Towards a new enlightenment: Kauffman

[Pure]

dates for exodus vary

http://www.cresourcei.org/exodusdate.html 1440, 1290 BCE

http://ggreenberg.tripod.com/ancientne/dating.html 1315

presumably ishtat's 438, is a typo for 1438.

 

[3113]

i think i'd make the argument that these scientists, at least some of them have practical reasons for their investigations. the science findings, IOW, are NOT going to be value neutral. i suppose you will say, who says humans should care about human life, but the fact is that they do.

I wouldn't, in the least argue with that. Any more than I'd argue that the story "Cold Equations" is about the equations. The story is about the humanity of the two characters in the story. The man can toss the girl out without a word, but he decides to tell her the score, let her talk to loved ones, and walk out on her own. The girl has a choice of accepting the facts and dying with dignity, or going out screaming and crying. She can pick to admit to her brother what's happened and say good-bye, or ask that a lie be made up about her death. She could even try and argue that she would rather they all died instead of just her.

There is nothing in the equations or science to help these two BE human. They ARE human, and all the equation does is give them an opportunity to act like human beings--as we might define it. With mercy and dignity rather than savagery. But, ultimately, that's a false distinction. Human beings are human no matter how they act. Whether it's committing genocide or saving people from genocide. Even in this story, we're told that man has ruthlessly shoved other stowaways out without mercy.

All ethics and morals are, are ways of deciding how to act in such situations. Likewise, the scientists who know about climate change can decide that they want to help the planet and the human race, or they can throw up their hands and say, "We doomed, I might as well live it up while I can." Science presents us with certain facts, but it doesn't present us with universal, moral or ethical answers. Religion, on the other hand, does. A Catholic knows what things are sins that must be confessed and forgiven or atoned for or avoided. The Catholic can choose not to do any of these things, but they honestly believe in their faith and it's fiats, then they know what's right and what's wrong.

In the end, I just don't see how Kauffman's way of looking at the universe is going to make us have better or clearer morals or ethics, nor do I understand why you seem to think it is (1) special, (2) going to lead ME, personally, to some sort of "enlightenment" (and what do you mean by that?), or (3) going to get someone who believes dinosaur bones are tests of faith and the Rapture is coming soon to UNDERSTAND, let alone accept arguments on using science, patterns in science, etc. as a way to enlightenment.

What his view is doesn't matter to me. How it is going to change my life matters. Is it really going to change my life or the world? If so...how?

 

[rgraham666]

I'll work on enlightenment once I'm reasonably competent at wise and good.

Might be a while.

 

[Sir Victor]

My main beef with Kaufmann is that he is such a sloppy thinker. For example he takes a couple of broad generalisations about the ancient Greeks and Israelites (as scientiststs and historians) then proceeds from the general position to construct a detailed set of contentions. The problem is that his initial assumptions don't stand up to examination. In particular he assumes that the religious and intellectual viewpoint of Western post renaissance society is no different from that of the ancients.

An, at best third rate thinker.

I agree that he is a sloppy thinker.

His claim that there are flaws in Laplace's reductionism should be obvious to anyone familiar with later scientific thinking. The reach to the suggestion of a creativity "god" is rather arbitrary and not based in logic. He seems to think he can "fix" the world with his suggestion for a global religion.

All the models that we have for the fundamentals in nature and the Universe are flawed approximations; any good scientist should be aware of this. Much of what we have in science is useful for solving applied real world problems but to believe that man will ever find a perfect model of the Universe, Hawking's Unified theory for example, is wishful thinking IMO. One of the strengths of String Theory as I see it, is that it strongly suggests that it is beyond the capability of man to find a provable Unified theory. Black holes are real, not just a theoretical abstraction, don't think they've found a worm hole yet:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/programs/2612_time.html

 

[Sir Victor]

Kauffman also suggests that there is no living God/creator.

Seems to me that Pinker's "Language Instinct" also stated as "universal grammar" by Chomsky strongly suggests an intelligent creator. Pinker argues against this, while Chomsky is skeptical that this could be a result of evolution by natural selection. I agree with Chomsky and believe it is evidence of an intelligent God creator:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/The_Language_Instinct

From the above site:
" Language and similar abilities are some of the traits that most clearly set humans apart from other animals, and have been claimed by thinkers such as Alfred Russel Wallace and Samuel Taylor Coleridge (*) as the work of God."

 

[Pure]

note on 'cold equations.'

3113 There is nothing in the equations or science to help these two BE human. They ARE human, and all the equation does is give them an opportunity to act like human beings--as we might define it. With mercy and dignity rather than savagery. But, ultimately, that's a false distinction. Human beings are human no matter how they act. Whether it's committing genocide or saving people from genocide. Even in this story, we're told that man has ruthlessly shoved other stowaways out without mercy.

pure: i think your comments on 'cold equations' nicely illustrate a *refutation* of facts/values dichotomy. statements like 'he acted mercifully' or 'she chose death with dignity' are arguably factual. the means to showing these virtues are likewise factual matters, and subject to investigation.

within an aristotelian framework, 'living well' is a skill involving knowledge and training/practice. to use an analogy, it's no more 'subjective', or mysterious or disconnected from evidence than is the question of how dogs live well, and the prerequisites of that. it's a finding [objective, replicable] of veterinary science that if you feed your dog fatty scraps from the table, you'll take years off his life.

it's pretty clear that the girl took a choice not unlike socrates did: not to be coerced and pushed towards death kicking and screaming. it's a matter of fact that that isn't a very dignified way to go.

the truism 'F=ma, the equation, doesn't tell you what to do', is rather a straw man and a distraction. as i stated 'there's a dandelion in your front lawn' doesn't tell you whether to yank it, destroy it, leave it for harvest.

turning to medical or nutritional science, we know that drinking a couple litres of wine every day for years is likely to lead to cirrhosis of the liver and a miserable life and early death. the 'moral' is rather obvious.

a number of what we call life sciences and applied sciences yield knowledge directly linked to injunctions as to how to act. the science of animal husbandry, for example.

3113 All ethics and morals are, are ways of deciding how to act in such situations.

pure: i think you overestimate the resolving power of the other side, the supernaturally based ethics. it's a dilemma in many a system. try the story's dilemma on your local catholic priest.

you seem to agree that ethics is rooted in both human passions and human reason. so, i argue, is scientific investigation and the uses to which its findings, where applicable to humans, are put.

i think it's a mistake for many scientists to divorce their moral side, as if 'feelings', are somehow 'subjective' or 'tainting.' to use our current example, those using science to investigate 'climate change' have an obligation, i say, to consider public policy.

the scenario you describe makes no sense for a scientist:

3113 Likewise, the scientists who know about climate change can decide that they want to help the planet and the human race, or they can throw up their hands and say, "We doomed, I might as well live it up while I can."

as you point out, in your story example, there are means to being human, in the best sense; in the present example, avoiding excesses of CO2 in one's living environment seems like a pretty obvious choice. similarly it's a mistake, in my view, for the scientist to limit herself, and suggest those alternatives are matters for others to freely choose on whatsoever basis. "these are the facts; have a doomsday party or do something, it's completely up to you; there's nothing i as a scientist can say."
---

it's worth pointing out that siutations like the story, similar dilemmas, are NOT necessarily resolved so decisively as occurs in the story. ...changing a few facts of the story would make a different conclusion more appealing. suppose he were charged with delivering a package to the 'ill' settlers. and he discovers it's a baby in suspended animation, and the only formula the settlers have to save themselves involves using the baby's blood in a life saving concoction.
mightn't he choose to return, or to orbit the planet till his food and air run out, having made a few timely broadcasts of the story?

 

[ishtat]

Oh dear

Certainly not, the bronze age Hebrews were still polytheistic. The extra biblical evidence supports the bible and makes it quite clear that a monotheistic god was not fully accepted by the Jewish people until the return from Exodus (438 BCE).

My main beef with Kaufmann is that he is such a sloppy thinker. For example he takes a couple of broad generalisations about the ancient Greeks and Israelites (as scientiststs and historians) then proceeds from the general position to construct a detailed set of contentions. The problem is that his initial assumptions don't stand up to examination. In particular he assumes that the religious and intellectual viewpoint of Western post renaissance society is no different from that of the ancients.

An, at best third rate thinker.

I must apologise not for one error as pointed out by Pure and the Doc but for two.

Firstly I intended to refer to the exile not the exodus. Secondly my date for the return from Babylon was wrong anyway . King Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem in 538 BCE (not 438BCE).

Incidentally had I been considering the Exodus from Egypt my view is that it never happened unless the defeat of the Hyskoss provided the basis of a tale later incorporated into Jewish mythology

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I must apologise not for one error as pointed out by Pure and the Doc but for two.

Firstly I intended to refer to the exile not the exodus. Secondly my date for the return from Babylon was wrong anyway . King Cyrus allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem in 538 BCE (not 438BCE).

Incidentally had I been considering the Exodus from Egypt my view is that it never happened unless the defeat of the Hyskoss provided the basis of a tale later incorporated into Jewish mythology

Viewpoints that any halfway competant Bible scholar would be fully in accordance with. Part of Kaufman's problem is his lack of understanding of high quality Bible scholarship and high level theology. This is no surprise. He would seem to have set himself up as the Chosen One to bring Enlightenment to the masses. Unfortunately as a seriously dull academic, his views are totally irrevelant to the masses. Academic fights are so vicious because their issues are so trivial. Kaufman seems to be well within this tradition.

 

[3113]

i think your comments on 'cold equations' nicely illustrate a *refutation* of facts/values dichotomy. statements like 'he acted mercifully' or 'she chose death with dignity' are arguably factual.

Not at all. Someone else from a different religion, culture or background might have a totally different opinion. They might argue that it would have been more merciful for the man to have pushed her out and not made her suffer and decide. *shrug* that's ethics for you. It's not a "cold" equation.

i think it's a mistake for many scientists to divorce their moral side, as if 'feelings', are somehow 'subjective' or 'tainting.' to use our current example, those using science to investigate 'climate change' have an obligation, i say, to consider public policy.

I think you don't know scientists if you think they divorce their moral side. Scientists, so far as I know them and I know quite a few, do not divorce their moral side any more than any other person might do so. They may, but so may a priest or anyone else when faced with a decision that tests their moral fiber. As for "obligation"--that's your opinion. It may not be theirs. Ethics is personal, not universal.

it's worth pointing out that siutations like the story, similar dilemmas, are NOT necessarily resolved so decisively as occurs in the story.

Granted. It is a story and the author has created everything to their satisfaction. But I thought it illustrated my point well enough.

...changing a few facts of the story would make a different conclusion more appealing. suppose he were charged with delivering a package to the 'ill' settlers. and he discovers it's a baby in suspended animation, and the only formula the settlers have to save themselves involves using the baby's blood in a life saving concoction.

Different story and a version of it was already written. Read LeGuin's "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omalas."

 

[xssve]

Kauffman also suggests that there is no living God/creator.

Seems to me that Pinker's "Language Instinct" also stated as "universal grammar" by Chomsky strongly suggests an intelligent creator. Pinker argues against this, while Chomsky is skeptical that this could be a result of evolution by natural selection. I agree with Chomsky and believe it is evidence of an intelligent God creator:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/The_Language_Instinct

From the above site:
" Language and similar abilities are some of the traits that most clearly set humans apart from other animals, and have been claimed by thinkers such as Alfred Russel Wallace and Samuel Taylor Coleridge (*) as the work of God."

Lessee, my mind cannot grasp this, so it must have been an invisible and all powerful deity - seems like vanity to me.

Chomsky has been harping on that language thing forever, language isn't what sets us apart, that is sloppy thinking - it's abstraction that sets us apart.

 

[xssve]

We're back to Prachett: sift through every atom and you won't find a single particle of justice or mercy. Dr. M. is absolutely right. You can't use science to prove the existence of god and there's no point in trying. Nor can you use science to decide on your ethics--though it might be a factor in your decision.

Sounds like a disillusioned physicist - those guys always retreat into magical thinking, sissies.

Once again, Ethics is a science, you have to use science to determine the range of choices, and and which is the most ethical - it is not interchangeable with morality, which may contain ethical components, but is for the most part, arbitrary with regard to Ethics.

Please stop confusing the two.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Viewpoints that any halfway competant Bible scholar would be fully in accordance with. Part of Kaufman's problem is his lack of understanding of high quality Bible scholarship and high level theology. This is no surprise. He would seem to have set himself up as the Chosen One to bring Enlightenment to the masses. Unfortunately as a seriously dull academic, his views are totally irrevelant to the masses. Academic fights are so vicious because their issues are so trivial. Kaufman seems to be well within this tradition.

Whoa! That's a pretty harsh and ad hominem view of what Kauffman's trying to do, I think, which is essentially laudible and worthwhile. He's only trying to establish some scientific footing for ethics and morality in a post-God world. I don't see where he's set himself up as a second Moses or anything.

Kauffman deals in a branch of science which observes order appearing from chaos, which is a pretty fucking awe-inspiring sight and is really more or less indistinguishable from the hand of God moving over the waters. I think his work has moved him to draw certain conclusions and generalizations from these observations that lead him to see something metaphysical at work in the universe other than a conscious, willful deity, and that's what his theory's about.

He proposes to use this metaphysical principle as the basis of a scientific morality. I suppose one of the first places we'd see the effects of this morality would be in supporting biodiversity and letting this principle proceed unchecked. The other implications honestly aren't that clear to me.

Is that about it? Is this basically what we're talking about?

 

[Pure]

ethics

xssve said to 3113,

xssOnce again, Ethics is a science, you have to use science to determine the range of choices, and and which is the most ethical - it is not interchangeable with morality, which may contain ethical components, but is for the most part, arbitrary with regard to Ethics.

Please stop confusing the two.

pure: If i may say a word about your advice to 3113. "Ethics" is defined as the following in the Merriam Webster Unabridged:

MW unabridged1 ethics plural but usually singular in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad or right and wrong or with moral duty and obligation <the sphere of ethics for the Greeks was not distinguished from the sphere of aesthetics -- Havelock Ellis>
2 a : a group of moral principles or set of values <the Christian ethic> <even the code of the gangster ... has its own ethic -- R.P.Warren> <Puritan ethics> <Lincoln had been pondering the ethics of slavery -- A.C.Cole> b : a particular theory or system of moral values <a materialistic ethic> <naturalistic ethics>

I myself majored in "moral philosophy". There HAVE been numerous attempts to distinguish the areas, but in practice i've given up. What you xssve recommend has been attempted on numerous occasions. The distinctions are worth making, but it's best just to say what one means by the terms.

Here are two common attempts, neither mentioned by MW: 1) ethics has to do with 'good and 'bad' whereas; morality has to do with right and wrong.

OR 2) ethics has to do with the BASIS of moral judgments: i.e when someone says "this is good/wrong,obligatory" what is their basis for the claim? and can there be a *factual basis* for the claim? a purely factual basis? likewise what underlies systems of morality, e.g. is it God's commands, or is it properly based on 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number' (utilitarianism). HOW would one argue for/against such a choice, e.g. what's wrong with utilitarianism?

==
As far as kauffman goes, i see no major distinction being made, off hand. He's talking of a basis for moral choices; AND he's talking of the choices themselves, the latter, which we might call morality.

The basis, he says, is the well-being and creativity and integreity of the biosphere. The particular choices are rather well known as a morality of peace and non violence, treating all forms of life with respect. He's not an innovater in this "peace and respect for life" morality, and wouldn't claim to be. Gandhi, the Quakers, the Amish, MLK, a number of catholic priests, and others have advocated such.

What he's hoping for is a common ground between what secular scientists can affirm and what religion can affirm, roughly respect and awe for the 'creativity' we find operative in the known universe.

Again, this is not a new idea, but the DIRECTION from which he comes makes the *arguments* interesting. Bergson proposed a creative principle as the core of the universe, and iirc suggested that would do as an understanding of God. I think he intended, as does SK, to replace supernaturalism. Whitehead, the process philosopher also understood some fundamental process as the best, revised understanding of God.

As doc says, above, Kauffman is a scientist who is concerned with how order emerges in both living and non living cases (cellular automata; boolean networks) without outside direction. These phenomena have been noted by a number of scientists, e.g. the Benard Cells. Within mathematics, 'fractals', which you can view online, and the famous Mandelbrot Set are examples of highly ordered phenomena with simple underlying rules.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgu...prev=/images?q=mandelbrot+set&um=1&hl=en&sa=N

Conway's "Game of Life", available online, is another example. Simply by specifying a simple rule under which a cell lives or dies, one can generate patterns, some rather complex. (A rule might be, if less than three adjacent cells are alive, the cell dies; if three or more adjacent cells are alive, the cell lives [in the case of more, affects certain neighboring cells, i.e. propagates].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's_Game_of_Life


In doc's own field of chemistry, the Belousov Zhabotinsky reaction, shows an oscillation and pattern formation, from relatively simple initial conditions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov-Zhabotinsky_reaction

http://www.chem.leeds.ac.uk/chaos/pic_gal.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3JbDybzYqk&feature=related




===

A final note, as per one thread topic. Kaufmann is trying for what might be called a 'naturalistic' morality, and a kind of 'natural religion'.

As regards 'naturalistic morality', i.e. one objectively based in nature, SK has two kinds of opponents. Persons like 3113 assert that moral choices are 'personal', and in effect, subjective.

3113 As for "obligation"--that's your opinion. It may not be theirs. Ethics is personal, not universal.

3113 appears to be a subjectivist in ethics/morality, and perhaps also a relativist.

doc's position is less clear: he seems to be asserting morality is based in 'feelings.' this MIGHT be the position of 3113 if he went on to say, 'well, feelings vary, and if A 'feels' like killing B [and A's culture approves of it], maybe it's all right, at least in A's eyes [or, for A in her culture].'

HOWEVER, if 'feelings' refers to virtually universal sentiments, such as we all prefer to live rather than be tortured, then he's verging toward a naturalist and/or objective morality (and ethics).

Kauffman and a few others have tried to make ethics/morality *related* to science; to facts; such as the facts about what it takes for humans to thrive. Such facts, e.g. those of medical science, are objective; they may be learned through systematic investigation. e.g. what levels of arsenic are relatively safe, in a water supply for humans. Medical science is as objective as veterinary science; the requirements, e.g., for dogs to 'live well.'

This approach is related to Aristotle's. His ethics/morality in the book Nicomachean Ethics [note 'ethics'] is based on the idea of 'living well.' As 3113's story demonstrates, IMO, the requirements for living with respect for others, and for dying with dignity seem pretty clear cut. It's not a coincidence, i'd argue, that the girl chose [though not knowingly, i'd assume] to die in the voluntary and stoic manner of socrates. That's why the death of socrates and his statements at the time have lived in human memory for thousands of years.

 

[xssve]

He proposes to use this metaphysical principle as the basis of a scientific morality. I suppose one of the first places we'd see the effects of this morality would be in supporting biodiversity and letting this principle proceed unchecked. The other implications honestly aren't that clear to me.

Biodiversity is te operative scientific principle here - the remainder is mostly mysticism.

If you do analyze the complexity of the cosmos scientifically, w/respect to biological complexity, which as organic beings, tends to be at the top of our priority list, then a list of ethical priorities does emerge, if the organizing principle is about life and it's optimization.

At the top of the list is the health and diversity of the gene pool, it's where all life comes from, it is, w/respect to life, the prime mover, without it, the purpose of life becomes compromised.

What is the purpose of life? What does life do, what is it? Life is essentially a metabolic process, the chemical conversion of energy - life is metabolism, it's the definition of life, only life has organic metabolic processes - we can leave off the possibility that stars, for example, have a sort of metabolic process, convert energy, and have a lifespan that is very similar to organic life (any Frank Herbert fans out there?), it's beyond our immediate scope, we haven't figured out organic life yet.

Typically found in the definition of life is that it reproduces - this may well be a side effect of metabolism however, it is conceivable to have life that doesn't reproduce, it's just that such life would be relatively finite, and unlikely to leave any lasting trace of it's existence - if there ever were any such organism, it has left no trace of it's existence, so we include reproduction in the definition, even though, as I say, it isn't technically an issue, but it does leave stars pretty much out, though they occasionally, conceivably, might split, in a manner outwardly similar to asexual reproduction, but this is usually a one time deal, not an ongoing process, given that we have not yet resolved the possibility of interdimensional connectivity, Black holes, etc, the behavior of neutrinos for example.

If you read the article liked above, you'll find this:

The evolution of sex (and its accompanying reproductive capability) is not a favorite topic of discussion in most evolutionary circles, because no matter how many theories evolutionists conjure up (and there are several), they still must surmount the enormous hurdle of explaining the origin of the first fully functional female and the first fully functional male necessary to begin the process. In his book, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution of Genetics and Sexuality, Graham Bell described the dilemma in the following manner:

‘Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation.’[1]​

I have a theory about reproduction, and it's related to physics: i.e., given that life is, number one, a metabolic process, metabolism implies growth - in and environment ruled by gravitational forces, mass will eventually become an issue.

A single celled metabolically active organism will tend to accumulate mass, at some point, it will be forced to shed this mass, or be crushed by it's own weight - it';s why there is an upper size limit to various organic kingdoms and classes, i.e., single celled organisms, Prokaryota and Eukaryota, up to more complex invertebrates, worms, etc., to arthropods, to vertebrates, etc. - all can only grow as large as the effects of gravity and atmospheric pressure will allow.

That's why I consider reproduction as a possible side effect, rather than a definitive attribute - a technicality perhaps, but it does open the door for future consideration of extending the definitions of life, to stars maybe, or AI's, that may not reproduce, or do so in other than a strictly organic fashion.

Anyways, there may have been scads of primitive life that didn't reproduce, ostensibly, organic life is the result of quite a bit of relative random trial and error, a lot of almost life before one emerged that resolved all the problems, including the mass problem through asexual reproduction, essentially cloning itself, which requires a patterning nucleus - DNA - in order to make reasonably faithful copies of itself.

As I say, this is what we define as life, but really, it just happens to be the only sort of life that will leave any trace of itself over the course of the millions of years that the evolutionary process required to produce creature such as ourselves, capable of analyzing these processes as an abstraction, w/regard to the empirical evidence - anything else is going to be, by definition, a sterile anomaly.

There are, in fact, examples of such creatures, in a manner of speaking: rhizomes, such as Aspen or Bamboo, or the Giant fungi, that overcome the mass problem through diffusion of their physical parts, i.e., instead of one large mass, these organisms are comprised of smaller, distributed masses, although they are, presumably, capable of producing unique offspring, i.e., reproduction.

With me so far? So far, we're stuck with metabolism, as the singular characteristic of life, organic metabolism, if we wish to limit the scope of the argument for practical purposes, and we can include reproduction, again, as a practical consideration: as a reproducing species, reproduction is necessarily going to be part of any ethical system we can derive from any of this, bearing in mind that in large part, the entire field of ethics, and the phenomena of morality for that matter, is a process of balancing the fitness of the individual with the fitness of the group, and reproduction is a central issue in this.

Backpedaling again, organisms have behaviors, these behaviors are the result of adaptation, adaptation is the process of exploiting and maximizing the possibilities inherent in a given niche, this process of adaptation, along with reproduction and mutation results in diversity - i.e., it's how life jumps from one niche to another, from the first mutation of a single celled sulfur metabolite that could withstand temperatures a couple of degrees cooler, to the evolution of bipedal, sweat gland possessing hominids, capable of abstract constructions of thought, translatable into symbolic language - intellectual DNA.

To recap quickly, life is a metabolic process that by necessity, reproduces and adapts, thus perpetuating itself, diversifying to eventually fill every available niche, in this adaptive process, competition is also a byproduct, something I haven't mentioned until now, but it too becomes critical down the line.

Skipping ahead now a few tens of millions of years, to the evolution of intellectual DNA, the abstract idea communicated symbolically, classically, logos, the word - morality is a system of rewards and punishments for specific behavioral adaptations deemed optimal to group fitness, Ethics is the scientific analysis of individual acts, with respect to how a given act affects other individual and groups of individuals.

Group fitness has traditionally been another bone of contention, there are entire philosophical schools of thought based on the notion that fitness is either strictly and individual thing, or whether it's a group thing - in fact, it's both: individual fitness can be optimized and maximized through group behaviors - even the critic of group fitness cannot explain how it is that ants can only survive for very long in a group - one ant alone is not particularly fit, even if it's a really bad ass ant.

Iterating back to the logos, symbolic communication itself is necessitated by group dynamics - it may have evolved and optimized through individual selective mutation - it had to, there is no other way, but it's value to individual fitness extends to the entire group, theoretically, in fact without a group of some sort, even a nuclear family unit, it's a fairly useless adaptation.

In short, the group functions as a vehicle, and there may be many vehicles - the dyad, the family unit, the extended family, the neighborhood, the community, state, nations, etc., and these are divided into still more groups, religious, political and other special interest groups. Individuals join these groups to enhance their individual fitness, and these groups are sometimes in conflict with each other.

I'm already writing a book here, so I'll sum it all up to this point: adaptive competition between individual and group fitness vehicles, who tend to organize around tribal codes of conduct, commonly called mores, of the class morality, necessitate a meta code that can cross cultural and tribal boundaries with a more universal approach to analyzing individual behavior with respect to the larger group, including by extension, the common environment these individuals and groups are adapted to and require in order to optimize their metabolisms, and perpetuate themselves.

That is called Ethics, and ethics are constructed through a process of ethical reasoning with respect to empirical evidence, i.e., science.

I'm going to quickly iterate one more time, and suggest that the part I've ignored thus far, is that life is, or certainly seems, difficult to reduce to strictly metabolism, adaptation and reproduction, it's very complexity, including group fitness and the creative process, the abstract side of diversity, suggests that the whole is more than the sum of it's parts - this is technically mysticism - it can be reduced, but never to the point that one can explain or predict everything, and mysticism is a diffuse abstraction that represents possibility - that which could be, among other things -in praxis, it serves as yet another group fitness vehicle, and subject to the same rules of diversification and tribal coalescence as any other vehicle of group fitness.

I hope this serves as a basis for further discussion, it is often difficult sometimes to maintain the distinction between pure abstract principle and the diverse archetypes it generates.

 

[xssve]

Pure, I have a single operative distinction between ethics and morality - morality is a personal code of conduct, ethics is the empirical analysis of how your behavior affects others.

Ethics can be reduced to a simple cost benefit analysis: for any given act, there are associated costs and benefits, analysis the relative distribution of the costs and benefits results in a relative ethical scale, and this works every time, though some cases are more complex than others - there mitigating factors, supply and demand, intangible costs and benefits, larger social distortions, etc.

As a simple example, a mugger gets all the benefits while the muggee bears all the costs - not surprisingly, we consider mugging unethical.

One problem I might suggest that is considerably more complex, is price gouging for critical resources after a disaster - i.e., overcharging for water in a market where supply is limited, demand, theoretically unlimited.

We tend to say that this is both immoral and unethical, even though as capitalists, we believe in price as a function of supply and demand: i.e., one is obligated to charge whatever price the market will bear - this happens to be a beautiful problem that collaterally, it illustrates the fundamental tension between free market forces and monopolization, i.e., invisible hand theory and the value of competition as central to the ideal of capitalism.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

How would Kauffman reconcile his ethical support for biodiversity with the practical requirements of agriculture?

Right off the bat we find that civilization is unethical.

 

[Pure]

docHow would Kauffman reconcile his ethical support for biodiversity with the practical requirements of agriculture?

Right off the bat we find that civilization is unethical.

fairly simple to answer, doc. SK did not say that biodiversity is the ONLY operative consideration in his ethic of 'respect for life and rejection of war.'

it seems like the goal of life thriving and being respected, with special emphasis on humans' thriving and human life being respected is not a bad one.
the goal is primary in a number of ethical systems; admittedly the devil is in the details, but these too have been written about extensivelyy, e.g. by Gandhi, quaker thinkers like Woolman, etc.

again the originality of SK is not in the concept of 'natural religion' or 'naturalist ethics', or in the concept of a pro life and non violent morality. the novelty is in the pathway he's taken, through science, and esp. the theory and empirical invstigation of 'self organization.'

 

[dr_mabeuse]

That particular devil, I can tell you right now, would be in the definition of "thrive".

 

[Pure]

note to doc:

to thrive is to live well, to flourish.


this comports with merriam webster 3rd int:

thrive
3 : to achieve growth or progress toward one's own goal : flourish despite or because of circumstances or conditions <creating an atmosphere in which injustice finds it harder to thrive -- Lionel Trilling> <she thrives on the attention -- Bradford Smith> <he thrived on opposition -- Sydney (Australia) Bulletin>

flourish
3b : to be in a state of activity or production -- used chiefly of creative workers (as painters or writers) c : to reach a height of development or influence -- used chiefly of technical, artistic, or philosophic schools of thought
----

to center an ethic on 'thriving' is hardly a new idea; a classic exposition is Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. you might also look at the writings of Dewey.

though i'm no expert, jewish ethics, be they orthodox or reform are strongly-- though not entirely based on 'thriving,' because, iirc, the injuction of the torah is 'follow my commandments and live.' i think G*d meant, 'live well.'

no big mystery doc: health and happiness, based on having the basic prerequisites thereto, such as a roof over one's head, unless one lives on a south sea island. growing, having some of one's desires satisfied.

and, of course, applying any of these terms to an individual, her flourishing is necessarily connected to respect for and even facilitation of the flourishing of [at least some] others, as well as the common living environment.

in there's no further interest in SK per se, i'm fine with this thread turning to the question, "is a naturalistic ethic possible"; "is there a plausible one centered on the concept of human thriving?"
---

PS. One footnote. Constrained circumstances. IF an ethic centers on 'thriving', it would also recognize that the best, or even barely adequate circumstances are NOT available for lots of people. is this case, 'living well', means 'living as best one can, as a human being, under the circumstances.' as in 'cold equations', if you're to be executed in one hour, the range of options for 'living well' is rather narrow: hence the arguable heroine makes likely best choice, to die with dignity.

 

[xssve]

How would Kauffman reconcile his ethical support for biodiversity with the practical requirements of agriculture?

Right off the bat we find that civilization is unethical.

Only if you're talking about industrial monoculture, which is what agriculture has evolved into - traditional selective breeding of both plant and animal has increased net biodiversity, industrial monoculture threatens to reduce it to dangerous levels - done for the sake of profit, calling it unethical is an egregious understatement, as the potential here is for an ELE, which would solve that civilization problem.

Civilization is not inherently unethical, just complex: our abstract abilities allow us to alter and shape our environment to an extent that no other single species enjoys - the caveat is that we are adapted to a particular environment, and are changing that environment so rapidly and irrevocably, that in the end we may find we have created and environment that no longer supports our continued existence.

Again, not due to any inherent unethicality, just the incremental result of gaffing off a lot of critical ethical debates over long term consequences for the sake of short term gain.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Well, my beef about thriving is: that's what the perennial political debates are about aren't they? The very nature of "thriving". Does public or private health care help us thrive? Gun control or free access to weaponry? Legality or illegality of drugs? Length of life or quality of life? Good of the group or rights of the individual?

Of course we all want what's best for us. We just can't decide on what that is.

I don't see how Kauffman's views would clarify any of these issues.

 

[Pure]

Well, my beef about thriving is: that's what the perennial political debates are about aren't they? The very nature of "thriving". Does public or private health care help us thrive? Gun control or free access to weaponry? Legality or illegality of drugs? Length of life or quality of life? Good of the group or rights of the individual?

Of course we all want what's best for us. We just can't decide on what that is.

I don't see how Kauffman's views would clarify any of these issues.
__________________


I don't think the moral systems of Aristotle, Maimonides, Dewey, or Gandhi can help you on the legality of cocaine possession. You're looking for a political platform, like the Democratic Party's, or the statement of principles of PETA or NORML.

SK is one of a number of persons proposing an ethic of respect for life and stewardship of the environment, all these proposals have many family resemblances.

I didn`t start the thread with the idea of `here`s a new morality` but rather to inform people of SK`s views on the possible rapprochement of science and religion.
And again, this is not a new enterprise. theoretical physicist Polkinghorne, for example, does it in his book, Polkinghorne, Quantum Physics and Theology, an unexpected kinship.

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Theology-Unexpected-Kinship/dp/0300121156

--
As you observed in another posting, the issue of order in the universe is one which the theory and investigation of complex systems and self-organizing processes may shed some light on. And they have the virtue of making an Intelligent Designer, an unnecessary hypothesis. The rapprochemnet that SK seeks is based on his seeing that a number of Jews and Xians, including theologians have dispensed with supernatural or transcendent postulated entities; the `process theologians`would be an example.

 

[xssve]

The window is open right now, there will never be a better time - if you don't seize this opportunity, you're gonna go down - hard.

 

[xssve]

Let me simplify it a bit - the problem here lies primarily in the investment infrastructure: profits, business, wealth creation, they all come from labor investment, one cannot create wealth without labor investment, it just can't happen, somebody has to put the effort into making something, into providing some good or service that can be marketed, in order to make a sale, generating profit - there is no profit until value is exchanged in the marketplace, until the point of sale, all profit and value is strictly theoretical.

Trysail argued with this, by trying to shift the conversation to value, which is a whole other matter - labor represents core value, i.e., a good or service always represents at least as much value as the labor required to produce it, if it cannot command at least this much value in exchange, in the marketplace, the result is a net loss for the producer.

Price, as I say, operates primarily through supply and demand, and can be tweaked in a number of ways: captive markets, through suppression of competition, in which one can charge as much as one can get, absent competition, marketing, which creates virtual captive markets through branding, and of course, cost reduction - particularly the reduction of variable costs, of which labor is the primary representative.

This is, of course doable through productivity increases: mass production, which creates economies of scale - i.e., it's cheaper to produce large quantities of a given product, with as little variation as possible, than to produce smaller quantities of more unique products, this reduces variable costs, including labor, and reducing the value of labor is also a traditional method of cutting variable costs - slave labor, serfdom, and other feudal innovations in social repression.

The lower the costs, the higher profit margin - that's where the investment infrastructure, the stock market comes in.

Investors seek the highest possible returns, period, we can just assume this, even if socially conscious investors may also be represented in the mix, the statistical bias will always be towards profit seeking.

The problem here is that the most profitable investments tend to be those that are the best at eliminating variable costs, again, this is the path of least resistance w/regard to profit: lean manufacturing became a popular paradigm in the Eighties, leveraging technology to reduce production and warehousing costs, creating limited runs of unique product lines that can command top price in the marketplace while maintaining economy of scale production costs - it does require substantial investments in capital improvement however.

What we have seen instead, of course, is deregulation, resulting not in a revitalization of industry, but cannibalization of it through corporate raiding of firms made vulnerable because of their pension fund overhead, and the profits, instead of being cycled back into capital improvements, used to fund more raiding, and buying more political and mass advertising clout, for protection, none of which has any effect of productivity increase.

The remaining viable firms are now forced to outsource, in order to compete with foreign manufacturers, who have lower variable costs, having few, if any regulations to protect workers.

Again, the net result is to reduce net productivity - information technology is working to increase productivity from the other end, and the result is a net productivity gain, but the gain is largely in services, and naturally, financial services in particular, while the actual production of goods and services naturally declines.

Several problems with this, and you don't have to take my word for it, Adam Smith devoted a great deal of thought to it: overall, the profit model means that the most profitable investments will tend to be those that represent the least productive industries in terms of goods and services, those that can lower their variable costs the fastest, either through labor reduction, avoiding the costs of externalities like environmental degradation, etc., cutting goods and services while increasing prices, etc., etc.

Still, there is very little that can be done about this save regulation, and the current social environment is still very Narcissistic, pro profit, anti-regulation, focused myopically on capital formation, with little or no regard to economic or environmental sustainability.

Historically, this mindset is typical of the worlds great financial empires just prior to their collapse, and likely implicated in the cyclical mass starvation in the middle ages (agricultural overproduction, soil depletion), that we, not so long ago, observed here, in the Dust Bowl.

This time, genetic diversity is being reduced so quickly, soil deleted so rapidly, that it would take a fairly minor pandemic or disruption of the chemical supply to result in a food production disaster on an appalling scale - the UK recently had to slaughter over 4 Million cattle due to a prion infestation, and that was in a relatively diverse genetic population.

Meantime, the chemicals themselves result in a huge amount of nitrate runoff that devastates coastal fisheries, threatening to drive species we might need to bridge a food production collapse, into extinction.

Left unchecked, this is not a possibility, it will occur, as it has occurred throughout history, going back to Meospotamian civilization and the invention of irrigation and the water wheel (salinization) the only thing different here is the global scale - it's all a question of timing.

The solution is greener technologies, organic farming, selective breeding, etc., more efficient structures, instead of the cheap McMansions we throw up now, compensating for their inefficiency by drawing even more energy - these are all things our progenitors did out of necessity.

The catch? They weren't saddled with a profit driven investment infrastructure with it's fingers in every pie - green technologies are more efficient, more productive, and sustainable but they are all almost without exception, more labor intensive - they require more labor investment, and that is the one thing that is most anathema to a profit driven investment infrastructure.

 

[Pure]

nice post, xssve!

the idea of a 'green' approach to ethics, politics, and business, while poopoohed as 'tree hugging' and sentimental, is something that going to have to be done to insure survival, not even to mention, thriving.

doc want a moral system (ethic) that addresses drug possession, but i'd say that one that says, "stop making so much garbage and toxic waste" is becoming a BIT more vital. you can't snort coke if you can't breathe!

a problem i'm becoming attuned to is the worlds lessening (in terms of adequacy) supply of fresh water. and in the US, i wonder how much water is used in the production of the average SUV! (times the number of SUVs produced, say, last year.)

in terms of 'nothing new' blah blah it might be mentioned that both the Jewish and Xian ethical systems as enunciated by their prime exemplars are notoriously weak on environmental issues. it is perhpas remediable, e.g. some evangelicals are attuning to the concept of 'stewardship', already enunciated by such groups as the peace churches.