The Re-Enchantment of Humanity: Dr. Stuart Kauffman
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 фев 2025
- The mixture of quantum and classical is neither deterministic -- after Newton and Einstein -- nor quantum random -- after Schrodinger and von Neuman. The world is new. But what does this mean for the social and natural sciences?
On December 2, 2011, the Vermont Complex Systems Center at the University of Vermont invited Dr. Stuart Kauffman (along with Professors Christopher J. Koliba and Brian Beckage) to discuss this far-reaching topic as part of the Complex Systems Spire Speaker Series. For more information, go to: www.uvm.edu/complexsystems
STUART KAUFFMAN
Dr. Kauffman is an American theoretical biologist and complex systems researcher concerning the origin of life on Earth. He is best known for arguing that the complexity of biological systems and organisms might result as much from self-organization and far-from-equilibrium dynamics as from Darwinian natural selection, as well as for applying models of Boolean networks to simplified genetic circuits.
In January 2010 Kauffman joined the University of Vermont faculty where he continues his work with the Vermont Complex Systems Center (www.uvm.edu/~cm.... He is also an adviser to the Microbes Mind Forum.
Kauffman has the mind of a philosopher, not just a researcher. That makes him an exceptional teacher. And a joy to listen to.
Great talk - he hits the mark for me with questions like: "Does our current civilization best serve our deep humanity?"
I called my wife a "Kantian whole" and suffice to say, I slept on the couch that evening.
Brilliant.
ah, the good ol' emergence of good humour... what a time to be alive
gracias
ευχαριστώ
radical emergence only comes from traits that have already been selected, such as lungs that then become flotation bladders, so the emergence is partially pre-selected and therefore not as radical as kauffman seems to think.
Only partially though. It's the other part which the description of emergence refers to
I'm confused, at 22:50 he says: "not only do we not know what can happen, we can't even make an informed probability statement about it,"... As though that were some revelation? Isn't that self-evidence?
Why would anyone conceive of such a thing within this our real world and real lives? Any suggestions?
33:20 Excuse me, but I beg to differ. Appreciating Evolution and Earth science is who deserves the credit for that sort of insight. By seriously studying deep-time and learning about the pageant of evolution, those lessons are emergent in and of themselves ;-) . I'm sitting here a little shocked that this stuff is treated like such an revelation. But then again, I'm also astonished that we're destroying our life supporting biosphere in a collective haze of disregard just as fast as industry will allow. And I certainly agree we do need a Re-enchantment with Earth's marvel, so cheers to Stuart Kaufman - and a reminder that appreciating Evolution and deep-time provides the framework for a substantive constructive Re-enchantment. But, it takes time and paying attention. citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2020/02/musing-half-century-agw-awareness.html
35:45 Dancing across the sword's edge of life. 36:45 Can't be done by focusing on the hominid community - only by considering the entire community of life within our Earth's biosphere and with her history, is any sort of Re-enchantment possible. :-) Some good thoughts in there, still too much anthropomorphizing. {We truly are trapped within our mindscapes.}
This means that we simply lack the ability to infer what might happen because there's a indefinite amount of ways that a cell or protein or whatever can change.
What a good way of thinking. What a hopeful, useful way of thinking.
It sure seems like the selection, which he says does not take place to produce the swim bladder, takes place in a larger Kantian whole. It is a selection in which (perhaps) the biospheres that bubble forth things like swim bladders do better than the steady-state biospheres?
Would this be another example of the development by which the former universal laws become perceived as a (still valid) special case of even MORE universal laws? Einstein's universes contain Newton's, and so forth?
But thinking this way does not eliminate the magic that we do not know which enlargement is going to happen.
@ Birrel Walsh
Something that may be overlooked by Kauffman in reference to the question of natural selection is that in order to select anything it presupposes a selector who or which is separated from whatever is at issue and consequently makes the ‘selection’ that subsequently comes into being after a process of thinking about such issue. So how does the thinking about action actually occur? It is unlikely to spring into the selectors mindset spontaneously, it most likely resulted from past knowledge or experience registered in the brain’s memory storage system. If so then it’s not something uniquely positing itself anew, it will surely be a modification to the past memory. So the question that is now posed is whether the selector is indeed separate from the selection per se, meaning that the thing referred to as ‘selection’ is only an another aspect of the past knowledge and therefore not necessarily complete as a fact because it in time will be added to, modified again or subtracted from the merged knowledge to which it pertains, Conclusions reached by the time-bound thinking about fragmented processes can only be concepts, not facts or truth.
Does this mean that all knowledge is therefore incomplete? This question of efficacy is most important in regards to the so-called sciences of the mind, particularly psychiatry and psychology because the determination of pathology in mental states, which to the analyser means ‘nothing but’ has dire consequences for the recipients of professionals’ diagnosis.
@@grahaminglis4242 I surely do agree that all knowledge is partial. I must say I am not sure the selector exists separately. Our grammar - with Subject-Action-Object - suggests that but I do not think that makes it true. If it WERE separate, I think your point would be accurate.
He should read Whitehead. Whitehead was there first.
@Literally Adolf Hitler Whitehead has also be receiving a lot of attention in continental philosophy circles lately, particularly amongst the schools of "object oriented ontology" and "speculative realism".
3:00?
He's getting confused between Kant and Plato - the parts and the whole is from Plato's idea of the Many and the One.
Experience substantive confederation
There is something very wrong here
This guy seems bent on rubbing Richard Darwins evidence of fact plus probability and yes things do happen slowly in particular series of events its called evolution processes 🌴😎🎲♥️🌐
"Look what we did to the Inuit, even with good intentions." Huh? Good intentions?! That is an ahistorical perspective.