|
Author
|
Topic: The Immaterial Cause for Complexity in Nature
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 20. February 2007 08:31
From competing gametes to competing species nature thrives on the process by which living things strive for the same resources within a network or ecosystem. If ever there were a self-evident truth in nature, it is competition. And it not only pervades all of biological life, but also all of society. Governments and economies thrive on it, as does technology, education, and even some judicial systems (i.e. lawyers and legislators competing with one another). Indeed, scientists from every discipline are finding practical use of Game Theory.
“In fact,” wrote Stephen Jay Gould, “I would advance the even stronger claim that the theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith’s economics transferred to nature. Individual organisms engaged in the ‘struggle for existence’ act as the analog of firms in competition. Reproductive success becomes the analog of profit.” (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, pp. 122-123)
For all its significance competition must be taken for granted. It is just as “real” and objective as any organism within nature. It is an undeniable, non-negotiable, self-evident truth of life.
But what exactly are we taking for granted? This question could be considered an extension of my previous thread, “What information is not.” The point is that the preachers of Naturalism hold just as firmly as the proponents of Intelligent Design to the existence of an immaterial reality. For strictly speaking competition is nothing more than a word and it is always entirely lacking in any physical qualities (mass, charge, etc.) This is not a philosophical statement but rather a simple observation of what is not present. Philosophical descriptions are entirely superfluous and ineffective in exploring this one fact: competition is immaterial.
As such no organ, organism or machine is capable of perceiving it, for that which is immaterial cannot be seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled. It can only be comprehended in the mind and translated through other languages and other media. This is not so much a statement about what we do not know as a statement about what we do know. Although we do not know exactly what competition is we do know what it is not; although we do not know exactly what does comprehend competition we do know what does not comprehend it (i.e. the brain). As Einstein said, “The eternal mystery of the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
Human beings seem unique in our ability to create competition. As far as we know, when other species compete they are only doing what they are programmed to do and have no awareness of the struggle. But humans constantly author and enforce the rules for new competitive enterprises in sports, politics, education, etc. This is overwhelming evidence that we authors are just as immaterial as competition—that we are not our brains but are souls using our brains to process the rules and events of competitive enterprises.
To deny this one must at least take one or more of the following: (1) Argue that competition is less “real” than nature, that it only exists in the human brain, etc.; (2) Argue that competition is a physical phenomenon; (3) Argue that organisms are capable of perceiving nonphysical phenomena.
Another phenomenon in nature that is complementary to competition and that is likewise immaterial is unity-in-diversity (such as of an ecosystem, etc.). Granted, both competition and unity-in-diversity are abundantly basic and easy to take for granted. Regardless, they are both entirely immaterial. They are nothing more than words. That is to say, all of nature represents undeniable, non-negotiable, immaterial communication. As in sports, the competitiveness to create in nature might communicate a struggle to express joy. As in government, the unity-in-diversity of nature might communicate a struggle to express peace.
So who is the rational, creative, emotive, immaterial Author of all this communication? One thing is for certain: not us.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 20. February 2007 10:01
You are touching on so many different topics it is difficult to know which idea to respond to.
If you accept that all life forms are intelligent goal directed systems, then one important scientific question is the nature of the goal that life forms are (or can be viewed as) striving to achieve. One possibility is that the goal of life is the competitive survival of the fittest (life forms compete). An alternative theory or hypothesis is that goal of life is general survival of a diversity of life forms and that individuals and individual species will sacrifice short term benefits and advantages for the long term general benefit of all life forms.
The scientific evidence from a variety of sources strongly suggests that data is more compatible with a general goal of survival than with the selfish competitive goal of survival.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 20. February 2007 22:11
LifeEngineer,
quote:
You are touching on so many different topics it is difficult to know which idea to respond to.
Well I do like the name "Brainstorms"! My main interest here is in exploring the immaterial realities of nature. If such phenomena (like competition) are just as real as nature itself then that is overwhelming evidence that we who inhabit human bodies are likewise immaterial.
quote:
If you accept that all life forms are intelligent goal directed systems, then one important scientific question is the nature of the goal that life forms are (or can be viewed as) striving to achieve. One possibility is that the goal of life is the competitive survival of the fittest (life forms compete). An alternative theory or hypothesis is that goal of life is general survival of a diversity of life forms and that individuals and individual species will sacrifice short term benefits and advantages for the long term general benefit of all life forms.
Regardless of the goal is not competition still a self-evident truth in nature? That said, I do agree that your later description is more accurate do not think “survival of the fittest” is at all a clear. Living things did not survive the Big Bang anymore than they survived the past 5,000 years. They were rather created. The avoidance of death (survival) and the creation of life are two different drives.
Put another way, competition is a wonderful, beautiful drive that has nothing to do with survival. For example in sports, although it’s very hard to be an idealist these days, competition is an end in itself. (“It doesn’t matter whether you win or lose…”) A true ahtlete runs simply for the joy of running the race.
IP: Logged
|
|
AnaxagorasRules
Member
Member # 4079
|
posted 21. February 2007 01:21
What would you say to the statement that competition is a high level abstraction that has as its analog not a physical property of matter but a chemical property?. Analog to flammability and malleability, for example, unable to be sensed like the physical properties of color, state, density, taste, boiling point, etc, yet properties nevertheless that can be used in our understanding of the substance under investigation.
Specifically, I would define competition as that force which occurs when matter undergoes motion to produce a purposeful action that is levied against an external entity (which can also be a combination of purpose-driven matter undergoing motion to achieve an aim, but not necessarily). The matter can take many different forms (people, institutions, nature, etc, the antagonists can be of any combination, and the respective antagonists and collaborators of the moment can have differing or no purposes). As you can see, I don't mean for this to be a narrow definition. For example, I'll argue that I compete with the door to my room when I force it open.
The only point in which I'm differing with you, really, is your contention that we don't know what competition is. I cannot abide with the idea of not being able to understand something that I am constantly engaged in.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 21. February 2007 02:30
Matt: quote:
that which is immaterial cannot be seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled.
This explains why we can't see movies, hear music, or feel hunger. None of those things have mass or charge.
IP: Logged
|
|
AnaxagorasRules
Member
Member # 4079
|
posted 21. February 2007 02:42
Matt, one thing I want to add is that, while I think I can define competition, I will beg off giving any reason why it exists.
Besides, why get hepped up about an abstraction when physical reality itself can pose problems of understanding?
For example, our physical senses of sight, taste, hearing, touch, and smell. What are they really? Sight, for example. Information enters our eyes, is changed into electrical signals that travel to the brain, which then makes us aware of the information that came in through the eyes, and we call this seeing. Likewise, what is smell, exactly, and so on for the other three senses. In our brains is where the resultant perception takes place. But then, is seeing really different from thinking, or is seeing a species of thinking? And thus hearing and tasting and smelling and feeling also different forms of thinking? Thinking itself has never been truly understood. Dwelling on this can cause one to feel unsettled and confused, but also mystified and filled with wonder, and unsure about what really is real.
This can lead to some unsettling, confusing thoughts about just what is reality.
To make matters worse, we have been conditioned to accept what is not as what is.
For example, when you look in the mirror, what do you see? Skin, eyes, hair, and so on? Yet, in reality, from top to bottom, side to side, and front to back, we are a conglomeration of living cells. We have seen those cells in biology books. We look nothing like those cells, yet we are comprised of them.
However, those cells in the biology books are also an abstraction, and real in nature. The cells are made up of molecules, and the molecules are made up of elements, which we have never seen, only detected with instruments.
So, we have never seen what we are trully made of. It's like being composed of infinitesimally small, qualitatively different lego particles that are built up into macro patterns, and it is this which we perceive as reality. Fortunately, the patterns are persistant, predictable, and reliable, for the most part. Yet it is in that space taken up by those unseen particles where the unit forces of nature reside.
The wisest thing to do, I believe, in any discussion like this (trully, in any discussion) is to, in true Socratic fashion, realize that until we understand the mind and consciousness, it is good to periodically proclaim our ignorance and acknowledge that what we believe is no more sturdy than a flimsy house of cards, awaiting only the merest puff of wind to knock it down.
And that includes my definition of competition.
IP: Logged
|
|
AnaxagorasRules
Member
Member # 4079
|
posted 21. February 2007 02:46
Re: "However, those cells in the biology books are also an abstraction, and real in nature."
I meant "not real" in nature.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 21. February 2007 08:14
Quote: My main interest here is in exploring the immaterial realities of nature.
Then you really need to learn something about the use of abstract logic and abstract modeling in scientific analysis. What you call 'immaterial realities' are abstract properties defined to fit sets of observed data. There may be immaterial or 'not directly observable' phenomenon, like the force of gravity, that 'exist' in the real world, but in the formal world of scientific analysis, immaterial abstractions are phenomenon created by scientists for communications to other scientists. The only 'knowledge of' or connection between the scientific abstact or immaterial universe and the real world are observed data.
You are really wasting everybody's time if you don't understand the scientific concepts of material and immaterial.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 21. February 2007 22:32
AnaxagorusRules,
quote:
What would you say to the statement that competition is a high level abstraction that has as its analog not a physical property of matter but a chemical property?. Analog to flammability and malleability, for example, unable to be sensed like the physical properties of color, state, density, taste, boiling point, etc, yet properties nevertheless that can be used in our understanding of the substance under investigation.
Specifically, I would define competition as that force which occurs when matter undergoes motion to produce a purposeful action that is levied against an external entity (which can also be a combination of purpose-driven matter undergoing motion to achieve an aim, but not necessarily).
Well on the one hand “a high level abstraction” just begs the question; on the other hand it sounds like you’ve got a start on arguing that competition is actually a physical phenomenon—a chemical reaction. However, “purposeful action” assumes an awful lot. Competition is indeed nothing if it is not purposeful, and that’s what I don’t want to just take for granted.
quote:
The wisest thing to do, I believe, in any discussion like this (trully, in any discussion) is to, in true Socratic fashion, realize that until we understand the mind and consciousness, it is good to periodically proclaim our ignorance and acknowledge that what we believe is no more sturdy than a flimsy house of cards, awaiting only the merest puff of wind to knock it down.
I think I agree with you. But I also think that although we do not know for certain what the mind is we do know what it is not: it is not a physical thing. It is as lacking in physical qualities as “a high level abstraction” or as a “purpose.” My argument here is that competition is real, objective, and immaterial; and that there is no way the brain could perceive something that has no physical qualities. Therefore, something else--something likewise immaterial--is perceiving it.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 21. February 2007 22:35
2ndclass,
quote:
This explains why we can't see movies, hear music, or feel hunger. None of those things have mass or charge.
Well I’d certainly agree that we cannot see the information/communication for which a movie projector & screen are the medium, nor can we hear the information/communication for which sound waves are the medium. Communication is only comprehended by the mind and, as Albert Einstein said, that is an "eternal mystery"…because, I'm arguing (more so in the previous thread), that communication has no physical properties. I think of hunger as a chemical reaction and not really as communication, but I suppose there’s a way to nuance it.
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Connally
Member
Member # 3076
|
posted 21. February 2007 22:40
LifeEngineer,
quote:
Then you really need to learn something about the use of abstract logic and abstract modeling in scientific analysis. What you call 'immaterial realities' are abstract properties defined to fit sets of observed data. There may be immaterial or 'not directly observable' phenomenon, like the force of gravity, that 'exist' in the real world, but in the formal world of scientific analysis, immaterial abstractions are phenomenon created by scientists for communications to other scientists.
Immaterial realities are abstract properties? Immaterial abstractions are phenomenon? Whatever you want to call them I am picking one—competition—and arguing that it is objective in nature(so scientists did not put it there), real (as real as any organism in nature, or even as real as the meaning of the word “real” is real), and completely lacking in physical properties. Naturalists want to take this for granted and I am saying wait—that is a very, very, very big deal to take for granted. It may be extremely simple and basic, but taking it for granted is in principle just as outrageous as taking spirituality for granted.
I offered three ways to disagree; are you choosing any of them? I’m really not sure what you’re saying. When you say that “immaterial abstractions are phenomenon created by scientists” do you mean that they are actually composed of grey matter inside the scientists’ skulls (that would be like option # 2 for disagreeing).
quote:
The only 'knowledge of' or connection between the scientific abstract or immaterial universe and the real world are observed data.
So are you saying there is in fact an immaterial universe—an objective reality that is totally lacking in any physical properties? Again, that’s a very, very big deal, and totally incompatible with Naturalism. There is no way the human brain could perceive such a reality. Which is, again, why it is an “eternal mystery.”
IP: Logged
|
|
AnaxagorasRules
Member
Member # 4079
|
posted 22. February 2007 02:56
Matt, there is perhaps a better way to understand competition. First, here's what Websters says about the word:
compete: to seek or strive for something
competition: the act or action of seeking to gain what another is seeking to gain at the same time (the dictionary has several definitions, more or less along these lines).
comptetiveness: characterized by, arising from, or designated to exhibit rivalry among two or more equally matched individuals or forces especially for a particular goal, position, or reward
Okay, so much Webster's. I only pasted those definitions in so that we have a common framework. After all, the point of this discussion is not to re-define competition but only to understand it.
You will agree that competition, because it has a verb form, is a behavior? If so, also notice that one of the noun forms defines the act of competing, and the other defines the potential for competing. So, there is no doubt that competition is a behavior.
Since behaviors are not physical entities, we are never going to pick up a natural object or look at a natural object and say aha that is competition.
Also, a competitive act does not necessarily have to be physical in nature. The competitive weapon does not have be physical, or even have physical dimensions. For example, a test of wills, an intellectual argument, a spelling bee, etc.
Now, borrowing from Aristotle, and shifting into the physical realm for a moment, we can say that, in the hierarchy of classes, Man does not exist. Man is an universal abstraction that specifies the blueprint of what a man is (his behaviors and properties), but Man is no specific man. If you are familiar with object oriented programming, compare classes, which cannot be instantiated, and the "real" objects that can be instantiated from those classes. The Man class would have properties like age, height, race, eye-color and so on, and behaviors like Eat, Sleep, Compete, etc. So behaviors (and Compete is one of them) are an important part of the blueprint of a man.
Though we cannot say that Man is a man, we can say that Socrates is a man. Also, Socrates is a primary substance, because there is nothing else that is Socrates. This is not reflexive. We cannot say that a man is Socrates, because there are other men besides Socrates.
Behaviors also can be broken down from universal to primary. We can say that boxing is competition. However, we cannot say that competition is boxing, because there are other competitions beside boxing. Also, boxing is not primary, because there are different types of boxing - kick-boxing, gloved-boxing, amateur boxing. We can say that amateur boxing is a primary, and so amateur boxing is a primary behavior.
So, to understand competition, we have to investigate an actual competitive event, in this case an amateur boxing event. However, amateur boxing is not a physical thing that exists in nature. It is a behavior. There is nothing in nature that you can pick up and look at and say aha, here is what amateur boxing is.
Only physical entities can engage in behavior. To understand amateur boxing, you need two real particpants (who both possess the boxing behavior), and observe them going at it. Observing the outward form is easy. However, a full understanding of the competiveness of amateur boxing would require that you understand the underlying motives and drives that causeed the two boxing particpants to engage in the sport.
But if you are looking for the motivations, then you are in trouble because motivations are not visible (another non-physical entity). The only thing you could rely on is what the particpants told you, and there is no way that you could verify the truthfullness of what you were told.
Also keep in mind that motivation is itself a type of behavior (to motivate) that only manifests itself differently in different entities. Just because Jim is motivated by X to do Z does not mean that X is motivation, because there are different kinds of motivation besides X. Also, just because Jim is motivated by X to do Z does not mean that Joe can't be motivated by Y to do Z.
When you also include the natural competiveness of nature against nature, you necessarily must come up with even a more abstract and general descripton of competition. However, if competition is restricted to the domain of animals, then there's no need to deal with the intellectual rat's nest that a rockslide would provide, as a rockslide could be considered a competitive action. Better to restrict competition to animals, and save the Tylenol for another problem.
IP: Logged
|
|
AnaxagorasRules
Member
Member # 4079
|
posted 22. February 2007 04:06
quote:
Immaterial realities are abstract properties? Immaterial abstractions are phenomenon? Whatever you want to call them I am picking one—competition—and arguing that it is objective in nature(so scientists did not put it there), real (as real as any organism in nature, or even as real as the meaning of the word “real” is real), and completely lacking in physical properties. Naturalists want to take this for granted and I am saying wait—that is a very, very, very big deal to take for granted. It may be extremely simple and basic, but taking it for granted is in principle just as outrageous as taking spirituality for granted.
Matt, I think that I now understand what you are driving at regarding competition. I don't think you'll get far by stressing its lack of physical properties, however. A naturalist would jump all over that because competition is a behavior, and that's what a naturalist does, observe behavior.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 22. February 2007 08:14
Quote: Immaterial realities are abstract properties? Immaterial abstractions are phenomenon? Whatever you want to call them I am picking one—competition—and arguing that it is objective in nature(so scientists did not put it there), real (as real as any organism in nature, or even as real as the meaning of the word “real” is real),
Competition is a good an example as any. Scientists observe that species change (or appear to change) over time. Scientists then form a predictive teleological theory of the change process that asserts or predicts that the changes that occur can be predicted by some goal or goal variable defined by the scientists.
Some group of scientists propose that evolutionary changes can be predicted by a goal they label competition or 'survival of the fittest'. Competition is an abstraction created by scientists and defined with sufficient precision so that scientists can communicate the concept (and perform tests).
As an alternative to theory based on the competition variable, I propose that the 'goal' of evolution be defined as a more general altruistic concept of survival. My altruistic survival concept is an abstract variable or concept just like the concept variable and it is created by a scientist.
Following formal scientific testing principles, we now consider situations where the competing teleological theories produce different predictions. As scientists, we then collect data to determine which theory best fits the actual data.
Based on the results, we will eventually conclude that competition (survival of the fittest) or altruistic survival best describes the goal or purpose of evolutionary change. Whether competition or altruistic survival is a 'real world force' or 'real world phenomenon' or whether they are simply abstractions created by scientists is irrelevant and not a question that can or need be addressed by science.
Whether minds, souls, gravity, competition or altruistic survival are or are not parts of the real world is not relevant to science. Science can not answer, nor is it interested in, the question of whether abstractions are real. Scientists simply use abstractions in doing analysis.
It can be fun and entertaining to speculate on just how real different abstractions are or are not. A couple of bottles of beer can make the subject even more entertaining. But in the world of formal science and formal mathematics there exist clearly defined rules for making clear distinctions between the real world, abstract models, and the modeling rules connecting the two.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 22. February 2007 10:12
"Animals are not struggling for existence. Most of the time they are sitting around doing nothing at all."
anonymous
" A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic