

Paul

[tjohnson]

The "problems" he speaks of can be the result of an individual viewing things through different psychological or philosophical lenses himself, or the individual experiencing alternative views presented in a social context. Either way the "oversimplification that results in denying one or the other" is a form of ego-defense. This would be an ego that hasn't reached the dualistic stage (dialectic stage?) where competing or paradoxical views can be held, suspended in consciousness, and understood as the result of seeing the world through different lenses. My own thinking suggests the next stage would be the stage that seeks integration or synthesis through creative and emergent modeling. Synthesis can be created by "speculating" a higher or emergent order that unites the apparent dualisms. (No, I'm not talking about anything supernatural! I'm referring to models of physical existence in complex systems.) This is, I believe, how Branden was thinking about the mind-body problem when he suggested, " If they have a common source, then they do have a point of commonality that makes their ability to interact less puzzling." (see here)

Paul

This reminds me of 'wave-particle' duality. It represents an acknowledgment that the observer's frame of reference, point of view, language, 'lense' etc. effects what he perceives, see the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Korzybski calls this the effect of higher order abstractions on lower order abstractions.

[william.scherk]

Holon does not have to be a complete entity. It is usually a whole within an entity.

A kidney is a good example. You can transplant a kidney from one whole entity to another (a human being). If you reduce a kidney to its parts, it doesn't work—neither as the original kidney nor as a transplant.

Yeah, but is a dialysis machine a holon? Is a liver-lobe a holon, or only a whole liver, even though a transplant can be successful with only a portion of a liver?

Is a stem cell a holon? and where does the stem cell turn from one kind of holon into another kind of holon as it begins to differentiate itself into blood or bone or kidney or skin?

Is skin a holon? If a cell is a holon and a kidney and individual a holon, then is a gene a holon along with codon as holon and the ribosome too?

Is a proton a holon? and a photon? Or is a quark a holon, or both or all? Can it die? can it be annihilated or transformed into energy?

I think the meaningfulness of the word holon may be stretched to nothing by extending it to cover all but a few items in the universe.

[tjohnson]

It seems like 'holon' means the same as a structure which is also part of larger structure, which is pretty near everything I can think of!! B)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. (etc.)

Both you guys are right.

Now comes the crux. Is structure (holon-like structure) a property in itself, or is it derivative of some inherent subatomic "impulse to aggregate and become" (for lack of a better term)?

I hold it is a property on its own terms and not derivative or something smaller. I do not find it stand-alone, though, just as I do not find the inherent nature of subatomic particles to be stand-alone. They both work together. One does not emerge from the other (although new forms can emerge from their interaction). This is called top-down and bottom-up persepctives for analyzing things.

I don't find this idea any more weird that counting backwards in time as a projection and presuming the universe came from something unknown and practically unknowable with present day metaphysical concepts like time.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Now comes the crux. Is structure (holon-like structure) a property in itself, or is it derivative of some inherent subatomic "impulse to aggregate and become" (for lack of a better term)?

Let's take DNA for example. What we call life relies on this molecule because of it's unique ability to reproduce exact copies of itself (more or less). Obviously a DNA molecule has properties far different from the composite amino acids which is why we haven't yet been able to produce "life" from a soup of organic molecules in water. yet this is precisely what we think must have happened somewhere at some time. The point is that when the circumstances are right then structures change and the bottom line is that structure are not static, but dynamic affairs that changed continuously on a small scale and in quantum leaps every once in awhile.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Those are some of the complexities I also see.

Part of the problem with life as an existent is its temporary and cyclic nature. The universe is eternal and infinite. I don't care what anyone says. To claim otherwise is to claim to have observed the limits of the universe and I don't know anyone who has done that. All we have are math projections based on what we have observed.

On a scale of smallness, the universe is also eternal and infinite.

Yet life is temporary. It reproduces, grows, peaks, decays and wears out. It also feeds on itself (one living thing eats other living things) to continue existing.

We observe all this, but it doesn't fit the pattern of inanimate stuff. It has a pattern all its own that uses the eternal and infinite as a background—an essential one, but still a background. This is a metaphysical inconsistency and that is bothersome.

How can you make life with all those characteristics out of stuff that is eternal and infinite? This is one of the problems I see in producing life in a lab from the bottom up. If the characteristics do not exist in the original material, how do you make them exist? The only answer I see is the existence of top-down principles in the universe.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Let's take DNA for example. What we call life relies on this molecule because of it's unique ability to reproduce exact copies of itself (more or less).

There is no more or less with -exact- copies. DNA replicates with a small but non-zero error rate. Which is why our cells cease to replicate after about 50 generations. It is no surprise, therefore, that individual organiisms do not live forever (i.e. cotemporal with the cosmos), nor is it too surprising that species do not last either, although species have a longer time span than individuals.

Bottom line: DNA does not reproduce exactly in the long run.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

That also shows that mortality is an essential ingredient of life. If DNA always replicated perfectly, we wouldn't be here, as there wouldn't have been an evolution.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I find that to be quite a stretch if I understood it correctly.

Are you guys saying the following? Something does not reproduce exactly, therefore it is temporary.

I don't see the cause-effect.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Michael,

Having both bottom-up and a top-down perspectives of modeling the universe within me I find myself both cringing at and applauding what you say. Our bottom up approach, cosmology, has led us to the view that the universe had a definite beginning in space/time with the Big Bang. Our top down approach, metaphysics, leads to the conclusion that "[t]he universe is eternal and infinite."

One should not confuse the value and accomplishments of science with the value and accomplishments of modern cosmology. There is no way to rationally deny the value of the accomplishments of science. Science is a study of how the universe works. Starting with observation, it adheres to the principles of the scientific method, reduces observations of the physical world to basic principles, and is the most powerful means of describing how the universe actually behaves. Personally, since I am not a scientist, I tend to accept the description of the universe provided by science as given.

It is when science steps beyond the 'how' and enters the 'why' of the universe that purely subjective (and inter-subjective) interpretation begins to play a role. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle describes the point beyond which science's ability to describe how things behave reaches a physical limit. The Copenhagen interpretation assumes the scientific method to be the only valid means of exploring and describing the universe and concludes that the end of our ability to observe and explain how things behave is also the end of our ability to describe why they behave as they do. The Copenhagen interpretation is an assumption of 'why.' It is an assumption of the epistemological limits of mankind. This is a philosophical, not a scientific, conclusion. It contains both metaphysical and epistemological elements which can be questioned on philosophical grounds by non-scientists without the non-scientist committing the foolish act of challenging the value of the scientific description of the universe.

The moment the scientist steps beyond his descriptions of how the universe behaves, and starts making assumptions of why (as opposed to just another level of how) it behaves this way, like it or not, he has entered the realm of metaphysics and epistemology. Any descriptions of the universe based on such metaphysical and epistemological principles-- e.g.: modern cosmology-- is open to philosophical scrutiny.

If intuitive and metaphysical descriptions of the universe produce a perspective that contradicts modern cosmology, this does not mean that this necessarily contradicts science. It may simply be a matter of contradicting the metaphysical and/or epistemological assumptions at the transition between science and cosmology. It is not then a matter of simply choosing which perspective to align oneself with: scientific/cosmological vs intuitive/metaphysical. It is a matter of questioning the philosophical conclusions at the transition between science and cosmology and trying to find new assumptions on which to base our cosmology that fit with the scientific description and our intuitive/metaphysical perspective. It is a matter if working from both the bottom-up and the top-down perspectives to create a synergy of perspectives. It is a matter of finding a new synthesis between apparently competing perspectives. To do this we must be able to hold a duality of perspectives, suspended in consciousness, and seek integration rather than elimination.

Paul

[BaalChatzaf]

Reply to #136

In a scientific context "why" means from what cause or for what reason. It does not mean for what purpose or end.

Physics constructs hypothetical cause to account for what is only partially seen. Most of what happens in the cosmos is loiterally out of our sight. Our visible spectrum of light frequencies is only the tiniest portion of the total electromagnetic spectrum. When cause cannot be abduced from visible effects, then mathematical laws are substituted to account for what is observed or measured. For example, Boyle's Law connecting the temperature volume and pressure of a gas. Molecular thermodynamics ultimately provided a cause; the random motion of gas molecules which do not interact strongly.

As to the origin of the cosmos, the Big Bang theory is the one that best fits the observations. The red shift in the light froms distant galaxies sugges that they are moving away from us and each other. This implies expansion of the cosmos. If you play that backward you get a compact origin of the cosmos. The cosmology is very much based on astronomical observation and physics. It was an astronomer, Edwin Hubble who first showed that the cosmos is expanding and it was a pair of engineers, Wilson and Pensias at Bell Telephone Lab who observed nearly uniform cosmic background radiation which strongly supports the Big Bang hypothesis.

So far, the best clues as to what the world is like and how it came to be has been provided by the physical sciences. Philosopy has not been much help in this regard.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Nicholas Dykes]

Reply to #136

In a scientific context "why" means from what cause or for what reason. It does not mean for what purpose or end.

Physics constructs hypothetical cause to account for what is only partially seen. Most of what happens in the cosmos is loiterally out of our sight. Our visible spectrum of light frequencies is only the tiniest portion of the total electromagnetic spectrum. When cause cannot be abduced from visible effects, then mathematical laws are substituted to account for what is observed or measured. For example, Boyle's Law connecting the temperature volume and pressure of a gas. Molecular thermodynamics ultimately provided a cause; the random motion of gas molecules which do not interact strongly.

As to the origin of the cosmos, the Big Bang theory is the one that best fits the observations. The red shift in the light froms distant galaxies sugges that they are moving away from us and each other. This implies expansion of the cosmos. If you play that backward you get a compact origin of the cosmos. The cosmology is very much based on astronomical observation and physics. It was an astronomer, Edwin Hubble who first showed that the cosmos is expanding and it was a pair of engineers, Wilson and Pensias at Bell Telephone Lab who observed nearly uniform cosmic background radiation which strongly supports the Big Bang hypothesis.

So far, the best clues as to what the world is like and how it came to be has been provided by the physical sciences. Philosopy has not been much help in this regard.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Physical science is not the job of philosophy. Philosophy's role is to keep science honest by making sure scientists employ sound principles of epistemology and obey the rules of logic. Nicholas Dykes

[BaalChatzaf]

Physical science is not the job of philosophy. Philosophy's role is to keep science honest by making sure scientists employ sound principles of epistemology and obey the rules of logic. Nicholas Dykes

Experiment is what keeps science honest as Galileo brilliantly showed. He trashed Aristotelean nonsense and backed it up with experiments. See his famouse -Dialog on the Two World Systems- in which he defends the Copernican model of the solar system, contrary to what Aristotle and the Church Fathers claimed. Eppur si mouve!

Science runs on good mathematical reasoning and cogent experimentation and observation. Not on philsophy which has been a burden and a curse on science and held it up for more than 1500 years. If Aristotle had bothered to check his conclusions (which he did not) we would be riding around in Star Ships, rather than jet planes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited August 9, 2008 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Physical science is not the job of philosophy. Philosophy's role is to keep science honest by making sure scientists employ sound principles of epistemology and obey the rules of logic. Nicholas Dykes

Nick,

That's one hell of a good quote.

(Don't mind Bob's switch and bait, i.e., Aristotle was wrong on some things, therefore all philosophy is worthless.)

Michael

[william.scherk]

William.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. (etc.)

Okay, so to your mind dialysis machines are holons, and islets of the pancreas and liver lobes are holons, as are kidneys and the person with a kidney. So . . . implicit in Thomas and my remarks is the question, "what is important about holons?" What is particularly useful about this concept?

Now comes the crux. Is structure (holon-like structure) a property in itself, or is it derivative of some inherent subatomic "impulse to aggregate and become" (for lack of a better term)?

I would suggest that testing holon theory comes first. And I would also suggest that a particular 'holon-like structure' be addressed by your questions in its own terms.

How about DNA -- this would seem to be ideal to answer your questions about structure. If this is a holon-like structure, the question would be how to address a 'subatomic impulse.' In this case, the inquiry would necessitate getting down and dirty into the science of DNA, to the level of microbiology, molecular biology, and there we might then discover that there is not an 'impulse' but an ability or a necessity, a process or a machinery. We might then discover that holon theory biases inquiry by a variant of "where is the vital essence?" or "where is the impulse?" We might not like that molecular biology doesn't use terms that translate into holon jargon, that it incorporates atomic and chemical 'impulses' in a fabuous dance of pull and push and exchange and fruition. "But where is the spirit?" "But where is the 'becoming'"? Is holon theory practically useful to inquiry, if it has no measure to describe the why and how of intercelluar communication, of calcium gates blockage and tau proteins and memory formation and mitosis?

In sum, this set of interlocking assumptions and descriptions may not quite be the tool of thought you hope it is, since it posits from the get-go an ineffable spiritual/non-material pattern (as you put it, "an impulse"). There is also the persistent danger that in reifying an untested theoretical construct -- and imposing it on an actual process or dynamic system -- one can attempt to shoehorn reality. The problem then is not with the reality that it attempts to model, but in the theory itself.

Have a look at this video of from the

. Why would one want to explain the folding and excising and copying and manufacturing in terms of a non-material impulse? Why would one want to fit molecular biology inside a spirit-imbued theory? I say go to the multitudinous rock faces of inquiry. That is where the wonder and delight of understanding will come, I submit -- not in the reified spiderwebs of integral theory and its almost-empty signifier, the holon.

The unchecked premise has also tended to drift off into crackpot land for some, Michael. If one doesn't fully understand in necessary detail a developmental process (say the development of a stem cell into a pancreatic islet cell) I believe one ought to inquire into the work that informs the process. But the spiritists and their allies don't inquire. Rupert Sheldrake, for example, has given up testing the assumptions of 'morphic resonance' and 'morphic fields' and has gone into the wilds of solipsistic thought. He assumes that the morphic field exists, though he cannot show it to anyone.

Part of the problem with life as an existent is its temporary and cyclic nature. The universe is eternal and infinite. I don't care what anyone says.

That's a problem for conversation and inquiry. Translated: I don't care what may contradict what I believe.

How can you make life with all those characteristics out of stuff that is eternal and infinite? This is one of the problems I see in producing life in a lab from the bottom up. If the characteristics do not exist in the original material, how do you make them exist? The only answer I see is the existence of top-down principles in the universe.

Your question can be simplified, and extended: how was life made? How could life have arisen from non-life?

The holon theory puts forward zero hypotheses for the origin of life, whereas scientific inquiry has put forward many. Don't you think that you are better to enquire of this work first for its hypotheses, rather than presuming that the extant hypotheses are wrong? ("I don't care what anyone says.")?

In any case, I caution you from falling head over heals into the world of Ken Wilber. As I noted before, he allies himself with the Intelligent Design cohort when convenient, has a murky, tendentious understanding of evolutionary theory, and is inclined to reject any criticism of his pet assumptions. In other words, he has already decided in his mind that if his theories conflict with scientific understanding, then it can only be the other work that is wrong, never his . . .

In any case, there is a throbbing of spirit that informs his tenets about holons, and the tenets are not checked against our present scientific knowledge. This throws up a red flag for me. An additional red flag is the absolute paucity of research that emerges from the confluence of his 'integral theory' with sciences wet and hard. Where are the iminers at the rock face who find Wilber a useful collaborator? Where are the schools of inquiry that marry scientific principles to the principles of Wilberism? As far as I can find, there is zero integration, just wishful thinking on his part, and on the part of his acolytes.

Finally, another red flag is the holy murk of the tenets. For example, 12e, below -- Evolution has directionality; increasing telos. This is congenial to a believer in holy spirit worlds, but leaves the evolutionist blank. Hardly fruitful for integrating wisdom traditions.

Ken Wilber's Twenty Tenets are:

1. Reality is not composed of things or processes, but of holons, which are wholes that are simultaneously parts.

2. Holons display four fundamental capacities:

a. self-preservation (agency)

b. self-adaptation (communion)

c. self-transcendence

d. self-dissolution

3. Holons emerge.

4. Holons emerge holarchically.

5. Each holon transcends and includes its predecessors.

6. The lower sets the possibilities of the higher; the higher sets the probabilities of the lower.

7. The number of levels which a hierarchy comprises determines whether it is 'shallow' or 'deep;' and the number of holons on any given level we shall call its 'span.'

8. Each successive level of evolution produces greater depth and less span.

9. Destroy any type of holon, and you will destroy all of the holons above it and none of the holons below it.

10. Holarchies co-evolve. The micro is always within the macro (all agency is agency in communion).

11. The micro is in relational exchange with macro at all levels of its depth.

12. Evolution has directionality:

a. increasing complexity.

b. increasing differentiation/integration.

c. increasing organization/structuration.

d. increasing relative autonomy.

e. increasing telos.

According to Wilber, the Twenty Tenets are an attempt to summarize and draw some basic conclusions from dynamic systems theory and the contemporary evolutionary sciences. Calling them "tendencies of evolution" or "propensities of manifestation," the Twenty Tenets operate throughout the three great domains of evolution: the physiosphere, the biosphere, and the noosphere (or matter, life, and mind).

[BaalChatzaf]

Physical science is not the job of philosophy. Philosophy's role is to keep science honest by making sure scientists employ sound principles of epistemology and obey the rules of logic. Nicholas Dykes

Nick,

That's one hell of a good quote.

Michael

Too bad that it is dead wrong. It is experiment that falsifies wrong theories, not philosophical disputes and discourses. Serious scientists gave up on philosophy (metaphysics) over a hundred years ago. The only branch of philosophy that has any relevance for science is critical epistemology. The philosopher that has had the most influence on science in the last fifty years is Karl Popper.

In teaching of science, particularly physics, Aristotle's works on matter and motion are used as an example of how NOT to do science. Aristotle got almost everything wrong. Why? He hardly ever checked. Aristotle never properly developed the experimental method.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited August 9, 2008 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Too bad that it is dead wrong. It is experiment that falsifies wrong theories, not philosophical disputes and discourses.

Bob,

LOL...

"Falsify" is an epistemological process. You can't falsify anything until you can falsify something. Philosophy states what falsify means.

Contrary to dead wrong, your observation provided evidence that makes Nick's statement alive right.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Holon seems simply to be a neologism for entity. A kidney is an entity. It has a function, a form, it can be transplanted. A kidney cannot continue to exist as a living organ without a body, (or an analog thereof) but a body cannot continue to exist as a living body without food, air and water. If one wants to distinguish between entities and holons, then that should be done explicitly. MSK, can you differentiate between the two for us? I wonder if Koestler used the term simply to avoid sounding like a Scholastic?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I will read your post in more depth than I have time for right now, but I have a problem with addressing presumptions that I am pursuing crackpot notions based "tools of thought" I "hope" exist, etc. How do you know that I hope for the crackpot to be true? My nature is to rebel at such condescension and ignore the meat in the arguments. But I will resist.

On a first skim, I don't see any explanation on your end as to why forms end up being what they are. Once you break an existing form down, you can say the pieces fit together like XXXX or YYYY, but that does not explain why they formed in that manner in the first place.

I think trying to find a "why" in initial identification and using that intellectual path to try to discredit some idea we do not like is a mistake. The purpose of identification is not to identify causality, but merely to identify what exists. Causality comes after initial identification, not before.

Holons are observed. The entire universe is made up of systems within systems. What is wrong with saying this exists? Anyone can observe it at any time.

You can't scramble DNA and lump it together any old way and hope it produces the same result as organized DNA. A form must be present. A system must be present. This system fits into a bigger system and is made up of smaller systems. Both are present. Remove the system and it doesn't work.

I don't like Wiber's manner of discourse (using words like tenet and so forth), but on an initial read of the twenty tenets, I find them more or less reasonable.

I do find it weird in the first tenet to divorce the idea of holon from things and processes. Things and processes have both form and parts. I don't understand thinking that claims, on one hand, that a thing has an "emergent" form, as if form were some kind of metaphysical accident resulting from its parts, or on the other hand, that a thing has form without taking into account the nature of its parts.

From where I sit, things have both form and part. Both exist.

Just as the religious person pushes fundamental identification one step away from him by claiming that God created everything (i.e., does not have an answer for what created God), the people who claim form only emerges from subatomic parts have no answer as to why form exists in the first place, but claim as fact that form only exists "down there" and can only emerge from "down there." That sounds an awfully lot like opinion to me, or an article of faith.

I perceive an intellectual drive for oneness in all these manners of thinking. Maybe the parts and principles of the universe are varied and we discover them by observation. How's them apples?

(When I say things like that, I feel like the child who says the emperor has no clothes on.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

I find holon and entity to be very similar, possibly different perspectives of the same thing. There comes a point where a thing becomes an end in itself. For instance, an individual life. As a member of a species, an organism is a holon. As a unique life, it is an entity.

This kind of thinking can apply to kidneys and stars and atoms.

I am still mulling all this over so I don't have full answers right now.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

I don't think you have said anything that I would disagree with, or that disagrees with what I said in my earlier post.

Reply to #136

In a scientific context "why" means from what cause or for what reason. It does not mean for what purpose or end.

Agreed. I was also using the same meaning for "why." Science looks to models of physical interactions to account for causes of events. So do I. Science seeks general principles across a broad spectrum of observations. So do I. I get the impression that some scientists assign causal efficacy to physical laws, but most do not. Nor do I. Physical laws are just generalized statements that describe a particular class of observed phenomena. They are generalized statements of how things behave. As you said,"Philosophy has not been much help... ." This is the problem. Philosophers have dropped the ball because they assume, just as do scientists, that our intuitions about the nature of causation are beyond question.

Dragonfly has frequently expressed his view that our intuitions about the universe are naive. He is right. At the foundation of all these naive intuitions are our intuitions about causation. And yet we do not question the assumed nature of necessary connection. At the root of all this is an assumption about the nature of causation. When we ask "why" we are seeking more than just a never ending sequence of "how" things behave. We are looking for the necessary connection at the root of all the "hows." But, as Hume has pointed out, we can never observe necessary connection. So again, we find ourselves in the territory of philosophy. Science is built on a context of causation that we have questioned surprisingly little. Even after science has demonstrated the necessary breakdown of our intuitive view of causation at the quantum level, we have not questioned our naive assumptions about the nature of causation. Scientists have instead concluded that our intuitive faculty, the mental faculty that generates its content via the guidance of our intuitive views of causation, is naive.

Intuition works. It just needs to be programmed with a view of identity and causality that fits the evidence. So far it has not been.

Physics constructs hypothetical cause to account for what is only partially seen. Most of what happens in the cosmos is loiterally out of our sight. Our visible spectrum of light frequencies is only the tiniest portion of the total electromagnetic spectrum. When cause cannot be abduced from visible effects, then mathematical laws are substituted to account for what is observed or measured. For example, Boyle's Law connecting the temperature volume and pressure of a gas. Molecular thermodynamics ultimately provided a cause; the random motion of gas molecules which do not interact strongly.

This only emphasizes my point above. If "[p]hysics constructs hypothetical causes to account for what is only partially seen," then our assumptions about the nature of identity and causality, which are used to guide these constructs of hypothetical causes, necessarily shape the models of reality generated by physics. Physics has been shaped by an intuitive view of causality it has since discredited. Should we not then begin to question the nature of this intuitive view of causation? Is this not the role of philosophy? And should we not consider reinterpreting the evidence and reconstructing our models of the physical universe in much the same vein as we had to reinterpret and reconstruct our intuitive models of time and space in light of Einstein's relativity?

As to the origin of the cosmos, the Big Bang theory is the one that best fits the observations. The red shift in the light froms distant galaxies sugges that they are moving away from us and each other. This implies expansion of the cosmos. If you play that backward you get a compact origin of the cosmos. The cosmology is very much based on astronomical observation and physics. It was an astronomer, Edwin Hubble who first showed that the cosmos is expanding and it was a pair of engineers, Wilson and Pensias at Bell Telephone Lab who observed nearly uniform cosmic background radiation which strongly supports the Big Bang hypothesis.

The Big Bang theory, our understanding of the nature of light, and our interpretation of the background radiation are all shaped by our intuitive assumptions about the nature of identity and causality. Science is not equipped to deal with such metaphysical questions as: What is the nature of identity and causality? The scientific method assumes the nature of identity and causality to be intuitively given.

The intuitive assumption about causality is that an entity's actions are determined by external forces and necessity is created because energy is transfered between entities that interact. This is in accordance with Newton's laws of motion. The question is: Is this intuitive assumption about causation the best fit for the evidence? We should note that our intuitive assumptions about space and time fit most of the evidence but cannot account for the extreme circumstances of near light speeds and strong gravitational fields. Could it also be that our intuitive notions of causality also fit most of the evidence but cannot account for extreme circumstances found in quantum systems, or in systems that do not follow the model of inertia? Relativity forced us to reevaluate our understanding of space and time, and to reinterpret our physical models. Isn't quantum reality forcing us to do the same with causation? And isn't our attachment to our intuitive assumptions about causality and the Copenhagen interpretation, which excludes any investigative method but the scientific method, blocking any chance of advancement?

Quantum mechanics contradicts our existing intuitive views of causality and the worldview that has been shaped by these intuitive assumptions. Since metaphysics is very much our intuitive principles and views made explicit and systematic, philosophy too is very often found to be in opposition to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics describes how the universe actually behaves. I fully accept this. The Copenhagen interpretation basically says, damn causality, damn intuition, and damn metaphysics; the scientific method is the only valid epistemic method for investigating the nature of reality. Anything that falls beyond the scope of the scientific method is beyond the scope of what we can know about the physical universe. This is a mistake.

Ironically, the Copenhagen interpretation (that suggests we should accept dualities in nature) resolves paradoxical or dualistic perspectives, and finds unity, by excluding worldviews derived by any other epistemic means. This is a group of scientists drawing a very philosophical conclusion. It says we must accept that dualities exist in nature but we should not accept thinking methods that create dualities in our minds. But it is precisely by accepting a duality of perspectives, which we can suspend in consciousness, and by seeking integration rather than exclusion, that we will be able to create a picture of nature without dualities. It is by seeking an understanding of the nature of identity and causality that is consistent with both our scientific/cosmological and our intuitive/metaphysical lenses (reductionist/constructionist vs holistic/deductive way of looking at the world) that we will create a model of causation that fits both. When we have a single causal model that fits both our scientific/cosmological and intuitive/metaphysical lenses, we will be able to create worldviews that are synergistic rather than paradoxical. We will no longer be talking about dualities in nature.

Paul

Edited August 10, 2008 by Paul Mawdsley

[Roger Bissell]

Holon seems simply to be a neologism for entity. A kidney is an entity. It has a function, a form, it can be transplanted. A kidney cannot continue to exist as a living organ without a body, (or an analog thereof) but a body cannot continue to exist as a living body without food, air and water. If one wants to distinguish between entities and holons, then that should be done explicitly. MSK, can you differentiate between the two for us? I wonder if Koestler used the term simply to avoid sounding like a Scholastic?

"Holon" is, indeed, a neologism, coined by Arthur Koestler (see his book The Act of Creation, which was favorably reviewed by Nathaniel Branden elsewhere on this website), but it is not synonymous with "entity."

"Hol" means "whole" -- and "on" means "particle" or "part."

"Holon" designates any part of a structure in nature, whether living or inorganic, that acts as a whole in relation to its constituent parts and as a part in relation to a larger thing of which it is a part.

A hydrogen atom is a holon -- a whole in relation to its constituent proton and electron and a part in relation to a water molecule of which it is one of the constituents.

A DNA molecule is a holon -- a whole in relation to its constituent atoms (as well as the subatomic particles of those atoms) and a part in relation to a living cell of which it is one of the constituents (as well as .

A stomach is a holon -- a whole in relation to its constituent tissues (and cells and molecules and atoms and subatomic particles) and a part in relation to the digestive system (and the organism as a whole.

Exactly how mind is a holon is a matter of debate. But I think that insofar as mind is (or is identical to) a part of a human being and itself (or that which it is identical to itself) has parts, it is a holon. Since I've already belabored the alternatives, I won't do it again.

Just one point: we all agree that the lightning flash and the thunder clap are attributes of the electrical discharge, and we don't try to argue that they are different entities, even though they ~appear~ different. So why is there this continuing argument that brain and mind are different entities, and that neural processes and mental processes are processes of different entities, just because ~they~ appear different??

I smell the funk of residual Cartesian mind-body dualism and a lingering wish for the possibility of spiritual (non-physical) entities. Sorry, I'm with Ba'al on this one. Though I don't deny the ~existence~ of mind. I just deny that it is something different from brain (or part of the brain).

What I ~would~ like to suggest/urge is that all the skeptics, scoffers, head-scratchers, etc., in the current discussion invest a few bucks in one of the absolute best books of the 20th century, and (for my money) the best book ever recommended by Nathaniel Branden -- and that is Koestler's The Act of Creation. IMO, it has the best unified theory explaining humor, artistic inspiration, and scientific discovery that I have ever read. It is ~not~ mystical, but is thoroughly empirical ~and~ rational.

Now that I have led you to the water, though, it is ~you~ who must choose to drink. I won't waste my time typing in enough excerpts to convince you that there's something worthwhile there, and I'm not going to discuss this further with people who seem predisposed to dismiss valuable ideas on superficial acquaintance.

REB

P.S. -- I'm trying to be even-handed about this. Michael is (perhaps inadvertently) conveying the impression that there are spiritual, non-physical holons. There aren't any that ~I'm~ aware of. But some of the rest of you seem inclined to throw out the Koestlerian baby with the Kellyian bathwater. Don't do that!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

Two questions.

Do you consider metaphysics limited to the five senses only?

This is not a trick question. When you say "non-physical," do you mean other reality, or do you mean not perceivable by the five senses? In other words, do you find it plausible that something physical can exist that the five senses cannot detect, or do you think that is an impossibility?

Now, if you limit reality only to man's five senses, don't you think there should be some kind of confirmation of this other than merely stating this is the case? I personally have seen too much evidence that there is more to dismiss it (starting with volition). I would go against my own mind if I denied that. And I consider this slice of reality might be physical in one aspect: it definitely exists, but my perception of it might be weak due to an undeveloped sense organ.

We can start with "mind" as something I am talking about. Please note that I am not saying either-or (the mind as a floating spirit without the rest of its support). That would be a caricature. One does not deny the blue color of the candy because it has a sweet taste, nor claim that blue is floating around somewhere divorced from the candy. Yet many things can be blue.

I am also unsure about another position of yours (the second question).

In your view, is the human mind (conceptual volition) a causal agent or not?

I know you are some kind of determinist.

btw - I fully endorse The Act of Creation.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Just one point: we all agree that the lightning flash and the thunder clap are attributes of the electrical discharge, and we don't try to argue that they are different entities, even though they ~appear~ different. So why is there this continuing argument that brain and mind are different entities, and that neural processes and mental processes are processes of different entities, just because ~they~ appear different??

If we say that "mind" is the net effect of the actions and interactions of the physiological components of the brain observed introspectively, I don't think many people would disagree. One of the hang-ups though, comes from trying to understand how the actions and interactions of physical components, regardless of how complex, can produce the qualitative aspects of experience that is our flow of awareness. How does a wave in the EM field interact with our bodies and produce the experience of red? It is the same qualitative aspect to experience that causes some of us to deny that computer models of consciousness can ever hit the mark. And it is this same qualitative aspect that always brings us back to the Cartesian theatre.

If we are ever to leave Descartes behind, we will need to find a model of consciousness that better accounts for "redness" than computer models of consciousness. Again, we see paradoxical dual perspectives that await synthesis rather than the elimination of one by exclusion or the acceptance of dualities in nature. Again causality seems to be at the root of the problem.

Paul

Edited August 10, 2008 by Paul Mawdsley