John M.,
This post of yours was quite thought provoking. Comments mixed in, below:
John M. wrote: Pan-sensitivity I substituted for the noumenon used by
different people for different things - called ubiquitously
'consciousness'.
It came from my proposal from the early 90s to regard Ccness as something
like "acknowledgement of and response to information" (Info in common
sense
terms). Now these concepts ('life' included) are connected. Within the
overall complexity it is hard to specify partial meanings.
"Pan-sensitivity" describes something I would attribute to the abilities of
all living systems but I think consciousness is different. "Responding to
information" is something all organisms do, even single celled organisms. My
own view of the definition of consciousness has to do with the mind.
Deliberation is something that consciousness makes possible and it goes
beyond responding to information. Consciousness includes the ability to
deliberately use and create "information".
One of the differences between living and non-living systems is that living
systems have an organization based on functions. Functions imply putting
information to use. In fact, one of the crucial definitions of information
is phenomena that means something. So, information is "in the eye of the
beholder". Life exploits opportunity, which is a functional potential.
Opportunity implies use of information. As an example; something like
ambient temperature change... isn't information in and of itself. It
becomes information when it is incorporated into the models of a plant
species. To that organism, it means something. The first frost of the season
here in New York triggers all sorts of changes in living organisms and most
of these changes are not on a conscious level. So information is what life
creates out of inanimate and all other processes in the universe. To an ice
crystal, the temperature isn't information. The freeze/melt cycle was one of
my father's examples of a simple reaction, induced by temperature.
Again, this bears on my father's work on Anticipation. Anticipatory systems,
a term which applies to living systems, are not simply reacting but
responding-- and the response is rooted in time. It was the response by
organisms to phenomena that hadn't happened yet-- something that was still
to come, which made such an impression on my father's thinking. He often
spoke of biological systems being a marvelous classroom and teacher.
I was just scolded on another list by a smart sage that my rigid rejection
of reductionism makes me a reductionist in my holistic exaggeration. I ask
you
if you happen to catch how I think, tell it to me so I shall know it
myself.
I think maybe I'm beginning to understand: Having recognized your own
scientific tunnel vision of the past, it seems to me that you are trying to
help others avoid even starting down that path. Once you start, it becomes
very easy to forget the preliminary words "In Science..." in the sentence:
"In science, we must make arbitrary distinctions in order to study aspects
of the universe around us."
Our definitions and identifications are restricted to our present
mindcontent and so I am suspicious of our capability of understanding
unlimited things.
This is why I am proudly vague and agnostic (sounds better than ignorant).
Do we know more today than 50 years ago about life etc.? Of course. What
and
how much are we going to know 50 (or300) years hence about nature?
I agree. In a recent discussion with a group of people about the nature of
the universe being infinite, one person nodded solemnly and then said, "Yes,
of course, but... what's outside of it?"
Judith