Re: Free-will

["James N Rose" <***>]

Tim Gwinn wrote:

> Jamie,
>
> Regarding the chirality example, it demonstrates an interesting
> idea. What I am unclear about is which aspect of "form" is deemed
> as the informational source: is it the chirality? or is it the
> specific form of that specific instance of that molecule? or some
> quality of form in-between? That is, can we identify the aspects
> of a form that are causal in the sense of your example, or will
> each instance necessarily be considered unique in form from all
> others? If the latter, then a science of this would not really be
> possible, since we could not generalize any to create models of
> classes of whatever aspects of form; if the former, then how do
> we identify what aspects of the forms constitute distinct
> informational classes for study?

This is the excrutiating problem.  Any Bateson 'difference that
makes a difference' is a distinct 'source of information'.
Chirality (left/right twist alternatives) provides 'form'
with non-abelian non-commutative distinctly different
'information' states, allowing different EM signatures and
therefore different state-instructions or messages vis a vis
the molecular environment/potential surrounding it.

If yes is distinct from no at a decision-gate node, then
the chirals are different 'form's.

There -is- a science involved here, to address another of
your points.  We simply have to place the alternatives in
context of 'options' and stochastics.  "Which patterns and
processes reinforce existential presence or continuation?"

Rosennean 'natural' systems are so thoroughly and
extendedly integrated together (throughout all sub-
and supra- systems present), that there is no way
for an organization or organism to have reached the
state of "functionally existing" without having complied
with and satisfied all cosupportive co-relations that
preceded and now comprise the corpus or soma of its being.

In other words, all tasks and involvements are 'satisfied'
or in the process of being satisfied.  Artificial systems
only have to satisfy a few tasks well, and others not at
all.  They are ex-communicate from involvements, which,
if those dis-connects happened in a extendedly integrated
'natural system', the system would be pushed outside its
health and performance envelope, it would cease living.

A satellite in orbit.  Competent, semi-sentient, purposeful
and functional.  Only, it can't adapt to micrometeorite
assaults, it can't repair itself spontaneous, it can't
draw from its environment the energy to safeguard itself,
and so on.  Its programming is directed to a task or tasks
separate from dealing with bodily challenges.

Natural systems are better than that.  More competent than
that. More holistically integrated than that.  Hyper embedded
communicatively in 'form' and therefore in 'functional
competence'.  Sensitive in maximally possible ways for the
materials and arranged formations of those materials it's
made of.  No events or encounters or information/energy
exchanges are 'unimportant'.  No part of its entire forma
is 'numb' or non-reactive to events or encounters.


> Perhaps this is something that is already on your website, or
> perhaps it is too detailed for an email post, but can you
> elaborate on the HUP "translation" above? It's hard to tell
> from your description exactly what this translation consists
> of in formal terms.

Understanding the Integral Universe.
<http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/UIUcomplete11-99.htm>
Section 12. "Math & beyond"

> Thanks,
> Tim

Hope you see/read good things there, Tim,

Jamie
11/13/03