Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Cohesive Unity
Message-ID: <464@spar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 12:32:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.464
Posted: Tue Aug 13 12:32:29 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 02:39:55 EDT
References: <325@spar.UUCP> <27500082@ISM780B.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 160

>>>> A cause of behavior is not strictly external if it operates through "man"
>>>> and his "volition".  The DIRECT causes of intelligent behavior are 
>>>>INTERNAL to "man" and "volition", even if those causes have in turn
>>>> other causes which are external. [Paul]

>>>However, once you admit that they do... GOTCHA!!  Ain't no "freedom".
>>> {THIS was me -- RLR}

>> I cannot accept this argument, since it appears to require the a priori
>> assumption that the behavior of a complex phenomenon be reductionistically
>> determined by that of its components.
>> 
>> -michael
>
>Uh, yeah, right.  Let's be sure we know who's assuming what here.  Only in
>your little "smash-causality" mindset, in which you ASSUME the existence
>of something outside the realm of cause and effect in order to make your
>wishes fit, does this make any sense.

    Plusgood bellyfeel duckspeak, Brother Rosen.
    
    But doubleplusungood oldthink!!

    Unfortunately, you still speak of the `realm of cause and effect' as if
    the venerable but obsolete Doctrine of Causality is the one and only
    reasonable description of the universe.

    This is neither philosophy or science -- this is defunct religious
    dogma -- and it is as silly as insisting that Newtonian mechanics
    is the only true description of the `real world'.

    Newer Dogmas assert many strange and disturbing things, some of which
    are at variance with the Holy Reductionistic Principles.

    For example, compare classical analysis of the solar system to modern
    analysis of the atom.

    The solar system can effectively be viewed as an illusion created from
    genuine worldstuff like mass-energy and time-space. Such orbiting
    systems possess a fuzzy sort of integrity, indeed, but it is difficult
    to distinguish or categorize the continuum of macroscopic all such
    gravitational systems. It is understandable that a person might prefer
    to view such systems as `nonentities' that are `truly composed of real
    things' like mass-energy and space-time.

    Atoms, on the other hand, are highly cohesive entities that display
    integrity perhaps equal to that of their constituent subparticles.  They
    can absorb disturbances and eventually return precisely to their
    original states, unlike classical orbiting systems.  This integrity,
    which results in the macroscopic reality of our periodic table of
    elements, not to mention the entire stability of our macroworld, is
    historically the reason for their discovery. 

    Are {protons, electrons, neutrons, &c} the `illusions' and atoms the
    `real identities' or vice versa? Why must we select any level of
    description as `real', when presented with reliably cohesive 
    entities that can be understood on their own terms?

    What profoundly distinguishes quantum systems from classical ones is the
    amazing emergence of totally unanticipated properties when systems of
    quantum objects fuse. Individual photons blend into `real' waves.
    Electrons merge into undifferentiated fuzzy clouds. Quantum systems DO
    instantaneously comunicate state information across macroscopic
    distances acausally. The bizarre unity predicted by Bell's
    interconnectedness theorem is a now another genuine quantum giraffe
    for you to kill, Rich. There is hard Scientific Evidence.

    QM as a description of the Evidence is as perfect a tool as science has
    ever created. John Von Neumann, also of computer science fame, has
    proved that no traditional model based on `common sense' objects and
    causal descriptions can possibly underlie its verifiably correct
    assertions, and this proof is widely accepted by the QM community.
    Bell's interconnectedness theorem PROOVES that `acausal connections'
    must be present at all levels, macroscopic or otherwise, independently
    of the validity of QM. There is Rigorous Analysis.

    (BTW, Von Neumann also proposed a theory that human consciousness somehow
    underlies `reality', which is not so widely accepted..)

    I recommend that you spend more time reading about the Evidence and
    using a bit of Rigorous Objectified Thought and less time expelling
    Archaic Dogma. How can we encourage Correct Understanding of the
    Evidence evolve when our Mouthpiece is deluded by obsolete Heresies?

>>Does Michael have an example of such acausality?  Evidence that it holds
>>in the human brain?

    It is hard scientific fact that a single quantum event can be
    consciously perceived by the human sensory apparatus. Under certain
    circumstances, humans can see individual photons. 

    [While I have been writing this article, Todd Moody has submitted two
     excellent articles titled `Acausal Brain Activity', wherein he
     discusses the relevance of QM to electron transfer across synaptic gaps]

    You must demonstrate some rigorous analysis if you wish to slay the evil
    quantum giraffes, Rich, and cease chanting ineffective assertions of
    faith.

>>more people (thankfully) seems to be realizing that just because something
>>appears to be so complex that we cannot understand its inner workings and
>>make predictions from them, that does NOT mean the innerworkings are 
>>"acausal".  It only seems that way to the casual (or causal) observer,
>>especially the ones who WANT to see that mystical soul or force as part
>>of the conclusion. [ROSEN]

    Thou oldthinkest doubleplusungoodwise, Brother Rosen!

    Your `Crusade against Theology' is inspiring, Brother Rosen, and your
    enthusiasm is to be commended. Keep those Wishful Metaphysicists out of
    here!! But your ignorance is damaging the Glorious Crusade against the
    Evil Religionists.

    Brother Rosen, do you know that the Sacred Causality of the Macroworld
    is but a (HORRORS!) lowly emergent phenomenon?  And your same
    reductionistic argument that has been repeated in this newsgroup ad
    nauseam:
    
        one's high level behavior must be causal because it is composed
	of causal subphenomena

    ..can just as handily be employed to argue the converse:

        one's high level behavior must be acausal because it is made
	of acausal subphenomena

    They both have truth, and there is no point choosing sides.

    Several months ago I presented another argument (taken from Ilya
    Prigogine's `Order out of Chaos') which you totally ignored, Rich. I will
    repeat it:

	The behavior predicted by linear thermodynamics is stable,
	predictable, and tends towards a minimum level activity even though
	it is based on acausal quantum behavior. But biological systems
	possess nonlinear thermodynamic behavior, full of feedback loops and
	catastrophes that MAGNIFY whatever randomness exists at points of
	bifurcation. 

	The predictability of Carnot's linear model is thus IN PRINCIPLE
	impossible in nonlinear thermodynamic systems.  Prigogine goes on to
	explain how unity can emerge from the chaos of far-from-equilibrium
	states, and, if fed by a constant energy source, ultimately give
	rise to evolution.
    
    This is sloppy, I know, but I am not a scientist. You might read it
    yourself, though you probably won't, as you are so busy writing articles
    denouncing acausality.  I'll offer this quote Prigogine's book:

    "Both at the macroscopic and microscopic levels, the natural sciences have
    "rid themselves of a conception of objective reality that implied novelty
    "and diversity  had to be denied in the name of universal laws. They have
    "rid themselves of a fascination with a rationality taken as closed and a 
    "knowledge seen as nearly achieved. They are now open to the unexpected, 
    "which they no longer define as the reult of imperfect knowledge or
    "insufficient control.

     omnia ex nihil

-michael