Biologist Stuart Kauffman suggests that life forms at the edge of chaos, a thin (metaphorically) liquid state between the frozenness of ordered regime, and the gaseous unpredictability of chaos itself. He discusses the application of what physicists Bak, Tang and Wiesenfeld call Self-organized Criticality:
“The central image here is of a sandpile on a table onto which sand is added at a constant rate. Eventually, the sand piles up and avalanches begin. What one finds are lots of small avalanches and few large ones. If the size of the avalanche is plotted on the familiar x-axis of a Cartesian coordinate system, and the number of avalanches at that size are plotted on the y-axis, a curve is obtained. The result is a relationship called a power law. The particular shape of this curve…has the stunning implication that the same-size grain of sand can unleash small or large avalanches. Although we can say that in general there will be more tiny avalanches and only a few big landslides (that is the nature of a power-law distribution), there is no way of telling whether a particular one will be insignificant or catastrophic.â€
Kauffman then goes on to expand on the metaphor,
“In such a poised world, we must give up the pretense of long-term prediction. We cannot know the true consequences of our own best actions. All we players can do is be locally wise, not globally wise. All we can do, all anyone can do, it hitch up our pants, put on our galoshes, and get on with it the best we can.â€
At Home in the Universe
The implications of such metaphorical thinking is strong in the area of Ethics and Ideas, for if indeed the Ideo-sphere of mental constructs is perched in Self-Organized Criticality, we can never know what effects the presentation of any idea might have, or any Ethically conceived act might have. They may not appear to budge a sand grain, or they might unleash tremendous changes across the world. What Kauffman proposes is that we locally focus ourselves to the best of our conception, that we present our best thoughts, introducing them to the Self-organized Criticality of communal thinking and communal action.
My first concern is that the sand be falling at a true constant rate rather than a rate that appears constant, such as when one pours sand from a bucket. Would a true constant rate also display a similar power curve?
Would a true constant rate also display a similar power curve?
Presumably it would, since the pile-size and hypothetical table-top would then correspond to the rate itself. Since this description is meant to model actual systems in life, I assume they have been idealized for a clarity that would not distort what they are describing, but one never knows. If you are dumping buckets of sand upon a mountain of sand, instead of dropping one grain of sand at a time one a table top, it would seem to be of the same effect. But, perhaps I don’t understand your question. Either way prediction would not be global.
I am not liking the model, the more I think about it. I’m sure it can be explained in a better metaphor, just can’t come up with it.
For one this is relying on a law of physics to reach a conclusion about things entirely unrelated to gravity. I rather suspect that the reason they are not using a more representative metaphor is because doing so shows the theory in a worse light.
For one this is relying on a law of physics to reach a conclusion about things entirely unrelated to gravity.
You really don’t have to like it. In fact when you come up with the better one on the tip of your tongue, I’d be interested. But the nature of your objection is missing the point. Stuart is not using this observed phenomena to prove anything, but to illustrate the local vs. global behavior of Self-organizing, nonequilibrium systems at the simplest levels; and of such systems - one of which he claims to be Life - to extrapolate upon the nature of the subsystems within Life, such as the order between our thoughts to other thoughts, our behaviors to other behaviors. As he suggests, the full description the process cannot be shorter than its execution.
I may be considering incorrectly, but I see this as a type of percolation problem, if we disregard the quality of the proposed “best thoughts”. For instance, a hermit in the hills may have high quality ideas, but lacks the means to distribute such ideas effectively. Also, assuming the means of adequate distribution exist, the mindset of the intended audience may not be ‘ready’ for such ideas, and therefore their flourishment may be impeded. Therefore, the extent of the percolation through the minds of the population could be time, space and situation dependent.
A claim he (apparantly) makes through a metaphor based on gravity. I can’t think of a more suitable metaphor that does support the idea.
Actually not. He is not making his claim here. He is a biologist and a Science of complexity theorist. If you would like to read his rather well received and provocative, The Origins of Order, an examination of Evolutionary theory under the implications of Complexity Theory, you would perhaps have a better since of the depth and evidential grounds of his argument. Then again, you can pronounce yourself an expert based on this single illustrative example, dismiss the idea as meaningless, and move on with your life.
I think I would have to read his work, because you’ve presented this badly. Why not try again and do so more simply? You will likely get more responses.
Therefore, the extent of the percolation through the minds of the population could be time, space and situation dependent.
This is an interesting point. But I suppose that what should be considered is that from the narrowness of our particular point of view, we simply do not have the wisdom the full consequences of individual acts. I am always reminded of Campanella who was imprisoned by the Church in the dungeon Castel Sant’Elmo almost without light for years and years, and with no possibility for release. Yet he composed works under adverse conditions, wrote poems, without there ever being the likely chance of those acts meaning anything. Let today, hundreds of years later. I am moved, repeatedly by such acts, such remote grains of sand.
I think I would have to read his work, because you’ve presented this badly. Why not try again and do so more simply? You will likely get more responses.
I’ve presented it “badly” because I do wish to receive, apparently, whatever you think your contribution would or should be. His ideas are significant to me for pariticular reasons, and it is those reasons that I share, in their narrowness. If you want to study his theories and then post what you imagine what their significance is to you - in otherwords to present them “well”, do so. Til then, I will present them “badly”, contrary to whatever designs you would put them to. I’m not looking for more responses, or meaningless questions about the “true constant rate”. I am dropping particular grains of sand.
It’s not meaningless to point out the possibility that the model overlooks how it might otherwise be applied and how that could in turn make it a bad model. It is, yes, beside the main point of your post. Why you are so keen to have discussions on things you have already made your mind up about continues to bemuse me - I fear it is because you enjoy the romanticism of such metaphors/theories and simply wish for others to join you in celebration of them. Woe betide he who voice doubt, on pain of ‘You don’t get it like I do’.
It really wouldn’t hurt you to expand a little now and then, involve a few more of us considering you put it up here where we can all read it.
Why you are so keen to have discussions on things you have already made your mind up about continues to bemuse me -
I post some things in order to solicit discussion. And some just to share a prospective idea, with little thought that discussion is possible. Such is the case this time, for this is simply a sketched out model of the universe that is interesting and thought provoking in the most general sense (note, I did not post it in the Natural Sciences forum). As long as you are bemused, I in my time here have yet to notice a single compelling thought put forth by you, not a single thing that even seemed to provoke comment, of any sort. If I would take your lead I would simple reserve my posts for deflationary thinking and the occasional quip. Unfortunately, my mind is a bit more alive than that, and the purposes I put my connection to others on ILP, surpasses whatever micro-goals you seem to have in mind for yourself. You of course though in your restricted conception of what constitutes a valid post, certainly confirm why you did not understand the OP.
This is a discussion board, not our personal set of Brechtian placards. I know you consider my input to this forum to be useless, but perhaps another will be able to give you something new to consider.
Incidentally ‘bemused’ is hardly an insult (the opposite to my mind).
I know you consider my input to this forum to be useless, but perhaps another will be able to give you something new to consider.
So I should start posting somewhere else because you do not consider my threads worthy of your brilliant response? (I wonder why you didn’t ask what color the sand was in Kauffman’s example, but that of course would deprive you of sounding like you were making some kind of perceptive, although meaningless, distinction.) Let me ask you, would the forum be better off with me not posting this thread? Would the enviroment be richer? I look forward to your, in the future, thought provoking contributions to “discussion”, since I haven’t really noticed any recently. Since you are committed to a new you, I’ll try not to be “bemused” by you in even the most positive sense of the term.
It comes from a general repulsion I have for closed minds, and for the urge that closed minds - particularly those who have been institutionalized - to call for other minds to close, in the name of philosophy itself. This is the saddest thing about institutional “philosophy” these days, the regulation of thought. Far from posting placards here, I constantly search through a diversity of thought for points of interest and paths of investigation. The last 8 threads I have started have ranged far and wide:
Self-organized Criticality; the Efficacy of Ideas and Ethics – commentary on the possible applications of Stuart Kauffman’s view of the world Enough with this Thing-in-Itself thing – A presentation of Rorty’s anti-essentialism The 4 desires of philosophy, Badiou – commentary on Badiou’s conception of the desire of Philosophy The Vision of God, and Knowing – the epistemological implications of a passage of Nicholas de Cusa’s The Conditions of Objectivity – the epistemological implications of Davidson’s theory of Triangulation The 4 virtues of Stoicism – inviting discussion on four framed virtues of Stoicism Philosophy, the "hard to read stuff" – inviting discussion on the role of difficult texts in philosophy “Natural” Answer to Every Question - Pragmatism – a general presentation of Pragmatic principles
That you experience this as placard posting, says more about your ability to understand than anything else. How about contributing something, instead of complaining?
So is that a ‘yes’ then? My mention of placards was exclusively referring to this thread and your admission to posting a narrow idea that did not want discussion necessarily, and no other. I have not read any of those threads you linked to, with the possible exception of the penultimate one which does look familiar.
(Incidentally do you still think logic is a rubber ruler, and that philosophy is the search for meaning but not truth?)
Incidentally, I don’t have the time to make those sorts of threads, but well done for doing so.
(Incidentally do you still think logic is a rubber ruler, and that philosophy is the search for meaning but not truth?)
Most certainly.
was exclusively referring to this thread
This of course is a retreat on your part, because you referred to the discussion board in general and apparently my “personal set of placards”
As to “placards” by specifying them as Brechtian, you certainly were offering a description quite far from my expressed intent. Have you ever read a book and come across an interesting idea, just come across it. It sparks an interest, but not nearly enough to formulate a theory, or even to take a position upon. But the urge comes to share the idea, because others might find it interesting, provocative. It was in that state that I initiated this thread, not suspecting that the Thread Police was going to come along, form mock questions as to the scientific methodology behind the illustrative principle, and then declare that such “sharing” was Brechtian placard posting. A lot of nonsense, from you is all I can say.
